If you are anti-guns, or afraid of guns, or just don't like them and don't want them in your house, then this blog is for you.
(It might just change your mind)

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

**Guns & Grub Charity Shoot Event - Sat March 28th 10 AM at Elm Fork Range**

Come shoot for a cause!

The Knights of Columbus Council 5052 
is hosting a 

"Guns & Grub" Charity Shooting Event 

at the Elm Fork Gun Range 
Saturday March 28th at 10:00 AM 
with Special guest 

Aaron Kreag 

CHL instructor and "Southlake Good Samaritan" as soon on CBS.   

Profits will go to benefit local charities 
through the Knights of Columbus.

This is a "bring a gun / share a gun" event, and a change to get to know locals.  If you do not own a handgun or rifle, other participants will be prepared to share, or you may rent one from the front office for $15-$20 per hour.

Admittance includes 1 hr on the tactical range which is reserved for the event, with a dedicated Range Safety officer, followed immediately by a catered lunch served by J Macklin's of Coppell.

We will be holding a raffle for a 12ga shotgun provided by DFW shooting sports.

Tickets are $60 online at http://tinyurl.com/ld68b65  or $75 at the gate.  Bring a friend!

See attached Flyer

Monday, January 26, 2015


Apologies to my readership for the recent porn spam.  I am in the process of deleting it now. Apologies also for the lack of recent content update.  I have been working on a new venture that has been taking up my time.

Monday, September 8, 2014

Proof Why You Need a Gun to Shop at Kroger


Late at night this past Saturday, a large group of angry and violent teenagers descended upon a Kroger in Tennessee intent on inflicting a world of hurt on whoever they found. The group assaulted store employees, and even beat an elderly woman in the parking lot. According to Shannon Watts and the Moms Demand Action crowd (employees of Michael Bloomberg) Kroger is a perfectly safe environment where nothing bad ever happens, and the only people who bring guns to the store are psychopaths — they have even launched a multi-million dollar campaign to brainwash others into thinking the same thing. However, as this video and the multiple injuries and near fatal assaults definitely show, while Shannon Watts may feel safe at her local grocery store surrounded by her armed guards the average citizen might need a little protection.
The people who were assaulted in the video above were healthy teenage kids. In a fair fight one-on-one, they might have a chance to fend off their attacker and survive. But in this case, they were attacked by an angry and violent mob. They were overwhelmed, and it was only through sheer luck that they were not beaten to death. From the local CBS affiliate:
The disturbing video shows a high school kid lying still on the ground while others repeatedly kicked and stomped on his head. The teen attacked is an employee of Kroger.
“They followed hitting him with a pumpkin. He was already unconscious, so all you could see was blood and pumpkins,” said a witness who did not want to be identified. He is a friend of the victims.
The attackers didn’t care that their victim was already unconscious — they wanted to hurt him. They could very easily have killed him, even if that wasn’t their intention. That man is alive because of sheer luck.
The victims didn’t just include young and fit teens, though — one elderly lady was viciously attacked in the parking lot. While a young person might have been able to defend themselves, does anyone seriously believe that an elderly lady can fend off even a single attacker?
“It was maybe about 100 to 125 kids. It was a lot of kids,” said the witness.
“Is that an exaggeration?” asked WREG’s Elise Preston.
“No, it`s not an exaggeration,” replied the witness.
What was the reason behind this attack, though? Perhaps the people involved somehow instigated the situation, and what we saw was simply the justified result? According to someone who knows the people involved very well, it was a pre-meditated attack on people who had done them no harm, simply because they wanted to beat people.
“They were playing a game called ‘point them out, knock them out.’ Where they would point someone out and attempt to knock them out or fight them. There was no real reason behind it.
This is a prime example of a situation where a firearm would have made all the difference. Whether you are an elderly lady fighting off a single attacker or a scared teenager fighting off a wave of people intent on beating the ever loving snot out of you and possibly killing you, the simple appearance of a firearm could have stopped the entire situation dead in its tracks. There have been scores of situations where simply displaying a firearm has been enough incentive to deter an attacker, and this may have been another one of those situations. And if that didn’t work, the bullets would have. Unfortunately we will never know.
There were no reports of arrests made at the site of the attack. Police were apparently not present, and did not respond in time. The best that the local police department could promise is that they will “work tirelessly to identify, locate and [hold them] accountable.”
Police need help identifying the attackers. If you have any information, you are asked to call crime stoppers at 528-CASH.

Another example: Why you should carry

Just another example of why citizens should carry a sidearm. 

Even in a 1 on 1 defense situation, you have the right to defend yourself from threat of an assault.  But in these flash-riot situations, such a disparity of odds in a violent assault can get you killed or very seriously injured very quickly, despite the age or gender of the attackers.


Over 100 teens swarm Memphis plaza, 'knocking out' shoppers

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WREG) – CBS affiliate WREG reported that three people are now recovering after a mob of teenagers ran through a busy shopping plaza, seemingly picking out customers and Kroger employees at random to attack.
A video of the incident has been shared with local news stations in the area and is quickly going viral. It shows a young adult lying still on the ground as others repeatedly kick him and stomp his head. Other are seen being chased or knocked to the ground.
WREG said a witness told the cameras that the three people injured were attacked indiscriminately--two victims were African American, and one victim was Caucasian.
The news station added that the brawl happened at the corner of Poplar Avenue and Highland Street.
WREG also reported Monday morning a juvenile has been arrested in connection with the attack. Get the full story here: http://on.kthv.com/1oiYToC
Get the witness' full testimony by going to the WREG.com website:http://on.kthv.com/1rXJXRO
If you have any details on this crime that may lead to an arrest, please contact Crime Stoppers at 528-CASH.

Friday, August 29, 2014

The Rise of Armed Teachers

The Rise of Armed Teachers
by MAURICE CHAMMAH                   WED AUGUST 27, 2014 9:00 AM

Over nine days in July, the first class of school marshals gathered for training. The group of seven teachers and administrators, largely male, assembled at eight each morning at Tarrant County College’s Criminal Justice Training Center, in northwest Fort Worth, to discuss tragedies like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. They parsed the details and talked about how they would theoretically respond to such an emergency.

Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Very illuminating video


Very illuminating video.  Listen to this part at the 6:10 mark.

"I've been in law Enforcement for 42 years now and I can tell you, I never took a gun off a criminal that was registered to the criminal."

What does that tell you?  
Stop punishing the law abiding.  

Monday, December 9, 2013

Mom overcomes fear of guns

By Kris Hey, Orlando Sentinel

Women take up shooting for many reasons. For me, it was about getting control of my life and letting go of my fears.
Guns always equaled one thing: death. It started from an early age, when I picked up on my parents' dislike of guns. As I grew older, I couldn't be in the room with a gun, look at a gun or even hold an unloaded one. I knew it was an irrational fear: No one in my life had ever been hurt by a gun.

But the fear festered. After my son was born nearly 11 years ago, news reports of children getting hurt or killed using their parents' unsecured guns made my fear almost paralyzing. My job as an online news producer for more than 15 years, often seeing and working on these stories, only made things worse.
It was frustrating for my husband, who grew up with guns and knows how to use them safely. I knew I had to change — for myself and for my family.
So I picked up a gun.
About 500 trigger pulls in, I realized I loved target shooting. It relieved my stress; helped me focus on what I could control; boosted my self-confidence; made me feel strong, powerful and alive. It helped me work on overcoming other fears, too.
Hitting that target was a symbol of everything I thought I could not do. And with that one shot, I was free of my lifelong fear of guns. A year later, I own a semi-automatic pistol and shoot regularly for sport.  My transformation from timid to avid shooter is not unique.
It wasn't long before I was going to the range alone and with my husband on date nights. I decided it would be cheaper and I could practice more if I bought my own gun.
I also joined the Orlando chapter of The Well Armed Woman, a national organization that helps women learn about guns and hone their skills in the classroom and on the range.
According to White, a lot of women shoot because they want to empower themselves, have an equal chance to defend themselves and increase their ability by stepping out of their comfort zone.

"Women are very much into embracing that type of activity these days," White said. "Probably anywhere between 45 and 55 percent of the people that come through wanting to learn and to take classes and your first-timers getting that first firearm are women, and they nail it. They do everything just right."

Monday, October 14, 2013

Picking the Right Holster - Reason #451

Bet ya' the leather folded in as he was holstering it, entering the trigger well and pressing the trigger back.  Just another reason that I always recommend using a NON-COLLAPSING KYDEX HOLSTER.


Friday, September 13, 2013

IL Supreme Court strikes down gun ban in 9-0 decision

By GunsSaveLife.com 9/12/2013

Illinois prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home was struck down by the Illinois State Supreme Court in 9-0 decision People v. Aguilar.

As far as we know, this is the first time a state supreme court in the United States has ruled the right to keep and bear arms applies outside the four corners of a residence.

“The constitutional right of armed self-defense is broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.”  
"The need for self-defense is most acute in the home, that doesn't mean it is not acute outside the home." 
"The second amendment guarantees not only the right to “keep” arms, but also the right to “bear” arms, and that these rights are not the same: “The right to ‘bear’ as distinct from the right to ‘keep’ arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home."
“The right to have arms was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.”


Houston: Armed Civilian stops carjacking

A driver who pulled up to a McDonald’s in north Houston said he had to use deadly force after he was attacked by two carjackers.

The incident happened at the McDonald’s in the 7500 block of the North Freeway just before 10 p.m. Tuesday.

The victim told police he had just rented a couple of movies from the Redbox outside the restaurant when he was forced out of his car and pushed on the ground by two men.

Police said the men were apparently going after the victim’s car. The carjacking victim pulled out a gun and shot both men. One died at the scene while the other one ran away wounded. Police said a third suspect drove away in the getaway car.


Thursday, September 12, 2013

Awesome rebuttal letter from Jerry Patterson TX Land Commissioner

Texas CHL - A Letter To The Editor
Jerry Patterson, Texas Land Commissioner

Statesman Editorial Board staff,

I don’t know who wrote Sunday’s editorial but it is chock full of bad information and needs to be corrected lest the public again be misinformed by a hoplophobic journalist with a bias.

The most glaring error is the writers belief that the State Preservation Board has the authority to ban lawfully carried firearms at the capitol. They do not. While they do have the authority to place metal detectors, ONLY the Texas penal code regulates where and how firearms can be carried, and Article 1 Section 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights states that a Texan has the right to “Keep and Bear Arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state” and that “the legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime”. This legislative exclusivity is further backed up by statute which pre empts any government entity or agency from regulating firearms (of course this doesn’t apply to federal regulation on federal property).

When I passed the CHL law in 1995, certain prohibited locations were enumerated. These locations were fine tuned again in 1997. The capitol was specifically not included as a prohibited location in part because of the hypocrisy of passing a law and then excluding the capitol where those of us who voted for the law spend our time. There can be no other prohibited locations, other than on private property or on federal property.

The statement that “most courthouses and other government buildings around the state” are gun banned locations is also false. ALL courthouses are prohibited locations because the legislature chose to ban by statute carry at courthouses, and NO state or local government buildings are prohibited locations because the legislature chose not to make them so. It is permissible to ban firearms at a “meeting of a government entity” if “effective notice” is given. What constitutes “effective notice” is specifically spelled out in PC 46.035. What that means is a city council could ban only in the council chambers, and only while the meeting is in progress, or the Senate or House could ban in the chamber or the gallery when actually in session. You cannot ban lawful carry of a firearm at the capitol, or at city hall, or the portion of any other state or local government building (exception: school buildings, prisons etc.) that is open to public access. That doesn’t mean cities or counties haven’t placed signs banning carry, but signs do not make law, and anyone who defies such a sign can suffer no penalty. I routinely ignore these signs.

The statement “Why anyone needs to carry a concealed gun in the capitol is beyond us,” begs the question: where in the writers opinion does anyone need to carry a concealed gun? We’ve had a crazed shooter at the capitol, could that be a reason maybe? We’ve had two elected officials murdered at the capitol (albeit a very long time ago) might that be a reason? I carry at the capitol, and candidly I don’t think I need to do so. I also have a smoke detector at my house that I don’t think I’m going to need. If one carries a firearm, making decisions based on this venue or that venue as being a “need to carry” or “not need to carry” venue is actually kind of humorous. Can you imagine the thought process of “I think I’m going to be accosted in the mall parking lot tonight so I’ll pack my gun, but I don’t think I’m going to be robbed walking from capitol parking to the capitol tomorrow night so I won’t”? Carrying a gun is like fire insurance, you don’t just have a policy when you believe you’re going to have a fire.

The Violence Policy Center is just not credible, and candidly has lied on more than one occasion, so their “data” that 166 people have been killed by CHL holders is suspect. How many of those CHL holding shooters were convicted of a crime? Might that be an important bit of information? Could it be that some, if not most of the 166 dead were in the process of committing an assaultive offense against the CHL holder? Has a citizen ever been wrongfully shot and killed by a police officer? Should we take guns away from the police?
To paraphrase the writers closing statement in the editorial:

“We promise, editorial writer, we won’t think you are any less of a journalist for correcting your errors”
Jerry Patterson
Texas Land Commissioner


WIN for Colorado! Colorado state anti-gun senators successfully recalled from office

 Teresa Mull

In an unprecedented move which holds national significance, Colorado voters have successfully recalled two state lawmakers for enacting too-strict gun legislation.
Colorado Senate President John Morse (D) of Colorado Springs was defeated on a 51%-49% vote yesterday, and State Senator Angela Giron (D) of Pueblo was defeated by an even larger margin: 56% to 44%.
Both lawmakers are responsible for passing legislation imposing stricter gun laws (limiting the size of ammunition magazines and requiring universal background checks), which many voters say violate the Second Amendment.
Luke Wagner of the Basic Freedom Defense Foundation, who is leading the effort to depose the senators, said of Sen. Morse: “[He] couldn’t have given us a better gift than to have thrown something in everybody’s face. He decided that rural Coloradans aren’t as important as urban Coloradans. He doesn’t like gun owners.”
“The new gun laws were just the catalyst. A lot of people are very upset about being ignored, so finding vocal moral support hasn’t really been a hard sell.”
Two Republicans now take their place.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Ohio town's anti-gun law in conflict with Ohio state law. Expect litigation

We have same problem in Texas - illegal use of 30-06 style postings, and some outdated but still displayed signage.

Oberlin's law on firearms in parks makes city a target for gun litigation
By John Caniglia

Oberlin, OH, a bastion of liberalism, is bracing itself to deal with a state gun law that many residents and officials oppose. 
City Council is reluctantly mulling a change to its law that prevents firearms in city parks, as it conflicts with an Ohio statute that permits guns in most public places, including parks. If City Council does not rescind the measure, gun owners can take the city to court. Cleveland lost a similar fight over a guns-rights issue in 2010. 
"I'm not in favor of any of this,'' said Council President Ron Rimbert. "No one on Council is. But we need to get this passed. We have a responsibility to our citizens that we don't get caught up in any litigation. In Oberlin, we're protective of our family and friends. But this is a state law.'' 
The move comes weeks after an Ashland County man notified city police that the state law supersedes the city's. Brian Kuzawa told Tom Miller, the city's police chief, in an email Aug. 2 that he and his family would be attending a city park the next day.  
He said he and his wife would be carrying guns, and they did not want to be "accosted by'' Oberlin police. He said Miller called back a few hours after the initial email and said it is legal to carry weapons in the city's park. 
To show support for the state law and to educate others, Kuzawa said, guns-rights advocates went to the Park Street Park about 11 a.m. today to picnic and spend time with their families. About 36 people attended. Some carried firearms in the park where Kuzawa went with his family last month. 
Oberlin Council revisited the local ordinance, passed in 1998, and sought solutions. Council is expected to decide Sept. 16. It has few options: It can rescind the local law so that the city follows the state's, which went into effect in 2006, or it can prepare for a legal fight. 
Doug Deeken, an executive with Ohioans for Concealed Carry, said the issue is simple: "We don't want law-abiding citizens getting arrested in Oberlin for an unenforceable law. That's the crux of the matter.'' 
But Sharon Fairchild-Soucy, a member of Council, said her colleagues are opposed to the state dictating what the city can and cannot do, especially when it comes to guns. 
"Oberlin does not want people bringing guns into its parks,'' she said. 
Eric Norenberg, the city manager, agreed: "One of the biggest frustrations is that our council must act on this when there is clear, local sentiment against it.'' 
City officials have learned that others fought similar battles -- and lost. 
The NRA and the Ohioans for Concealed Carry, previously successfully sued the city of Clyde over the same issue.  
In 2007, Cleveland sued Ohio, claiming that the state law involving guns was unconstitutional because it infringed on Cleveland's home-rule authority, or its ability to adopt and enforce its local laws. Three years later, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the city, saying the law was constitutional. 
In its decision, the state high court said that law brought uniformity to gun statutes across the state and without it "law-abiding gun owners would face a confusing patchwork of licensing requirements, possession restrictions and criminal penalties as they travel from one jurisdiction to another.'' 
David Noice, a guns-rights advocate from central Ohio, emailed Oberlin officials Aug. 2, the same day Kuzawa sent his notice to the police department. Noice was blunt: "Your city ordinance restricts the possession of firearms in city parks. This is no longer permitted by state law.'' 
He said the city is not alone in violating that law. 
"There are numerous public entities that aren't compliant with state law,'' Noice said in an interview. "A lot of them simply don't realize it and are happy when we point it out to them. They move immediately to correct it. Oberlin looks like it will resolve this. But it is complaining every step of the way. It's fine that it has dissenting views, as long as it fixes the problem.'' 
Fairchild-Soucy said she believes she and her colleagues on Oberlin's council will fix the problem. She expects City Council to rescind the city's law, a move that would put the city in line with state law. 
And she expects City Council to follow that with a vote of protest immediately afterward.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

States join NRA in SCOTUS suit on behalf of 2nd Amendment rights for 18-20 year old adults.

22 States Join the National Rifle Association in Supreme Court Fight for the Second Amendment Rights of Young Adults

Posted on September 3, 2013

Fairfax, Va. – Twenty-one state attorneys general have co-signed an amicus brief filed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange in support of the National Rifle Association’s challenge against a federal law that restricts the sale of handguns to young adults aged 18 – 20. The case, National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et. al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, et al., seeks to end the federal prohibition of young adults to purchase handguns from federally licensed dealers.

“Young adults, many of whom have fought and sacrificed life and limb for their country, should not be prohibited from fully exercising their fundamental Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The Second Amendment should receive no less respect than our other enumerated constitutional freedoms.”

Attorney General Strange’s brief notes that most states allow 18-20 year old adults to exercise this aspect of their Second Amendment rights, and “yet Congress has sought to withdraw this liberty from the same class of people.” The history of the Founding era makes clear that 18 year olds were considered adults in regards to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; for example, the Militia Act of 1792 required 18 year olds to “be enrolled in the militia” and to arm themselves accordingly.

The states joining Alabama in the amicus brief are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

“The NRA has been engaged in this ongoing fight for years – in Congress, in state legislatures, and in the courts – and we will not rest until the Right of every law-abiding American to Keep and Bear Arms is fully protected by our nation’s laws,” concluded Cox.


Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. More than four million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at www.facebook.com/NationalRifleAssociation and on Twitter @NRA.

NSA starting 'gun registry' - NRA & ACLU are suing

NRA joins ACLU lawsuit, claims NSA starting 'gun registry' (video)By Brendan Sasso

The National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit on Wednesday to end the government's massive phone record collection program. In a brief filed in federal court, the NRA argues that the National Security Agency's database of phone records amounts to a "national gun registry."

It would be absurd to think that the Congress would adopt and maintain a web of statutes intended to protect against the creation of a national gun registry, while simultaneously authorizing the FBI and the NSA to gather records that could effectively create just such a registry," the group writes.

The group claims that Congress could never have meant to authorize such a vast surveillance operation because it has repeatedly rejected proposals to create a national gun registry


Friday, August 30, 2013

Yes, it is your Civic Duty to concealed carry

By Jake Southern

I love trees, the more the better; but I'm a realist not a tree-hugger.  Tree-huggers love to talk about our civic duty... to the environment, to our future.  And yes, we should be conscious of our actions and not use resources blindly, but global warming is a hoax that has been debunked numerous times, and even disavowed by prior proponents who admit tot he conspiracy behind it.

So lets get real: You want to talk about real civic duty?  What about not wasting other civic resources?  Like tax dollars?  Like police manpower?  You want to know why crime rates go up and the police take 10 minutes to get there when you need them?  It's because they are overworked and there aren't enough of them to BABYSIT us when we won't look out for ourselves.  There aren't enough of them to make up for our lazy lack of basic civic duty.

Do you know why homeowners hate it when neighbors leave their garage open all the time?  Because it is showing a lack of civic duty.  Because it attracts thieves.  It is low hanging fruit.  Easy pickings for burglars. And like roaches or rats coming for the careless crumbs left on the floor, thieves begin regularly casing the neighborhood.  One careless neighbor endangers the rest of the neighborhood.

This is the case with gun-ownership as well.  Statistics show that when gun ownership increases, and especially concealed carry increases, crime decreases.  Why?  Because when we begin taking responsibility for our own lives and for our own safety, crime goes down and dependence on overtaxed police resources goes down.  And like roaches or rats, when the easy food disappears, thieves migrate elsewhere.

One must remember that police forces were not invented or intended to protect us by defending us.  They keep us safe through proactive crime prevention and crime solving.  They are peacekeepers and detectives; not security guards.  And quite frankly, they don't want to be.

It is our responsibility to be our own security guards; and the more of us there are who do so, the less crime there will be.

Yes, it is a constitutionally protected right for individuals to own and bear arms.  And yes, it is our Civic duty to do so.

I'm doing my civic duty.  Are you?

No trees, roaches or rats were harmed in the production of this article.

Houston Look out! More "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" lies and gun-grabbing agenda advancement

More "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" lies 
and gun-grabbing agenda advancement.

Gun Owners Nationwide Urge Congress To Support Common-Sense Background Checks
By Mayors Against Illegal Guns 
Gun owners will gather at Congressional offices, police stations, and city halls nationwide for events in 11 states this week to call on elected officials to support comprehensive background checks that will help guns out of the wrong hands. Polls have found that 82 percent of gun owners – including 74 percent of NRA members – support this tough-on-crime measure.
...to support bipartisan legislation that would extend background checks to cover private gun sales in commercial settings – including at gun shows and over the Internet. 

Pfft.  82% ?  Who the heck are they surveying?  No, gun owners nationwide are NOT urging congress to pass this.  We are Protesting it!  And No, the NRA does not support this measure, and neither do it's members.

The misnamed gun-grabbing group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" is pushing for this, not gun owners.  

Yes, we all want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but conducting a check for every purchase creates a paper trail which is tantamount to gun registration - which history shows nearly 100% of the time, means confiscation!  

Real gun owners know better.  Our solution is to lend preference to CHLs when selling.  That way we know the buyer is clear, and we don't add yet another record to the big brother database.  It also encourages people to get CHLs, and be responsible in their civic duty to protect themselves.

For information more on your civic duty to own and carry a firearm, read here.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry

Commentary by Jake Southern

"we’re a heck of a lot more capable than our government gives us credit for, aren’t we?"

If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry
If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry right now! And Weld County and El Paso County would be Thunderdome! You guys wouldn’t have [Weld County] Sheriff [John] Cooke, you would have Tina Turner and Mel Gibson running around! It would be horrible! But that’s not real life! Real life is gun control not working in Chicago. Real life is gun control failing in Camden, New Jersey and Oakland, California, and a lot of other communities in this country . . . 
We are pushing back with the lawsuits, with the phone calls to our legislators, by electing officials and supporting elected officials who listen to us. But we’re also pushing back by being grownups, and by being okay at it. By having hundreds of people show up at a range and fire thousands of shotgun shells . . . and everybody’s okay! And now we’re enjoying cigars and drinks and we’ll all get home safely tonight, right? 
Because we can control our lives! We can manage our lives! It’s not too difficult. We’re not perfect. We may eat a little too much dessert every now and then. We may not be able to beat that one bad habit, like smoking cigarettes, whatever. But we’re a heck of a lot more capable than our government gives us credit for, aren’t we? 

That's really the key here.  Not that "guns cause crime" but that We are more responsible than our government gives us credit for.  The government simply doesn't trust us with guns.  In most states, local authorities do, but not Uncle Sam.  Why?  What's Uncle Sam got to fear from us?  Unless they're planning tyranny....

Monday, August 26, 2013

Why more gun laws won't work

DA says tougher gun laws would not have saved murder victim
By Nolan Clay (modified)

“These kids are not supposed to have a .22 revolver in the first place... We've got statutes right now that prohibit those three from having a firearm. They're not legally entitled to have a .22-caliber revolver in the first place. You can give me another five, ten, hundred, a thousand laws. It's not going to stop them. They're criminals for a reason. It's because they ... don't follow the laws that are there.”
- Stephens County District Attorney Jason Hicks

Hicks is the DA who is charging and prosecuting the three teens accused in the fatal shooting Aug. 16 of Australian Christopher Lane.

The crime has renewed debate in the United States over gun control and sparked widespread outrage in Australia, where gun laws are tougher.

Duncan Police Chief Danny Ford said Monday that Jones claimed they decided to kill somebody because they were bored.

“They shot him in the back. All the evidence that we have suggests that they drove up right next to him, pulled the trigger and took off..."

Authorities also are trying to determine how the teenagers got the revolver.


Friday, August 23, 2013

Do you truly understand Texas Gun Laws?



This article is a good read.  However, some of it is not entirely accurate.  I guess the author does not "Truly understand Texas gun laws"

Per the article:
"Those places include schools, courtrooms, election polling places, racetracks, and airports, sporting events, establishments where the primary business is the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption and any establishment posting signs barring guns."

  • Schools are off limits - only inside the actual buildings and fenced in areas and only unless you have authorization from the school administrator permitting you to carry inside.
  • Airports are off limits - only in the zone beyond the security checkpoint.
  • And "any establishment" posting signs barring guns - does not count unless that sign meets the very specific legal definition of "effective notice" under the statue.

Also per the article:
"Weapons such as machine guns, suppressors and short-barreled firearms are legal in the state of Texas."

True, but they are still governed by the ATF federal regulations requiring an expensive tax stamp, gun or accessory registration, and a sign off by local Sheriff's department (which is a "may" not a "shall" in the legal language and so the Sheriff can just simply say no.)

Is Christopher Lane is the White Treyvon Martin?

By S. Johnson

Withe both tragedies have occurred so recently, and racial tensions on both sides in each case, it is easy to see on the surface why many might say that Christopher Lane is the White Treyvon Martin.  But if you dig deeper, is that really the case?

Imagine the Left's reaction if the shocking, inter-racial murder of Christopher Lane had occurred when G.W Bush was president and he had stated, "If I had a son, he'd look like Christopher," or "Christopher Lane could've been me 35 years ago."  Undoubtedly, the race-peddlers and entire grievance industry would've interpreted his comments as a subtle war declaration against Black America.  Yet, when President Obama made these statements about Trayvon Martin, the Lefties claimed that he wasn't being divisive, he was simply "keepin' it real." 
The racial dynamics of both Christopher Lane and Trayvon Martin's scenarios have many people focusing on the similarities.  I, on the other hand, see stark contrasts.   
Unlike Trayvon Martin, Christopher Lane doesn't have powerful, race-baiting allies in the Oval Office, Justice Department, media, and entertainment industry.  Assuredly, General Holder will not use Chris Lane's senseless murder as a catalyst to pursue his often-requested national race dialogue.  Nope.  Nor will the Justice Department zealously create a tips hotline (in Zimmerman-like fashion) to build an airtight case against the Chris Lane's shooter for a civil rights violation or hate crime, even though the alleged gunman once tweeted, "90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM."   
There will not be nationwide "stop the violence" marches with fed-up participants wearing baseball hats to honor Chris Lane.   In fact, this generic tweet from Jesse Jackson, which was likely written by his public relations aides, is all that Chris Lane's parents are likely to receive.  It stated, "Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail."  Apparently, the deepest emotion that this so-called human rights activist was able to muster for Chris Lane was a figurative frown.  This guy is such a phony! 
Unlike Trayvon Martin's parents, no mainstream American publication will feature Chris Lane's parents and siblings on its cover with the caption "We Are Chris."  Nor will any mainstream publication with a majority White readership use his death to launch a "Save our Sons" campaign, despite the statistical fact that more Whites are killed annually by Blacks than Blacks are killed by Whites. Opportunistic celebrities will not elevate Chris Lane to cultural icon status and the Smithsonian Institution will not consider incorporating any of his jogging apparel from the murder scene into its historic catalogue.  Even Oklahoma's Stand Your Ground laws have escaped Florida-like scrutiny because Chris Lane never had a chance to stand his ground.
In summation, Chris Lane is not so analogous to Trayvon Martin.  
Police stated that the juvenile delinquents who killed Chris were arrogant, maintained their bravado, and lacked remorse for their criminality.   
America had better realize that this cavalier behavior isn't an anomaly.  These sociopathic tendencies are religiously embraced by a criminal subculture within the Black community whose idea of recreation is to wreck-creation.  Sadistic activities such as "Knock-out King," "Polar Bear Hunting," "Apple Picking" etc. are favorite pastimes in urban America.  Unfortunately, the destructive tenets of this dysfunctional subculture have now manifested in Duncan, Oklahoma, where Blacks are a mere three-percent of its population. 
If society doesn't deal harshly with this anti-social, Black subculture that's empowered by liberal policies and excused by liberal sympathizers, we will see a significant increase of deaths and/or injuries stemming from "boredom."  Advisedly, with Obama at the helm for the next few years, George Bush's sons may want to keep an eye out for Obama sons. 

So is Is Christopher Lane is the White Treyvon Martin?

Not hardly.  No-one wants to hear it, but the truth is Trayvon martin was a thug.  I know his type.  I grew up with his type.  He was not from Sanford Florida, but Miami-Dade, where he was involved in several burglaries and had already been expelled from school.  People who didn't even know about Martin's past came out to protest with signs "We are all Treyvon".  I hope not.  I am not Treyvon.  And my son certainly won't be.

The Black community was angry.  The feeling was "we've endured so much disrespect for generations, and now this".  It was as if such a crime was expected.  Yet another in a long line of White repression of blacks.

Truth is, respect is privilege earned, not a right.  We all have a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That kind of happiness doesn't happen unless we feel we are treated fairly, and respected.  But we have no right to be happy unless we've earned it.  Only the right to peruse it; by proving ourselves to the  world.

Christopher Lane, on the other hand was a visiting foreign athlete, just out for a jog, when he was SHOT IN THE BACK.  And the thugs who did it admit to going out LOOKING for some white person to kill;  having posted about it previously on facebook, as well as other racist posts.

So in both cases, it is actually the White community that has the greater cause for outrage, not the black community.  And yet here we are, with self-righteous backs calling for retribution and creating more criminal behavior within the black community.

In fact, crime statistics will show that Black on White violent crime is 45 times more prevalent than White on Black violent crime.  And Black on Black violent crime is orders of magnitude higher than that.

So where is the white rage?  Where is the White call for retribution against the black perpetrators?  Is the White community "above" all that?  Leaving it for the courtroom and allowing justice to prevail without a call for violence?  Or more likely - did they all just roll over and take it?  Yet another in an infinitely long string of Black on White violence  that goes unmentioned and socially unchecked?   Like it is expected.

There have been so many recent calls for "dialog" between Blacks and Whites citing a need for cross racial understanding.  What we really need now is a dialog between Blacks and Blacks.  

What we really need now, is a better upbringing for our children.  A severe shortage of morals and ethics is being ingrained into generation after generation. How can a child grow up right in a world where even the local preacher rants on about racial divide, throwing out the race card in every sermon?

If the broken families, moral void, institutionalized hate, lack of God in our lives, and constant race baiting continues, then it may well degrade into a chaos not seen in the USA in generations.

It is time for the Black community to put away the race card, stop blaming others for the current predicament, and start asking for help - to heal the families, to heal the broken Black community.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Disarming the Middle Class: Anti-gun Democrat pushes for 50% tax on ammo, 20% excise tax on guns.

By Bob Owens

Doesn’t the working man have a right to defend himself?

Anti-gun Democrat Bill Pascrell don’t think so, and has aimed a punitive tax squarely at you:

One New Jersey congressman is still fighting for some gun control measures, despite some legislative defeats earlier this year.

As WCBS 880′s Levon Putney reported, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has co-sponsored a bill that would increase the taxes on guns and ammunition.

“The tax on handguns was last increased in 1955,” said Pascrell. “Worse yet, the tax rate on ammunition and other types of firearms has remained the same since 1941. Now we got to make priorities here.”

Under the Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act, the excise tax on guns would double to 20 percent. For ammunition, Pascrell is pushing for an increase from 11 percent to 50 percent.

One would be tempted to look even closer at the demographics of who this bill would hit the hardest; good people in bad neighborhoods where crime is highest.

Is Pascrell trying to raise a negligible amount of taxes (just 0.0036% of US debt), or is he trying to turn the middle class into victims?



"This tax would turn gun ownership into a privilege for the elite, rather than a natural right" - Anonymous
"And I am for a $5000.00 per household/per year tax on Non-gun owners (called the "First Responders Tax") this tax would go straight to School Security, Police, Fire and EMS programs. Felon and Liberals could pay for their convictions instead me paying for their convictions and ideology."  - Sean M.

Protecting Schools from Gun Crime - In a way that actually works.

Arkansas Christian school sign warns potential attackers


Todd Starnes of Fox News Radio reports that a sign outside a Christian school in Bryant, Arkansas, promises to arrange a face-to-face meeting with God for anyone who dares to harm the school’s students.

Wouldn’t it be nice if all schools took the safety of their students this seriously?


Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Colorado’s gun-control recall: Even those at the epicenter of gun violence don't want gun control (Don't tread on us!)

Colorado’s gun-control recall
Second Amendment restrictions trigger pushback in the Rockies
By Jon Caldara

To someone living on the coasts, the fight in Colorado over gun control — often called by its repackaged name, “gun violence” — might be hard to understand. Restrictions on gun-magazine capacities and background checks for all gun transfers might sound benign. So how could it lead to the first recall elections in the state’s history?

Colorado has more guns than people. More than 100,000 men and women hold concealed-carry permits, so people here largely know how guns actually work. Consequently, we are less likely to be rattled from the emotional spin of anti-gun hysteria. We know guns that look “mean” aren’t actually military machine guns, that they function like any other semi-automatic gun (pull the trigger once and only one bullet comes out), that the ammunition they use isn’t “high-powered,” and so on.

We also know the pain of mass shootings better than most communities. We suffered and grieved over the Columbine High School shooting more than a decade ago. That horror put us through the emotional “blame the gun” gambit. However, when the grieving was done, and with the wisdom that comes from perspective, we learned that mental health maladies were at the center of the carnage.

So when a horrific shooting took place in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., last year, we were sadly familiar with the emotional process and the anti-gun opportunists who would try to exploit our grief. We were not surprised to learn the accused killer had deep mental health issues.

Reportedly, his problems were so severe that his psychotherapist at the University of Colorado contacted the police to warn them he was a danger to others. That’s where the system broke down. With no criminal record, he passed background checks for gun purchases. This tragedy might have been stopped if we had a system that actually intervenes when experts identify dangerous people like this madman.

Even our Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper used the national airwaves to say the gun wasn’t the issue — the killer’s mental state was. “This is an act of evil. It is somebody who is, who was an aberration of nature. And, you know, if it wasn’t one weapon, it would have been another. I mean, he was diabolical.”

So imagine the shock to Coloradans when some months later, that same governor was pushing gun restrictions on the law-abiding

Led by officials such as Colorado state Senate President John Morse of Colorado Springs and state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo, the chairman of a key committee, sweeping restrictions on gun owners were passed into law.
Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron now face the first recalls in state history, and may be pulled from office in mere weeks via the true grass-roots efforts of their own constituents.

The new restrictions might not sound like big deal at first blush. They were so poorly written, though, that they could make nearly all magazines, regardless of capacity, illegal. They render gun transfers so onerous that a gun buy-back in Colorado was just canceled because there is no way for the guns turned in to be destroyed.

So ineffective were these bills that in January, the County Sheriffs of Colorado, speaking unanimously as 62 elected sheriffs, came out to strongly oppose them.

Regrettably, Mr. Hickenlooper refused to accept a single phone call from these sheriffs to hear their concerns.

However, as reported by the investigative news site CompleteColorado.com, he had lengthy phone calls with New York’s anti-gun mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, during the debate. Many legislators received calls from Vice President Joe Biden. At the end of the day, only Democrats voted for the bills.

Mr. Bloomberg’s money and his “consultants” have poured into these recall districts, creating a David versus Goliath battle. Certainly, the recalls in Colorado are about unworkable restrictions on gun owners, but they’re also about who should influence our state government — our own citizens or the rich and powerful from the East.


Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Georgia School Shooting: Nutjobs will continue to target "gun free zones" until we abolish gun free zones.

Nutjobs like this one will continue to target so called high profile "gun free zones" like our children's schools until we abolish gun free zones.

A gunman who opened fire at a Georgia elementary school on Tuesday was armed with an AK-47.  The shooter barricaded himself in the school's front office with employees before eventually surrendering to police. 

Texas at least, is starting to get that message - and several districts have already established CHL carry guidelines for their teachers and staff.

Stricter gun laws will not help the situation.  This nutjob was already a convicted felon - and as such is already prohibited from owning or using firearms.

Over and over these active shooter scenarios show - The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.  When the police are 15 minutes away, a properly trained and licensed CHL already on site can help protect innocent lives. 

Aussies use tragedy to push gun control on USA

TragedyAustralian baseball player Christopher Lane, 22, while visiting the USA, was randomly gunned down while jogging through the town of Duncan in Oklahoma on Friday afternoon local time 
Three teenagers, aged 15, 16 and 17 years, are accused of Lane's murder.  Police secured the confession of the 17-year-old who summoned investigators to his jail cell and claimed he and the younger boys were bored "so they decided to kill somebody".  
"They saw Christopher jog by the house they were at, they chose him to be the target, they got in the car, drove up behind him and shot him in the back.  "He said the 16-year-old fired the shot." 

The Aussies, of course, are using the crisis (never let one go to waste) by making a play at forcing the USA to comply with Aussie style gun control.  Why do these short sighted liberal minded tyranny supporters always blame the gun, and not the criminal who pulled the trigger?  

I would be asking:  

  1. How were these thugs raised that they wanted to kill someone just because they were bored?   
  2. How did these underage thugs get a hold of a weapon?  
  • Did they steal it?   
  • And if not, then what criminal (yes criminal) adult let a minor get access to a weapon unsupervised?

We need to start putting both the minors and the parents in jail for this sort of thing.

Monday, August 19, 2013

New Illinois Gun Law: Background Checks Required on Private Sales and Report Stolen Weapons Within 72 Hours

The new restrictions will likely just push private transactions, which are now illegal in Illinois, across state lines to where they are legal.

A transaction isn't exactly private if you have to track it and request a background check, now is it?

By Mitch Smith 
Illinois gun owners will have to report missing firearms to police and check the background of potential buyers under a new state law.  Gov. Pat Quinn signed the legislation Sunday. 
Starting immediately, gun owners whose weapons are lost or stolen will have 72 hours to notify police. And beginning Jan. 1, individual gun owners will have to contact the Illinois State Police before selling a weapon or transferring ownership to ensure that the purchaser is allowed to have a gun.


Newtown gun permit requests skyrocketing after shooting

Request for gun permits in Newtown set to double last year's numbers

By Edgar Sandoval & Corky Siemaszko

Police said the Connecticut town — where 26 students and six staffers were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School during gunman Adam Lanza's massacre — has already had 211 permit requests this year, a number far above the 171 requested in 2012 and the 99 in 2011.

And the surge appears to be fueled by worried residents like 66-year-old Nancy Ellis, a soon-to-be gun-toting grandma who claims Connecticut’s draconian new gun control laws are infringing on her constitutional rights

Newtown, Conn. resident Nancy Ellis filed for this gun permit because she felt  her rights were being infringed upon, and  fears  she may not get the chance in the future due to the state’s tough new laws.

“The fact that they were reeling in and squeezing more laws made me think, ‘You know what? I want my gun permit,’ ” said Ellis. “I want to exercise my right.”

“People think they are trying to take their guns away from them,” said Danny DiLuca (above), co-owner of MD Shooting Sports in Monroe, Conn. “They want to have a right to own a gun and protect themselves.” Connecticut is a open carry state.

Over at MD Shooting Sports gun shop in nearby Monroe, co-owner Mike DeLuca said he’s seen an uptick of customers seeking permit applications, ranging in age from 21 to 83.

“People think they are trying to take their guns away from them,” DeLuca said.

A 55-year-old customer, who identified himself only as Russ, said he recently got his permit, adding that gun ownership is a basic American right.

“What happened was beyond tragic,” he said. “But I don’t believe stronger laws are going to stop what happened.”

“People started thinking, you know what, some crazy person can do that, at the supermarket, anywhere and I won’t have anything to defend myself,” he said. “They were also afraid they were going to enact stricter laws and thought they had a small window of opportunity.”

Erin Nikitchyuk, whose 8-year-old son Bear escaped the Sandy Hook savagery unharmed, said she has no use for a gun and “no issue with responsible gun owners.”

“I do think Newtown is like anywhere else,” she said. “I don’t think people are running out to buy guns to offend anyone.”


HA! Obama Gun Control Study Disproves Anti-Gunner Rhetoric

This study was completed in June, yet was virtually ignored by the media. Perhaps because it didn't fit the talking points?

In short:
  1. Most gun deaths are suicides, not criminal violence.
  2. There were anywhere between 500,000 to 3 million defensive uses of guns, per year.
  3. Both accidental deaths and mass shootings have declined, both accounting for very small fraction of gun related deaths.
  4. Most criminals gain their guns from family, friends or illegal means, and as so, are outside the “controls” envisioned by the gun control gang.
  5. High gun related homicides are in Illinois, California, New Jersey, Washington D.C. skew the figures; these are areas where there are some of most restrictive gun laws.

Thus, the study tends to show that most of the gun control talk, is just that, talk, without much reality in actually addressing gun crime, and tends to support most of the things that gun rights advocates have repeatedly said.

Via New American:

CDC Study Ordered by Obama Contradicts White House Anti-gun Narrative
By  Bob Adelmann

In January, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, President Obama issued a “Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence,” along with 22 other “initiatives.” That study, subcontracted out to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, was completed in June and contained some surprises for the president. 
Obama had announced at the beginning of the year his push for three major gun control initiatives — universal background checks, a ban on “assault weapons,” and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines — to prevent future mass shootings, no doubt hoping that the CDC study would oblige him by providing evidence that additional gun control measures were justified to reduce gun violence. On the contrary, that study refuted nearly all the standard anti-gun narrative and instead supported many of the positions taken by gun ownership supporters.
For example, the majority of gun-related deaths between 2000 and 2010 were due to suicide and not criminal violence: 
Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States. 
In addition, defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study:
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008. 
Accidental deaths due to firearms has continued to fall as well, with “the number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents account[ing] for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.” 
Furthermore, the key finding the president was no doubt seeking — that more laws would result in less crime — was missing. The study said that “interventions,” such as background checks and restrictions on firearms and increased penalties for illegal gun use, showed “mixed” results, while “turn-in” programs “are ineffective” in reducing crime. The study noted that most criminals obtained their guns in the underground economy — from friends, family members, or gang members — well outside any influence from gun controls on legitimate gun owners. 
Also, the report noted that mass shootings such as the one in Newtown, Connecticut, have declined and “account for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths.” 
There was one startling conclusion which, taken at face value, seemed to give the president what he was looking for. The study reported that “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, produced a map that compared gun violence rates in the major metropolitan areas of the country to rates of foreign countries. As Graham Noble of Guardian Express noted, “If one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, DC, the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.” These areas, of course, are noted for the most restrictive gun laws in the country, thus negating any opportunity for the president to celebrate the report’s findings. 
The current report from the CDC echoed findings the CDC published back in 2003 that showed that suicides were responsible for 58 percent of all firearms-related deaths in 2000. Also noted is that back in 2003 Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms, while today that number is estimated to be closer to 300 million, an increase of more than 55 percent.
Said the CDC back in 2003, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws" (Emphasis added.): 
  • Bans on specified firearms or ammunition,
  • Restrictions on firearm acquisition,
  • Waiting periods for firearm acquisition,
  • Firearm registration and licensing of owners, and
  • Zero tolerance for firearms in schools. 
If the president was looking to the CDC report for support on how to reduce the threat of firearm-related violence through legislation restricting the rights of American citizens, he was sorely disappointed. Perhaps that’s why so few of the media have publicized the report. In fact, the only establishment media even to mention the report was the Washington Post, which criticized it for not answering questions that it wasn't asked to answer!


Thursday, August 15, 2013

Senate Democrats Move to Reverse Supreme Court’s Heller decision

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Anti-Gun senate Democrats want to stack the Supreme Court so they can reverse that decision.

Senate Democrats Move to Reverse Supreme Court’s Heller decision
by GunOwners.org

Reid-Leahy move would gut the Second Amendment in the eyes of the courts

Having failed to get gun control passed in the Senate, Democrats are now making a last ditch effort to reshape the Supreme Court.

Well, we hate to say it, but we predicted this would happen.

You remember when Harry Reid was threatening to destroy the Senate filibuster in January -- and later in July -- in order to approve Leftist Obama-supported nominees?

You remember, at the time, we said that, if Reid “pulled the trigger” on this so-called nuclear option to destroy the filibuster in some cases -- thus eliminating the need for Reid to garner 60 votes some of the time -- there would be no impediment to Reid doing anything he wanted with 50 votes (plus Biden) in other cases?

And you remember we said that it wouldn’t take long before Reid tried to limit the filibuster and use a mere 50 Democratic votes to approve other things as well -- like an anti-gun Supreme Court justice to replace Supreme Court “swing vote” Anthony Kennedy?  The immediate ramification of such an appointment would be to overturn the Heller case (which held that the Second Amendment is an “individual right,” not just the right of a state to raise a militia).

Finally, you remember that Harry Reid said, at the time, that his shady precedent would just apply to Executive Branch nominees, not judges?

Well, it hasn’t taken long for his lie to be exposed.

The anti-gun Democratic Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), has just called for blowing up the Senate rules to approve judges with 50 votes.  See Roll Call, “Leahy Eyes ‘Nuclear Option’ Threat to Confirm Judges,” (August 2, 2013).

Although Leahy doesn’t explicitly say so, this would eventually include Obama’s prospective anti-gun replacement to the 80-year-old Kennedy -- and would mean that the Second Amendment, in the eyes of the courts, would no longer exist.

Again, Justice Kennedy cast the deciding vote on the 5-4 Heller decision.  So, if he is replaced by an anti-gun Obama nominee, Heller is gone.