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)

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.


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

ATF Backdoor Rule To Ban Gun And Ammo Imports

by Stranger

The Obama Regime, through its Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco And Firearms, has put in place a “final rule” that would allow the ObamaBots to ban the importation of all firearms, ammunition, and related defensive articles.
This “rulemaking” gives the regime the power to stop almost half of all gun and ammunition sales in the United States. It is also a key part of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. A treaty that the overwhelming majority of the Senate has vowed to block. And Obama has slipped the UN ATT in as part of a Federal rulemaking, in defiance of Congress.
In addition, the Regime has moved to erase privacy laws in order to make all health records available to the FBI’s NICS system.
It is time for Congress to convene and overturn the regime’s high handed gun control initiatives. But given the fact that Harry “the gun owners friend” Reid is Senate Majority leader, and that gun bans are a part of Democratic Dogma, that will not happen.
We are going to have to replace the anti’s in Congress one at a time, the old fashioned way. Vote them out. Starting September 10 in Colorado.

The AR-15: What are they afraid of?

Guest post by Bill Pecos

The Ar-15 is a civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle that has the "assault" taken out of it.  In order to sell it on the civilian market, they remove the ability to fire in automatic mode (rapid fire).  Civilian models are strictly semi-auto and can not be converted; Though military style full auto versions are available to the public with special permitting and licensing.

The Ar-15 is a scaled down version, of an already scaled down version of a "real" battle rifle.  And politicians are still scared of it.

Additionally, the military M-16 rifle is already a scaled down version of battle rifle.  While they are still in use by the US military in some areas, for the most part, the larger caliber rifles (like the 7.62) which are still in primary use by Soviet, South African, and middle-east troops, were replaced in the US military with a rifle that fires smaller 5.56mm ammunition.

The 5.56 is a Geneva convention round specifically designed to cause fewer fatalities but more serious wounds thus taking other active soldiers out of the game while they try to save their fellow soldier.

The 5.56 round, or (.223 remmington) is a relatively small rifle round, only slightly larger than the "kids learning tool" the .22 LR  (only .003 inches difference).  The 5.56mm was adopted by NATO (and therefore the US) to increase the amount of ammunition troops can carry, because it is smaller and lighter weight.  If you look on a game weight chart, the 5.56mm (223 Remington, there) is varmint-game weight rated, and is good for seventy pound game at one hundred yards.  A strike by the round is typically not fatal unless it hits a vital organ, or unless it fragments on impact.  In order to get up to speed to be frangible upon impact, it needs to travel a distance of about seventy yards out of a sixteen inch barrel or two hundred and fifty out of a twenty inch barrel.  Lower than that speed, and it doesn't happen; the result is far less stopping effectiveness.

Likewise, the smaller 5.56 round does not have the same prenetration power that larger rounds have.  A typical 5.56mm round will not penetrate a brick wall, but thw 7.62mm round most definately will.  This is one reason why you will often see US soldiers, deployed military contractors, and special forces carrying an "enemy" AK-47 rifle instead of, or in addition to the M-16.

So the Ar-15 is a scaled down version, of an already scaled down version of a "real" battle rifle.  And politicians are still scared of it.

Assault rifle.  black rifle.  Ar-15.  Ban assault weapons.  full-auto.  Assault rifle.  black rifle.  Ar-15.  Ban assault weapons.  full-auto.  Assault rifle.  black rifle.  Ar-15.  Ban assault weapons.  full-auto.  Assault rifle.  black rifle.  Ar-15.  Ban assault weapons.  full-auto.  Assault rifle.  black rifle.  Ar-15.  Ban assault weapons.  full-auto.  

Monday, August 12, 2013

You need to see this painting of Zimmerman shooting Trayvon that was unveiled in Florida's state capitol

You need to see this painting of Zimmerman shooting Trayvon that was unveiled in Florida's state capitol.  

Unlike the real life scenario, where Zimmerman is flat on his back, bloody & beaten, and firing upwards in desperation at his assailantthis one has Zimmerman shooting an unsuspecting Trayvon in the back of the head, and splattering blood all over martin Luther King Jr.

Race bait in your paintings much?

by Michael Miller
The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman docudrama continues. This time, in the Florida State Capitol Building, where Friday, a 10-foot mural was unveiled. It carries the message: “We are all Trayvon Martin.”
As reported by clickorlando.com, the mural shows a man who looks similar to George Zimmerman, with gun blazing, shooting a person wearing a hoodie – in the back of the head. Trayvon – er – “the person wearing a hoodie” – is standing next to Martin Luther King, Jr.
In place of the (Trayvon) face is a mirror. You know, so we can all be Trayvon. There are also blank spaces where members of the public can share their thoughts. Oh, and MLK has blood flowing down his head.
The mural, of course,  is a complete fairytale. But, hey – so has been the entire story in the minds of some from the very beginning.

We are all Trayvon Martin.  We are all Trayvon Martin.  We are all Trayvon Martin.  We are all Trayvon Martin.  Zimmerman shooting Trayvon.  Zimmerman shooting Trayvon.  Zimmerman shooting Trayvon.  Race baiting.   Race baiting.   Race baiting.   Race baiting.

After gun enthusiast’s arrest, rifle-toting protestors gather outside McAllen PD

BY Dave Hendricks

McALLEN — Nearly 70 people — many carrying assault weapons, hunting rifles and shotguns — gathered outside the McAllen Police Department on Saturday afternoon, demonstrating their open carry rights.

If you have the right to open carry a rifle, but you’re too afraid to actually do it, haven’t they passed a law without actually doing anything?

Open Carry Texas, which advocates for gun rights, organized the peaceful protest two days after police arrested Zach W. Horton, 37, of Little Elm, for carrying an assault-style weapon near the McAllen Public Safety Building. Police charged Horton with carrying a weapon where prohibited, a third-degree felony.

The 70-odd person crowd included gun owners from the Rio Grande Valley and across Texas.

“We are good, decent people,” said Feliciano Cuadra, 65, a retired teacher who taught biology and photography at Harlingen High School. “If we don’t stand up for what we believe, we don’t have it anymore.”

Cuadra stood outside the Public Safety Building, which holds the city jail, police department and municipal court, with a Colt Sporter rifle slung across his back. Around him, others carried assault-style rifles and the occasional shotgun.
Pistols were notably absent.

Generally, Texas law forbids anyone, including people with concealed handgun licenses, from openly carrying a handgun. By contrast, Texas places few restrictions on the ability to carry so-called “long guns” designed to be fired with both hands.

On Saturday, though, the demonstration was narrowly focused on Wednesday’s arrest.

Horton, the open carry advocate, visited the Public Safety Building on Wednesday afternoon and told police he wanted to take a photograph of himself holding an assault-style rifle, according to police. Officers warned Horton not to bring weapons onto the premises and he left. Horton returned later, apparently intending to photograph himself holding an assault-style rifle. Officers arrested him for trespassing and carrying a weapon where prohibited, according to the news release.

Police later dropped the trespassing charge and Horton was released on a $25,000 bond. By then, Open Carry Texas had already organized the demonstration, which drew open carry advocates from across Texas.

“All the people that carry guns are not bad guys,” said Jeff Witt, 58, of Simonton, a small town near Houston.

Witt and his son, Jeremy, left Simonton early Saturday morning for the 320-mile drive to McAllen. Both brought Saiga assault-style rifles to the demonstration.

“If you have the right to open carry a rifle, but you’re too afraid to actually do it, haven’t they passed a law without actually doing anything?” Witt said.


Five shot, wounded at fast food drive-through in North Dallas


 gunman opened fire early Sunday morning and wounded five men who were sitting in a McDonald’s drive-through lane in North Dallas, police said.
Police said the shooting might have been sparked an argument earlier in the night at a nearby night club.
Around 12:30 a.m. Sunday, the men — all ages 18-21 — were in a car outside the fast-food restaurant in the 2400 block of Royal Lane. One man told police that a man opened the trunk of an old, white Chevrolet Impala and pull out a large gun that was covered in a towel. The gunman then began shooting at the group’s car, according to a police report.
Four of the men took bullets below the waist. Another was hit in the neck, police said.
The shooter hopped into a newer model red Impala, according to the report.
The men were taken to hospitals and treated for their injuries.
There were three different caliber rounds recovered from the scene, police said. Our Robert Wilonsky reported hearing more than a dozen gunshots from a few miles away.


Friday, August 9, 2013

What Every Firearms Instructor Needs to Know About the Recent Legislative Session

The great State of Texas has survived yet another legislative session, and the recent legislative typhoon has greatly changed the landscape for CHL instructors. While there were quite a few beneficial bills that died in committee, there are more and plenty that made it through and are becoming the law, with the vast majority altering the licensing process. This isn't just a legislative update; this is what every firearms instructor needs to know about the recent legislative session. As always, if any of our Texas Law Shield instructors need more information, please feel free to call any of your firearms program attorneys, or you can email the author at cooper@texaslawshield.com.

Changes to Procedure

 CHL Process Modifications

Starting September 1, 2013, the process for instructing a new applicant for a concealed handgun license, as well as that for renewals, will undergo significant modifications due to recent legislative action.

New applicant classes (not including range time) have been reduced to a minimum of 4, and a maximum of 6 hours. New applicants will still have to show up in person, as opposed to going online, to take this reduced class, and they can take it with whatever firearm they wish while not being stuck into a firearm categorization. Effective immediately, there is no longer a rule that qualifying with a revolver means you can only carry a revolver.

Classes for renewals are going away completely. All those renewing a CHL will have to do is go online, submit an application, pay a fee, and sign an acknowledgement of the law. There is no requirement to re-qualify in a class or at the range.

There is also no longer a requirement for social security numbers for new applicants or renewals, and no longer does a person need to send in passport photos as their driver's license picture will be used instead. The department is also supposed to create procedures for those who live in a county of 46,000 people or less, with no facility capable of processing digital or electronic fingerprints within a 25-mile radius.

There could have been some perceived conflict between two bills, SB 864 and HB 48. These two bills looked as if they modified the same sections, yet provided for different procedures. SB 864 states that there are renewal classes but they can be taken online, while HB 48 states that there is no longer a requirement for renewal classes at all. Based on how the two bills are written and the order in which each passed, it appears that HB 48 would be controlling with regards to renewals. In other words, there is probably no longer a CHL renewal class requirement. Texas Representative Flynn's office confirmed that this is how the two bills are intended to reconcile; Flynn was the author of HB 48, and a sponsor of SB 864.

Unfortunately, these laws leave plenty of space for the high strangeness that is real life to wriggle in. Since the new applicant class has been reduced to a minimum of 4 hours, and a maximum of 6, what happens if a class goes above 6 hours? When contacted regarding this matter, the Texas Department of Public Safety stated that there is no penalty for going over the 6 hour mark, and to quote their representative, "We encourage people to go over the time limit." How this will balance out with the real world practical business problem of having an appealing class length to attract customers remains to be seen.

Regrettably, not everyone is up to date on the law. There may be students who haphazardly wander into a facility and ask for a renewal class, without the knowledge that there is no longer a requirement for such a class. What are you to do in that situation? The DPS indicated that it is the individual's responsibility to understand the requirements for their renewal, and that they would not punish an instructor if they gave such a class. However, if an instructor charges a student for a class under the guise that it is required by law to renew, there's a very high probability you could be committing an intentional fraudulent act, and even possibly be at risk for damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Act.

With regards to the curriculum, although the time allotted for instruction was shortened, there was no bill that modified the Administrative Code's requirements of what must be covered in the class. The DPS indicated that naturally the curriculum will most likely be pared down, however there is no official finalized document as of yet.

The final set of oddities that one could face would be timing. For example, if a person with a CHL that expires in December was to try to renew right now, what happens? Or, what is the result of someone that completes their paperwork to renew now but takes the renewal class September 3rd? Does the bill apply to licenses issued only after September 1st, or anybody that needs to renew? This is solved by the final paragraph of HB 48. Section 7 of HB 48 states that the law applies only to applications submitted to the department on or after September 1, 2013. Therefore, the only question at that point is when the application was submitted to the department.

We can use this information to solve the thought experiments above. With regard to the CHL holder whose license expires in December, should they choose to renew right now, they would face the current law because their application to the DPS was submitted before September 1st, and the renewal class would still be required. In the second scenario, if the paperwork is submitted now, they will still need to take the class to renew their CHL, even if the class is scheduled to be after September 1st. However, if they have not sent their application in to the department but merely filled it out on paper, then they could be governed by the new laws. The final question is answered easily; it applies to any CHL holder, regardless of the date their license was issued, so long as the application is submitted to the department on or after September 1st.

SB 864, which changes things for new applicants, applies similarly. Applicants who submit their application to the department before September 1st must take the 10 hour minimum class. Those who apply afterwards need only take the 4 hour minimum class. The only possible strangeness here is the applicant that takes the 10 hour class August 31st, but doesn't submit their paperwork until after September 1st. However, this is not as difficult a situation as it first appears; the department takes no issue with a class exceeding its maximum guidelines, and therefore the 10 hour class completion certificate should be fine for the new applicant. Accordingly if someone submits their application August 31st, no matter how long they wait, they will have to take the 10 hour minimum class.

Changes to Law

Failure to Conceal

The failure to conceal law has received some attention during the legislative session as well. The current phrase of "intentional failure to conceal" will be changed to "intentional display of the handgun" in plain view of another person in a public place. While it may seem a victory at first, the statute is unclear as to how this substantively changes the current law by failing to define what constitutes a "display" or "plain view of another person." Only time and the courts will show us how this change will affect our lives. On a positive note, SB 299 also reconciles the "display" of a handgun with the use of force statutes by stating that the justification for use of force, not just deadly force, would be a defense to this crime. The statute formerly limited justifiable failure to conceal to only those situations where the use of deadly force was justified.


With the passing of HB 333, hotels will be required to tell its guests up-front of any restrictive firearms policies prior to booking the rooms. Furthermore, they must receive an affirmative acknowledgement of their firearm policy. In other words, they couldn't hide a TPC §30.06 notice in the second to last page of their impossible to find policy document without telling their guests about it.

Seizure and Disposition of Weapons

For better or for worse, one of the first bills to be signed by the governor was the bill regarding the auctioning of seized weapons, HB 1421. This bill allows law enforcement agencies to sell seized weapons that are not claimed by the owner at public auctions. Only licensed firearms dealers are allowed to purchase these seized firearms at such an auction, and the proceeds of the sale would go directly to the law enforcement agency. Previously the only options available to the police were destroying the gun, or keeping it for police use.

There are also new procedures for the seizure of weapons by police officers from the mentally ill, described by SB 1189. If the officer has reason to believe and does believe that the person is mentally ill, and that because of the mental illness there is a substantial risk of harm unless the person is immediately restrained, then the officer may seize any firearm found in possession of that person.

The police have to follow a certain procedure in giving the receipt of the seizure, and informing the person how they can get their firearm back once they've received treatment or been released. Of note is the fact that, after a person has been released, the law enforcement agency will conduct a background check to verify whether or not the person can still lawfully possess the firearm.

Firearms and Schools

A few bills related to educational institutions and carrying did not pass the legislative session. Campus carry did not pass in time in the regular session, and though it had been proposed in the first special session it again did not pass. The governor vetoed SB 17, which would have required employees that had a CHL and authorization from the school to carry to undergo special training before being allowed to carry on the school property.

However, there were two important bills that did pass. The first is SB 1857. The legislature created an optional training program for employees of school districts, who are also CHL holders, to receive specific and appropriate training for their environment. SB 1857 lets the DPS establish a process to enable qualified handgun instructors to obtain an additional certification to instruct the school safety course, and outlines the requirements for a school safety course. This course can be provided by qualified instructors to CHL holders that are employees of a school district or an open-enrollment charter school. Note that this doesn't affect the fact that CHL holders need written authorization to carry in educational institution buildings.

The other bill that passed, SB 1907, makes it illegal for campuses to institute discipline policies against students and employees who are CHL holders that have firearms in their vehicles in the parking lots or streets. Keep in mind, both before and after this bill, it was legal for a CHL holder to leave his firearm in the vehicle on a college campus; however, some campuses adopted rules that would allow them to take disciplinary action against students who brought firearms into these legal areas. Now, they have received explicit instructions to no longer try to side step the law by having stringent and restrictive policies on firearms in the vehicles of CHL holders. With all of this said, the statute does not provide a penalty for college campuses that violate the law, nor does it prescribe a remedy for those affected by campuses who ignore SB 1907.

Even though we've made it through the numerous legislative sessions, we must remain ever vigilant and observant of our rights, lest we lose them. Texas Law Shield will keep a watchful eye out for how these bills are applied by the courts, and will be sure to keep you updated.


Texas Law Shield, LLP 

Thursday, August 8, 2013

Colorado landlord tries unsuccessfully to ban residents from having guns

Apartment's controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out

A controversial gun policy at an apartment complex for seniors has been thrown out.

The Douglas County Housing Partnership, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, held an emergency board of directors meeting late Wednesday afternoon.

Board members decided that the policy, which would have prohibited residents from having firearms in their homes, will not go into effect.

The Douglas County Housing partnership owns Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock. It was purchased with federal funds and is supported by local, state, and federal tax dollars.

"These community policy changes were distributed without the knowledge or authorization of the Board of Directors of the Douglas County Housing Partnership or its staff," a Douglas County Housing Partnership release said. "This board does not support any action that infringes on an individual's rights and will not allow Ross Management to implement these changes. 

The notice was informing residents of an updated policy, banning all firearms and weapons from the property effective October 1.

There is no gun language in the lease

"It's unconstitutional to prohibit the legal possession of a gun or a firearm on public housing property," a DHA spokesperson said. 

The company wouldn't talk about the gun ban via phone or in person. So it's not clear the motivation behind the company's decision.




In a real life demonstration of scholar John Lott's maxim "more guns, less crime," violent crime has dropped in Virginia as gun ownership has increased.

According to a Fox News report, firearms sales in Virginia were 16 percent higher in 2012 over 2011 and violent crime went down by 5 percent.

Amid calls nationwide for stricter gun control laws, Virginia is experiencing a unique trend: the state's gun-related crime is declining but firearms sales are increasing. 

Perhaps the significance of this is best seen in the raw numbers: In 2012 licensed gun dealers sold 490,119 guns in their state, while the number of violent crimes for the same time period was 4,378.

Virginia Commonwealth University assistant professor Thomas R. Baker commented on the numbers: "This appears to be additional evidence that more guns don't necessarily lead to more crime." 

Baker referred to this as "an interesting trend given the current rhetoric about strengthening our gun laws and the presumed effect it would have on violent crime." And although he stressed that this increase in gun ownership and the corresponding decrease in violent crime do not necessarily prove people ought to reject future gun control laws, he said that the drop in violent crime "really makes you question if making it harder for law-abiding people to buy guns would have any effect on crime."

". . . all those extra guns can actually work to lower crime . . ." - Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League

Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins