|
| NRANews Channel |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
The New England Journal of Medicine isn't too happy about the Supreme Court decision affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, the journal has a new editorial out criticizing the decision. In it, three doctors write that "closer regulation promotes the public health." The doctors say that there is no constitutional impediment to any kind of "regulation" of firearms. And the doctors believe "logic tells us that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death."
Let's take these three arguments one at a time. First of all, can you imagine doctors in charge of doling out First Amendment "privileges"? Perhaps a study from the CDC on the dangers of increased likelihood of heart attacks after listening to (or calling in to) talk radio shows? Americans would be outraged, just as they should be outraged at these doctors calling for restrictions on your Second Amendment rights as a matter of "public health."
The doctors misread the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision when they say there's no impediment to any kind of regulation of firearms. There's the little matter of "shall not be infringed," but there's also the Court's decision striking down D.C.'s gun ban.
And finally, logic does NOT tell us that increased gun ownership leads to increases in injury and death. As a matter of fact, accidental firearm fatalities have plummeted in this country, even while legal gun ownership has increased.
I have no idea how good these doctors may be when it comes to saving individual patients, but when it comes to diagnosing the Second Amendment, they're a bunch of quacks. |
|
Can you imagine any major media company giving free advertising to the NRA? Let me tell you, it just doesn't happen. But in Philadelphia, Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising are giving more than 30 free billboards to the group Moms Against Guns. The group is using the billboard space to push for tougher gun-control laws in the state of Pennsylvania. The anti-gun group is also using the space to urge the election of anti-gun candidates.
I'm not surprised these media companies would give free advertising to a gun-control group. After all, for years we've known the media hates gun owners. Still, if I were a gun owner in Philadelphia, I'd take a look at what other companies use Clear Channel Outdoors and Interstate Outdoor Advertising. I'd contact those companies and let them know I won't be doing business with them until the anti-gun billboards come down. |
|
A new survey says about two-thirds of Alabama residents are gun owners, and almost half are Right-to-Carry holders. Not surprisingly, Alabama's violent crime rate in 2006 was 425.2 incidents per 100,000 people, compared to 1,508.4 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the District of Columbia. Alabama's violent crime rate is also lower per capita than California, New York, and Massachusetts.
You'd think the mainstream media might take an interest in Alabama's relatively low crime rate compared to states with more gun control laws, but something tells me we won't see those numbers reported on the nightly news. Evidence that gun ownership and Right-to-Carry lowers violent crime? That doesn't fit the agenda of the mainstream media, even if it is the truth. |
|
San Franciscans should be ashamed of their mayor, Gavin Newsome. In fact, if I lived in San Francisco, I'd be pushing for a recall election.
Last weekend, a two-time felon named Edwin Ramos allegedly killed Anthony Bologna and his two sons in a road-rage incident. Ramos was not only in this country illegally (which makes him ineligible to legally own a firearm), he's a two-time felon at the ripe old age of 21. Those two felonies came when he was a juvenile, but the city of San Francisco never referred the case to the federal government for deportation.
Rather than Gavin Newsome shouldering some responsibility for the city's lackadaisical attitude towards violent felons on the street, he decided to blame the nation's gun owners, saying:
"[The NRA is against] anything that restricts the opportunity for a guy who gets cut off in traffic from pulling out a handgun and almost assassinating an entire family, as was the case a few days ago in San Francisco, where three people were gunned down. That somehow that is appropriate and wonderful, and that person celebrated his freedom to carry a loaded pistol."
The NRA, it should go without saying, has always been in favor of strict enforcement of laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms. We've always believed in ensuring convicted felons go to prison if they're caught with a gun. We, unlike Mayor Newsom, believe that laws should have meaning. Until the city changes its stance and insists that violent criminals are taken off the streets, then the residents of San Francisco will have to live and die with the consequences. |
|
One of the results of the Heller decision, one that's not mentioned in polite company, is that the Supreme Court determined that for more than three decades, the city leaders in Washington, D.C., deprived residents of their constitutional rights. Think about that for a moment. For thirty-two years, D.C. ensured that the residents of our nation's capital had fewer rights than almost anyone else in the country. It's shocking and shameful to think about.
And with the deprivation of rights comes a lack of responsibility. How can you learn to be a responsible gun owner when the District wouldn't let anyone own a gun? Even now that the Heller decision's come down, the city leaders are working to ensure it will be as hard as possible to exercise your Second Amendment rights. Again, it's a shocking and shameful display of "leadership."
The NRA has always been our nation's leader in teaching safe and responsible gun ownership, and the residents of D.C. need our help. That's why today I'm seeking volunteers: NRA-certified firearms instructors who are willing and ready to go into D.C. and teach residents how to exercise their newly restored rights responsibly. We'll hold as many classes as we need to in order to ensure that residents who want to own a gun know how to keep and bear it safely.
I also want to bring the Eddie Eagle gun safety program into each and every one of D.C.'s elementary schools, and I'm going to ask Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee to meet with me in order to put a plan of action together. Let's make sure that every elementary child in D.C. knows what to do in case they come across an unsecured firearm: Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.
Anti-gun politicians and gun-control groups haven't done anything to help the residents of D.C. become responsible gun owners, which is what we've come to expect. Once again, the members of the NRA stand ready to help educate and train the law-abiding Americans who want to responsibly exercise their Second Amendment rights. |
|
Washington, D.C., politicians have announced their proposed gun laws in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller case, and it's clear that the local leaders have no respect for the Court's decision, and not much respect for the Court itself.
The local government in D.C. says that semi-automatic handguns will still be banned under the District's definition of a "machine gun," and also says that the storage requirement will remain on the books, with one exception: "while it is being used against reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within a registered gun owner's home." In other words, you are required to keep your gun unloaded and locked away until a criminal has entered your home. Only then can you exercise your right of self-defense.
It gets worse: In order to legally register your handgun in the District, you'll be required to make five separate trips to the Metropolitan Police Department, and at least two separate trips to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Good luck trying to do it on your lunch hour. It's not only impossible, it's almost a guarantee that anyone attempting to exercise their constitutional rights in the District would have to use a week of vacation time to jump through the hurdles the local politicians put in place. It's almost a certainty that those wanting to become legal gun owners will have to spend more time at the police station than someone arrested for violating the District's gun laws.
What does that say about the politicians in the District and their respect for the Constitution? What does it say about the politicians in the District and their respect for their constituents? |
|
What would you think of a museum dedicated to the life of Abraham Lincoln that didn't feature a single firearm? The 16th president guided the Union through the bloody Civil War.
Not many people know the name Bob Rogers, or the name of his company, BRC Imagination Arts, but they are among the leaders in designing exhibits for museums and theme parks. And according to Rogers, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, is gun-free on purpose.
In Andrew Ferguson's book, Land of Lincoln, Rogers is quoted as saying, "We made a conscious decision that we did not want to glorify war, and we did not want to glorify the mechanics of war." Set aside the argument that the men who fought and died to preserve the Union should be glorified. The fact is, Bob Rogers believes historical artifacts have no place in a museum if they don't fit the narrative he wants to create.
Can a gun-free retelling of the Revolutionary War be far behind? Will “The Shot Heard ‘Round The World” be changed to "The Shout Heard 'Round the World"? Will Lexington and Concord be portrayed not as battles for our independence … just spirited debates?
Our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an indelible part of our history. To ignore it isn't just politically correct, it's intellectually moronic. |
|
Did you know that Senator Barack Obama wants to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban? Did you know that he supports gun bans in Chicago; Washington, D.C.; and elsewhere? Did you know Barack Obama is opposed to Right-to-Carry?
All of these things are true, and they're just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Obama's long anti-gun record.
NRA-ILA has put together a fact sheet, complete with citations that you can use to educate yourself and others on Senator Obama's rejection of the Second Amendment. It's vitally important that every gun owner knows the truth about Obama's position, and I want you to spread the word. Can you imagine the havoc that anti-gunners could impose on the United States with an anti-gun president and stalwart allies controlling both chambers of Congress?
Get informed and get active, and make sure every gun owner you know has heard the truth. The future of our freedoms depends on it. |
|
The Boston Globe and one of its columnists, James Carroll, have sunk to a new low. In a screed against open carry, Carroll makes the claim that our sense of shame comes from our earliest ancestors and their use of weapons for hunting. Carroll claims the earliest exercise of religion was the result of this shame, which in his words, "spawned post-hunt rituals of sacrificial atonement, the genesis of religion." Gun owners, he argues, "forgo the primordial shame the weapon still generates." I've gotta tell you, I've seen a lot of columnists blame law-abiding gun owners for almost every one of society's ills, but this is the first time I've ever seen original sin laid squarely at our feet.
The truth is, of course, that there is no shame in hunting, and our ancestors knew that. Without the hunt, humans would not have survived. I'm not an anthropologist, but I'd be shocked if the post-hunt rituals of the earliest humans were based on atonement, rather than thanksgiving.
There's no shame in being a gun owner, either. James Carroll might not be a writer for an independent Boston newspaper if it weren't for a ragtag band of citizens who took on the British. I suggest that Carroll take a drive out to Bunker Hill, Lexington and Concord to think about history. Our Founding Fathers didn't relish having to use arms to gain their freedom, but they certainly weren't ashamed of the guns they owned and used.
It's another pathetic attempt to demonize gun owners, and I'm sure we'll see many more now that the Heller decision has been released. After all, we know the gun control crowd can be pretty shameless themselves. |
|
Some blog has decided that the NRA is smearing Barack Obama and his record on the Second Amendment.
Before I get into Obama's record, I've gotta point out that the blog's author has no problem smearing the NRA. He accuses the NRA of "protecting gun companies' sales to gang bangers and criminals" and "protecting the right of criminals to have easy access to automatic weapons and high-kill rate ammunition." He even accuses the NRA of "protecting gun and ammunition sales to the Mexican drug cartels."
They're ridiculous charges, hardly worth mentioning except for the fact that this author believes the NRA is "smearing" Barack Obama by pointing out his anti-gun record. We use facts. We use Obama's voting record and his statements to the press and his supporters. When this blogger smears the NRA, he can only use innuendo and lies.
So here's the truth: The NRA isn't out to protect gang members, drug cartels or any other violent criminal. We believe that the answer to dealing with those lawbreakers is to vigorously enforce the existing laws and throw these people behind bars. We don't believe passing another gun control law designed to impact the law-abiding will help reduce criminal behavior.
The NRA stands by its statements about Barack Obama's Second Amendment record. Click the link above and see for yourself. Barack Obama is as anti-gun as they come, and that's no smear. It's just what they didn't tell you today. |
|
Washington, D.C.'s mayor and city council may find themselves hauled before a judge again. The District of Columbia's released some guidelines on what the rules will be and what people will need to do before they're "granted" a license to own a gun.
The District's ban on semi-automatic firearms is still there. The District is now proposing a test of 20 multiple-choice questions that will have to be correctly answered before a license is given. And the District says those applying for a license "must not suffer from a physical defect which
would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly." These are just a few of the new hoops and hurdles residents of D.C. will have to jump through before exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Do we test individuals before they can speak freely? Do we deny a physically disabled person their ability to worship as they please? Do we charge people a fee in order for them to exercise their right to vote (which isn't even an enumerated right)? Of course not. I think the District should go back to the drawing board with their new proposals for gun ownership, because these regulations aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
This is one of the new battles that will be fought. For decades, our opponents have denied that we have a right to keep and bear arms. Now they'll belittle that right, trying to relegate it to the dustbin of history … a right we have, but no longer have any use for. They may not attempt to repeal the Second Amendment, as the Chicago Tribune suggested. They don't need to. Anti-gun politicians can throw up as many roadblocks as they deem necessary to the security of their state.
When they do, we'll challenge them. From the courthouse to the statehouse, we will continue to push for the preservation and restoration of our constitutional right, and we won't stop until we've won. To do any less is a dereliction of the duty we have as Americans to keep our liberty strong. |
|
Oakland, California, looks to be the next city to back off of the "Safe Homes Initiative," a plan to send officers door to door to look for illegally possessed firearms.
When the project was announced in Boston late last year, it was met with a storm of protests. A few months later, Washington, D.C., announced it would be conducting a similar program, and that city was greeted with protests as well. Now it's Oakland's turn to hear from angry citizens, and like Boston and D.C., Oakland is backing off.
Now all three cities say they won't send officers door to door, but will instead send officers out to search a person's home if they request it. So far, police in Boston and D.C. are still waiting for someone to call and ask to have their home searched.
The politicians will no doubt still call this program a success, even though citizens have always been able to ask the police to search their homes for whatever reason they want. The real story is that residents in Boston, D.C. and now Oakland are standing up for their constitutional rights. If they're standing up for the Fourth Amendment, it gives me hope that more of them will start standing up for their Second Amendment rights as well. |
|
A bill in California's State Senate would prohibit the private transfer of more than 50 rounds of ammunition per month between individuals, even friends or family. I suspect we'll see more attacks on the Second Amendment using the back door of ammunition registration, purchase limits, and even serialization in the months ahead.
California's bill, known as AB2062, would also require that anyone purchasing ammunition submit to a fingerprinting, and records of your ammunition purchase would be sent to a statewide database administered by California's Department of Justice.
Bills like this don't do anything to reduce violent crime, but they most certainly will add to the size of government and send yet another message to the law-abiding gun owners of California: you're not welcome here. Isn't it time the criminals got that message instead of us?
|
|
Thursday, June 26, 2008, will go down in history ... not as the day that the Supreme Court found a new right, but the day the Court recognized an ancient and unalienable right. The right to keep and bear arms has been with us since before the founding of this great nation. The dedication and perseverance of millions of American gun owners paid off when five justices agreed that not only does the Second Amendment protect our right to own and use firearms, but that we have a basic right of self-defense as well. The importance of the Heller decision cannot be overstated. Because of it, Americans across this country now know their right to own a gun is just as real and important as their right to speak freely or to worship God without government approval.
With the Supreme Court's monumental ruling in the Heller case, gun owners aren't going to rest. Armed with the judicial recognition that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for any lawful purpose, we're taking the fight to the cities that have denied residents their Second Amendment rights. We're going after Chicago and those suburbs that have banned handguns. We're going after San Francisco and their laws that block Americans in poverty from owning a firearm. We're going after New York's licensing laws that allow the rich to exercise their rights, while telling working-class men and women that the Second Amendment is not for them.
We're not just going to cling to our recognized right to keep and bear arms, we're going to embrace it. We're going to make sure our right is strong, not out of arrogance, but out of concern that the fragile 5-4 decision could be ripped apart by lower court rulings, legislative overreach, and local politicians who put their elected office over the constitutional rights of their constituents.
We have to prepare for the other side to go after us, as well. The Court ruled that they may find some gun-control laws acceptable. Our opponents will try to exploit the language of the Heller decision for their own gain. Some are claiming that the court's decision was actually a victory for gun-control supporters. With our continued push, we'll make sure they're wrong ... again. |
|
It looks to be a phenomal day for gun owners and District of Columbia residents.
Our Founding Fathers wrote this as an individual right, they intended it to be an individual right, and the Court is now acknowledging that right.
It's a historic day for us as gun owners and us as Americans. As we read the decision we'll know much more about how Heller will impact gun owners around the nation.
The next step is to ensure that every American has access to this right, no matter where they live. This court decision, I believe, will help us get there. |
|
In recent days, GOP presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted Barack Obama's comments about small-town Americans "clinging" to guns and religion. Senator McCain's comments, though, have a different spin. In Arlington, Virginia, for instance, McCain said: "I know why [residents of small towns] embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, and it's because they're fundamentally good and decent people. "
By referencing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, John McCain demonstrates an understanding of this issue that has continued to escape Barack Obama. Americans don’t "cling" to their guns out of bitterness. They fight to preserve their constitutional liberties because they love this country.
If Barack Obama wants to believe that gun owners are simply bitter...he should remember something else. We're voters too, and we don't support those who believe in Chicago-style gun control. |
|
The United Nations, which will be meeting next month to try and push for more global gun restrictions, isn't content to try and remove the Second Amendment from our Bill of Rights.Now the UN says Britain's monarchy should be abolished.
While I'd love to see a Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) for our British cousins, the United Nations Human Rights Commission must have more important issues. Even the British TaxPayers' Alliance says "the UN should be busy reporting on issues of starvation, execution and the denial of the vote to huge numbers of people around the world." The UN is never too busy to try and change the world. It's just that it's safer to try and change Great Britain and the United States than it is to try and change Sudan, China, North Korea or Iran. |
|
"Papers, please." That's the first thing I thought of when I heard about Washington, D.C., Police Chief Cathy Lanier's plan to designate certain parts of D.C. as "Neighborhood Safety Zones." The idea is that police will be able to stop anyone entering the neighborhood, demand to know what business they have there, and either let them pass, turn them away, or search them if they're deemed "suspicious."
Doesn't sound like the United States of America, does it?
Of course not, because this is Washington, D.C., we're talking about. A place that defies Second Amendment rights will defy any other rights it chooses.
Crime is out of control in Washington, D.C. There's no doubt about that. Law enforcement should be viewed with trust and respect, not fear and suspicion.
We can start that process by scrapping Police Chief Lanier's plan and treating the residents of D.C. like they're citizens of the city, not property of the State. |
|
California's prison problem could soon let tens of thousands of inmates free. A special mediator has proposed housing 40,000 inmates in California county jails. The problem is, those county lockups are already full, which could mean early release for thousands of criminals.
Matt Gray from Taxpayers for Improving Public Safety says, "It makes it safer for everyone who's inside the prison system, both the inmates, the staff members - the correctional custody staff."
I guess Mr. Gray doesn't mind the fact that this proposal won't make it any safer for people outside the prison system. He doesn't say anything about the fact that county jails are already overcrowded as well, and simply moving state inmates to those facilities means more criminals out on the street before they've served their sentence.
More criminals on the street will overburden the state's parole system, allowing more felons to fall through the cracks. That, in turn, will lead to more crime with no place to house those re-offenders.
If the problem is overcrowding, the simple solution is to build more prisons. Yes, it's expensive, but compared to the alternative it seems like the safest answer. Most people I know would rather pay with more dollars than pay with more lives. |
|
Another violent weekend has Washington, D.C., police blaming guns, not the criminals. And this time they're even blaming guns for homicides committed by someone who used a knife!
Assistant Police Chief Diane Groomes told the press, "We need to get the guns out of people's hands," despite the fact that one of the people killed over the weekend was stabbed to death.
It's not a matter of gangs of guns wandering the streets of Washington, D.C. It's a matter of gangs of people with evil intent. The police chief, assistant chief and mayor in D.C. want to get rid of the guns. They've been trying for thirty years, and they're still presiding over one of the most violent cities in the country.
If you don't deal with the criminal, then you're not dealing with the criminal activity. It's as simple as that. |
|
The mayor of Toronto, David Miller, is at it again. The Michael Bloomberg of Canada is not just calling for a nationwide ban on handguns, but is now trying to shut down shooting ranges in his city.
Miller says that sport shooting "directly results in people being shot and killed on the streets." As you can imagine, the few gun owners that remain in Toronto are angry that their mayor is accusing them of being accessories to murder.
Olympic shooter Avianna Chao, who will represent Canada in Beijing this summer, says the news "knocked the wind" out of her.
Frankly, it should not have come as a surprise to her. Mayor Miller has always treated law-abiding gun owners as the real problem. Until he recognizes that the criminals are the problem, people like Avianna Chao will continue to be targeted for extinction. |
|
Just a few weeks ago, Georgia Governor Sonny Purdue signed legislation that extends Right-to-Carry into restaurants across the state. Of course, anti-gun politicians and opponents of Right-to-Carry have been busy making the same outrageous claims we've heard for decades: It'll make restaurants more dangerous, how can we tell if someone's carrying, and on and on.
Those critics should take a look at what happened in the town of Winnemucca, Nevada, not long ago. It was about 2:30 in the morning when Ernesto Villagomez walked in to the Players Bar and Grill and began shooting. He killed two men and wounded several others. But when Villagomez stopped to reload, a customer in the restaurant used his legally owned firearm to stop the killer.
That customer is a Right-to-Carry holder who was in the right place at the right time. He didn't make that restaurant more dangerous. He saved lives.
Send this story to every Georgian you know. They won't hear it from a media too afraid of firearms to cover the issue fairly, but the citizens of Georgia deserve to know the truth about Right-to-Carry. |
|
If you missed Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's speech to NRA members in Louisville, I want you to go into the archives here at NRANews.com and listen to what he has to say.
When was the last time you heard an elected official talk about a government out of control? When was the last time you heard a politician share the stories of law-abiding gun owners disarmed by the very government sworn to protect them?
Governor Bobby Jindal understands what happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. He knows the righteous anger of a man who sees the bureaucracy fail us in a time of emergency. He knows it because he feels it. He's lived it.
The NRA has been working to return the guns to the law-abiding gun owners who were disarmed, and soon we will have our day in court. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police commissioner Warren Riley will have to face their accusers, the very people they left helpless. And the NRA will win this fight, like we've won so many others.
When Katrina hit, Bobby Jindal wasn't governor of Louisiana. Now he is, and he's told us that what happened after the hurricane hit will never happen again. Not on his watch. Never again. |
|
For months now, I've listened to Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter use the NRA and its members as scapegoats for the city's violent crime. After the murder of Philadelphia police Sgt. Steven Liczbinski, Nutter said the NRA "should apologize."
At a hearing contesting the legality of five gun-control ordinances signed by Mayor Nutter, he said the NRA and its members are "virtually criminal" for opposing the patently illegal and unconstitutional infringements on Philadelphians' freedoms. Like the Roman emperor Nero, Mayor Nutter is fiddling while his city burns, ignoring the real problems that are only getting worse.
But Nutter's refusal to address the violent crime plagues his city.
The question is, does Mayor Nutter have the courage to admit that cop killer Howard Cain should have been behind bars instead of on the street?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to admit that someone arrested 27 times for illegal possession of a gun should have more than three convictions to his name?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to ask prosecutors why, on two-dozen occasions, they failed to prosecute Cain for his alleged crimes?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to demand that the parole board explain why all three men accused of Sgt. Liczbinski's death were on parole when he was murdered?
Does Mayor Nutter have the courage to deal with the real problem in Philadelphia? Or will he stick to the script ... and blame NRA members while career criminals rule the City of Brotherly Love? |
|
If people only read the papers or watched the news, they'd think the NRA is a bunch of guys in suits, a faceless bunch known as the "gun lobby."
But you and I know better. You know we're family. And here's a story that proves it.
Fritz Rundell was the auctioneer at the Chafee County, Colorado, Friends of the NRA banquet the other night ... when he got a last-minute item to auction. The Friends of the NRA committee asked him to auction one more firearm, with the proceeds to help pay the medical bills for Cody Buffalo — Fritz Rundell's grandson.
They didn't have to offer the gun for auction, but they did. Those in attendance didn't have to bid, but they did. And let me tell you, the final bid for that gun was five thousand dollars - plus another five hundred dollars the crowd donated to help with medical expenses for Fritz's grandson.
That young man, Cody Buffalo, was recently diagnosed with lymphoma. I know he's in the hearts and prayers of all NRA members who've heard this story.
And even if nobody in the national media ever reports the story of what happened at the Chafee County Friends dinner ... you and I know that we are the NRA, and we're there for each other, just like family should be. |
|
How much is freedom worth to you? For Derek Hoskins, freedom is worth at least $650 each month. That's how much he pays for gas so he doesn't have to live in his native state of Massachusetts. Hoskins couldn't stand the gun laws in the state, so he moved to New Hampshire.
And he's not alone.
The Boston Globe reports the state has lost more than 300,000 residents this decade, and one in three people born in the state no longer live there. The only reason the state has seen a modest population increase is because of the number of immigrants who have moved in. The anti-gun and anti-freedom policies of the state are not only driving people away, they're putting the state in the position of not being able to afford its Nanny State mandates.
The cradle of liberty is digging its own grave.
Will the political leaders in Massachusetts realize the harm their policies are visiting upon their state before it's too late?
Or will they continue to advance more government and less freedom? |
|
Gun owners have become experts at spotting politicians pretending to be Second Amendment supporters.
We've seen Al Gore and John Kerry go through the posing and posturing. We've seen it from Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
And of course, we're seeing it from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton right now. The fact that the Democratic presidential candidates are trying to run as pro-Second Amendment candidates isn't surprising. But that they're trying to pull off this charade during the primary campaign is something new.
Usually the gun-control candidate waits until the general election to pull the wool over the eyes of gun owners. Not this year. Obama and Clinton haven't been courting the support of the Brady Campaign, at least not publicly. Instead they are engaged in a contest, each trying to persuade gun owners that they and they alone can protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
It would be funny if it weren't so insulting. It would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. With the White House and our freedoms on the line, it's no laughing matter. |
|
Scotland has had a gun ban in place for a decade now. Guess what? According to a Scottish newspaper, "Cases of attempted murder involving firearms [are] almost three times that of a decade ago." That's right. Ten years after a gun ban was put in place, crimes involving firearms have increased, not decreased.
Add Scotland to the list of places that have implemented gun bans, only to see things get worse. It's the same story in England, where news reports last month say gun-related crime continued to climb in 2007. In fact, the shadow home secretary says violent crime has doubled during the time Labour's been in power.
Remember these figures the next time someone says that a gun ban would make us all safer. It doesn't matter if you're talking about cities like Chicago, federal districts like Washington, D.C., or entire countries like England or Scotland. Gun bans don't reduce crime. They only empower the criminals. |
|
An amazing story is about to take place in Louisville, Kentucky. Tens of thousands of Americans will gather to celebrate their freedom, love of country, and devotion to the ideals upon which this great nation was founded. They will arrive dedicated and leave motivated.
They will hear tales of heroism and of everyday activism. They'll learn about the rifles carried by their fathers and grandfathers in World War II, and they'll learn how they can protect themselves against violent attackers. They'll meet celebrities and political candidates, and they'll arrive back home having made new friends from all walks of life.
The mainstream media will cover the NRA Annual Meetings in Louisville. But I doubt they'll capture our passion and dedication to the Second Amendment. They'll downplay the importance of our gathering, but that's their mistake. You can bet the politicians will be paying attention to us in Louisville, and you better believe we're going to send them a message loud and clear! |
|
Politicians in Albany, New York, are keeping up their anti-gun ways. Their "task force on gun violence" is meeting to come up with new gun control laws, even when 80 percent of the violent crime in Albany doesn't involve guns at all.
Doesn't it make more sense for politicians to focus on people committing violent crime, instead of guns? Of course it does - if the politicians are really serious about making Albany safer.
But they're more interested in getting headlines than providing solutions.
And it's not just Albany. In Schenectady, New York, officials set up an "amnesty" program for violent criminals to turn in guns risk-free. Something tells me this will be as popular as Boston's "Safe Homes Initiative," which asked residents to volunteer to let police search their homes for illegally possessed firearms. More than a month after the program began, not one resident of Boston has volunteered.
These "feel-good" programs may generate news, and they may make civic leaders feel like they're making a difference, but they don't do anything to reduce violent crime. They're a waste of time and resources, demonizing all firearms and all gun owners while giving the violent criminals a pass.
That ought to make every voter in Albany and Schenectady and Boston fighting mad. |
|
The tragic death of Philadelphia police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski is being used for shameless pandering by politicians and pundits in Philly.
Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell have used Sgt. Liczbinski's murder to call for more gun control. Specifically, they're calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles like the one the career criminal used against the veteran of the police force.
Columnists like Jill Porter use a senseless killing to chide gun owners for failing to support gun-control measures that won't make Philadelphia one bit safer.
You don't hear Nutter, Rendell or Porter mention the extensive criminal history of Howard Cain, the man who killed Sgt. Liczbinski. You don't hear them mention his long rap sheet, or the fact that he should have been in prison, not out on the streets to commit armed robberies and murder.
About a decade ago, Howard Cain was sentenced to 18 years behind bars. In spite of his criminal record, he got probation the first time he was eligible. Halfway into his 18-year sentence, he was back on the streets. The gun-control crowd is trying to say that a semi-auto ban would have somehow prevented Cain from obtaining a gun. But Cain was already subject to his own personal gun ban. As a convicted felon, it was illegal for him to own one bullet, much less a firearm. But to a guy like Cain, laws are meant for other people to obey. That's why he should have been behind bars.
You can't make a city safer by banning firearms. Ask the residents of Washington, D.C., how well that's worked out. If you want to improve the safety of residents in Philadelphia, it's going to take time and money. Fully staff the police department. Make sure that those violent criminals on parole are being supervised. Go into the schools with anti-gang programs. Reach children before it's too late. And fully prosecute the gang members and drug dealers who are turning Philadelphia into their own personal killing fields. No plea bargains. No sweet deals. Throw the book at bad guys who've decided to prey on good people.
Until the politicians decide to go after those responsible for the violence on their streets, nothing will change. The people of Philadelphia should ask themselves why their elected leaders are trying so hard to paint gun owners as the scapegoat instead of doing what they truly know would make their citizens safer. |
|
Barack Obama just can't escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control.
Obama wouldn't say how he feels about the legality of Chicago's ban on handguns, and he wouldn't give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it's clear the bans aren't working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.
Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I've pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.
Senator Obama says he doesn't like empty rhetoric. But that's all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won't fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control. |
|
In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That's not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn't seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You're not looking hard enough.
Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week.
Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister's home earlier this month.
Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal, Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn't work?
The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we'd know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed.
Barack Obama's opposition to Right-to-Carry isn't based on logic or reason. It's just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free. |
|
In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?
Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that's quite a payday.
Our own shooters don't stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they'll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They're representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don't need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best. |
|
Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C.
With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they'd be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.”
The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you'd be their "animal guardian."
It's easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won't stop until they get their way. |
|
Barack Obama just cannot make his comments about "bitter" small-town Americans who "cling to" guns or religion go away. And now the Wall Street Journal's Arthur Brooks makes a fact-based case for just how wrong Obama's comments are.
According to the story, gun owners are happier in general than non-gun owning Americans. They earn more money and spend less time feeling "outraged" over the actions of others.
Based on the tens of thousands of gun owners I've met, I'd say these statistics sound pretty accurate. If gun owners are angry, it's not because we feel let down that the government hasn't taken good care of us. It's because we feel the government won't let us take care of ourselves!
But gun owners are angry about things like the D.C. Gun Ban, the attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms and .50 caliber rifles, legislation to track our ammunition purchases and to end private transfers of firearms, and all the other gun-control legislation that's designed to crack down on us instead of violent criminals.
The presidential candidates would serve themselves well by reading Brooks' Wall Street Journal article. What they learn about gun owners might surprise them. |
|
The news out of Philadelphia seems to be changing every day. Mayor Michael Nutter signs gun-control bills and tells the local police to enforce them. The NRA receives a temporary restraining order blocking implementation of the law, but at the same time the district attorney says she won't enforce them. But Nutter says he's going to try to convince her to prosecute people who violate these ordinances.
What do Philadelphians think about this? If columnist Christine Flowers of the Philadelphia Daily News is any indication, they're probably disgusted by the shameless political theater put on by their elected officials. She writes of the mayor and council:
"... acting like defiant and belligerent children when we don't get our way isn't going to solve [violent crime] problems. It's just going to confirm what the people in northeastern and western and central Pennsylvania already think of us: that we're a lawless city."
As she points out, the City Council's actions only make people think of Philly as a lawless city, a place where politicians don't care about the rule of law or the Constitution. And if the leaders don't care to follow the law, how can they expect the residents to follow the law? |
|
The press is finally starting to notice Barack Obama's problem with gun owners. Politico notes that Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation, which has given millions of dollars to gun-control groups. In fact, Politico's Kenneth Vogel reports that Obama thought about taking over as head of the Joyce Foundation, but decided to focus on politics instead.
The Joyce Foundation gave $21 million to anti-gun groups while the senator served on the board, yet now the head of the Joyce Foundation is trying to claim the group doesn't just fund gun-banners.
Ellen Alberding told Politico, "We're not promoting a particular solution. We're promoting really smart people to think about problems and come up with ideas on how to solve them." That's baloney. From the Violence Policy Center to Ohioans Against Gun Violence, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Education Fund, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and many others, the Joyce Foundation gives its money to groups that have never supported gun ownership. When was the last time any of those groups came out in support of a pro-Second Amendment law? The answer is never.
The shameless attempts to disguise Obama's record on the Second Amendment has caused the candidate to make the claim that he doesn't know enough about the D.C. Gun Ban case to offer an opinion. It's forced other Democrats to distance themselves from Obama, because they represent pro-Second Amendment constituencies. And now the Joyce Foundation can't even come clean about their point of view ... all because Obama and his supporters can't let Americans find out just what he thinks about your right to keep and bear arms. |
|
For years, critics of The New York Times have complained about the pervasive bias in the paper's news articles. Gun owners have seen countless stories that are factually incorrect or contain scare quotes from anti-gunners without any counter from the NRA. But this anti-gun bias seems to have grown into something that may be even worse: a pro-crime message.
Reporter David Dunlap was recently assaulted in midtown Manhattan by a man who was upset that the reporter was taking pictures of an illegal activity (signs being illegally posted on light poles). Dunlap was thrown to the ground and beaten, and his camera was smashed. But Dunlap says he won't press charges.
"I'm not inclined to press charges. While my assailant's actions were frightening, they resulted in part from what he interpreted as provocation: that is, my taking pictures after he had explicitly warned me not to. He did not take my wallet, cash or briefcase; something he could easily have done while I was on the ground. Nor do I recall him using much more force than was needed to wrest the camera from me. He didn't kick me gratuitously when I was down. He did what he threatened to do, but no more."
So if a rapist tells you he's going to rape you, doesn't use "much more force than was needed," doesn't rob you, and only does what he threatens to do, should he get off the hook?
Dunlap saves his anger for the company that presumably employed the attacker, Def Jam/Island Records. But most of the people commenting on this story are pleading with Dunlap to press charges. They understand that if this man faces no consequences for his assault, he'll likely feel free to commit another. Too bad Dunlap seems more concerned with seeing a corporation answer for the criminal action of an employee rather than seeing a criminal face justice for his assault on an innocent man.
I have a message for David Dunlap. You were the victim of a crime. But your refusal to prosecute your attacker may lead to other crimes being committed by the same man. And they may not all end with "just a bruise" and a broken camera. Getting tough on crime isn't just the job of politicians. We have our role to play as well if we want to see our streets become safer. |
|
Los Angeles, California, almost banned murder. Almost.
It turns out the City Council realized that a symbolic 40-hour ban on homicides might just be the dumbest thing anyone's ever tried to do to fight crime, because murder is already illegal. But that didn't stop activist Earl Ofari Hutchinson from urging the council to take the "bold step."
You know what would be a really bold step? The City Council banning plea bargains for 40 hours. That's right: eight hours a day for five days banning the practice of plea bargains for violent criminals. Rapists and robbers get sentenced to the full amount of time for their crimes, rather than simply walking away after a short stint behind bars. Career criminals actually get the time coming to them under the state's "Three Strikes" law, rather than having their violent felonies pleaded away. Now that's a bold statement. Too bad the City Council would never consider it. |
|
If you know someone who lives in Philadelphia, send this to them. If you live in Philadelphia, listen now or lose later:
Your elected officials and local media aren't telling you the truth about new gun control laws they want to impose on you, and you deserve to know the whole story.
Mayor Nutter and the City Council say the city will enforce these new rules, including a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, a one-gun-a-month restriction, and a bill that would turn crime victims into criminals if they fail to report a firearm lost or stolen within 24 hours of when they "should" have known the gun was gone.
Nutter and his cohorts say these laws will reduce crime. That's a joke, because these laws aren't designed to reduce crime. They're designed to deceive ... deceive you into thinking your elected leaders are serious about making your city safer.
Do you know what the punishment is for violating one of these new "laws"? A $300 fine and a maximum 90-day jail sentence. Mayor Nutter and the media haven't told you that.
Now think about the people committing violent crimes in your city. Do you really think a fine and a possible three-month jail sentence is going to stop them from robbing you? From invading your home? From taking your life or the life of your child? Most of these criminals have already done time. And the time they serve is rarely as long as the sentences they're given.
The truth is, there is no easy answer to Philadelphia's crime problem. Tougher sentences that keep career criminals off the streets are part of the solution. But the city should also be investing in proven anti-gang programs that can reach young children before they become involved in criminal activity. Residents have to take back their neighborhoods in partnership with local government. People aren't going to stand up to the criminals until and unless they know the city is going to do something when they're alerted to problems.
Your politicians want you to believe that they've done something remarkable in standing up to the state legislature. The fact is, they've only engaged in more political theater. And while they're play-acting at solving the crime problem, your neighborhoods are still at risk.
It's time you demanded more. It's time you demanded real results, not just more empty promises. |
|
New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s latest volley in his war on gun ownership is convincing Wal-Mart that they need to film every firearm purchase.
The goal, according to the mayor, is to reduce crime. But we know gun control doesn't equal crime control. And this reeks of a public relations stunt instead of a crime-fighting measure.
Gun owners who buy a firearm at Wal-Mart, or any other gun store for that matter, already go through a background check before the purchase can be made. What's the point of videotaping someone making a legal purchase of a product, other than simple harassment? To put it another way, every day Wal-Mart sells thousands of prescription medications that, if used improperly, can result in sickness or death. Are they going to start implementing these same rules at their pharmacies, too?
It's been three years since Bloomberg held his first anti-gun summit in Washington, D.C., and he's had no success to show for it. Legislators have stood up to his anti-gun bullying because they know that what he's proposing isn't about crime. It's about demonizing gun ownership in general.
It's too bad Wal-Mart's putting political correctness above treating their customers with respect. If Sam Walton had treated his customers like this back when Wal-Mart was just a dime store in Arkansas, I doubt the company would still be in business. |
|
|
As more and more Americans express their disgust over Barack Obama's recent comments that small-town Americans "cling to" gun ownership and religious faith because they're "bitter", his Democratic opponent is trying to turn up the heat. Hillary Clinton tried to express her support for the Second Amendment over the weekend, leading Obama to fire back: "She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley".
American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few. The same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights. Obama's statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek at how the 'special' people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.
The truth is, both Obama and Clinton have long anti-gun records. Hopefully Obama and Clinton will continue to point out how anti-gun the other one is. It just makes my job that much easier.
|
|
As if we needed any more evidence that England's gun ban has been a total failure, just look at the recent story from Time magazine. Twenty percent of Britons surveyed say they fear leaving their homes at night because of the rising tide of violent teens.
Violent crime committed by those under the age of 18 has climbed by more than a third in the past three years, with no sign of it falling any time soon. These violent teens are partly responsible for the rise in knife- and gun-related crime in the country. Yes, crimes involving firearms are increasing, even though it's been a decade since the country banned handguns.
Talk to a former British gun owner, and he or she will tell you, "Don't let it happen in America." Gun bans don't work to reduce crime. They haven't worked in D.C., and they haven't worked in England. A "tough-on-guns/soft-on-crime" approach is lunacy, but that's exactly what they're doing in England. Frankly, it's what the gun-banning politicians are trying to do in Philadelphia right now, by pushing for more gun control laws without even mentioning the criminals committing the violent crimes.
Every day politicians try to blame law-abiding gun owners for violent crime is another day lost in our fight against the gang members and drug dealers who target our children. How long will the politicians play the blame game instead of tackling the problem head-on? Do things have to get so bad that we're afraid to leave our homes? Do we have to wait until we turn into England? |
|
Statement of Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America:
Today, my heart is heavy with the loss of Charlton Heston. America has lost a great patriot. The Second Amendment has lost a faithful friend. So have I, and so have four million NRA members and eighty million gun owners. And so has every American who cares about the Bill of Rights, individual liberty, and Freedom.
My heart is heavy, but not without a sense of pride. Pride in a man who devoted his life to his profession with grace and dignity. Pride in an American who devoted himself to civil rights, to correcting injustices around him, and to standing up for what he knew was right. Pride in a friend who stood with me and stood with fellow NRA members to preserve our freedom for future generations. Pride in a patriot who believed with every fiber of his being that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedom that makes Americans singular among the masses of nations.
And now, Charlton Heston has passed that duty to us - the next generation. I am as proud to continue his cause as I am to have known him as my friend.
But today, my thoughts cannot leave the Heston family. They have always had my utmost respect and admiration and, today, they have my deepest sympathy and most earnest prayers, and they will always have my friendship. |
|
Did you know that robberies in the home, or home invasions, are up nearly 50 percent since 2000? The New York Times discovered the fact that home invasions are on the rise when they took a look at what states are doing.
It turns out more states are thinking about increasing the sentences for committing a home invasion. But the Times interviewed a law enforcement officer with an interesting perspective.
Lt. Jay Markella, spokesman for the Cheshire, Connecticut, police department, told the Times: "Let's see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly, there's really no gain."
The Times went on to report, "Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed."
In other words, these new laws aren't really necessary, and may only serve as another empty promise by politicians who seek to treat the symptoms of violent crime, not the disease itself. Making something "more illegal" doesn't do anything if you're still not putting the home invaders behind bars for their crimes. And Lt. Markella sounds a lot like NRA members who say we don't need more gun control laws, we just need to enforce the laws on the books.
It's too bad Lt. Markella went on to say that owning a gun won't help against home invasions. Police in Memphis, Tennessee, would disagree. So would police in Tucker, Georgia.
And in the meantime, as politicians debate adding more criminal charges that will most likely be plea-bargained away, more and more Americans are becoming gun owners in order to protect themselves from the violent criminals that slip through the system. Gun control doesn't equal public safety. Crime control does. The two are very different things, and more Americans are realizing that every day. |
|
I read a heartbreaking story the other day. A woman is on the phone with 911 to report a burglar in her home. Dispatchers hear gunshots, then silence. When deputies arrive, the homeowner is dead.
Her husband arrives a few minutes later, only to be told that his wife is dead. News reports say "he collapsed and started to cry, saying 'No! She just called me. You lie.'"
The real lie is that gun control and gun bans make us safer. All they do is put innocent people at risk of violent criminals. In 2005, the FBI says there were more than 2,000,000 burglaries in this country. There were also more than 400,000 robberies. If you were one of the millions of victims of crime, would you not want the option to defend yourself with a firearm?
Gun bans like Washington, D.C.'s only affect the law abiding. They don't disarm criminals, but they ensure that residents are left with one option: call 911 and hope helps arrive before it’s too late. And sadly, we know all too well how that often works out. |
|
Oklahoma's major newspaper, The Oklahoman, calls a bill that would extend Right to Carry (for some) onto college campuses a knee jerk reaction to mass killings like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University. But like most media outlets, it's The Oklahoman that's offering a knee-jerk reaction: one that simply says, "Guns are bad."
Following The Oklahoman's logic that "in the case of a shooting, law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out the bad guys from the good guys," the paper should oppose ALL forms of Right to Carry. That means the paper should be opposed to the more than 60,000 Oklahoma residents who are RTC holders. And it means they think the Oklahomans who defended themselves and others should have been required to leave their guns at home.
The argument The Oklahoman makes against extending Right to Carry is the same argument gun control advocates make against Right to Carry laws in general. But we know, from ten years of experience in Oklahoma (and longer in other states), that Right to Carry holders and law enforcement are not at odds with one another. They support each other.
The bill in Oklahoma wouldn't change the requirements on who can get a Right to Carry license. In fact, the bill doesn't even go as far as legislation introduced in other states. In the Oklahoma bill, only those with 72 hours of law enforcement training or active duty and honorably discharged military veterans would be allowed to carry on campus. Yet even this modest step forward is too much for the editorial board of the paper.
You can't help but wonder why the paper has more faith that a madman won't target an Oklahoma campus than faith that a trained gun owner might be able to make a difference. |
|
The District of Columbia is embarking on one of the most ill-conceived "public safety" plans I've ever heard of. They're asking residents to voluntarily open their homes up to searches for illegally possessed firearms, and as you can imagine, the plan is drawing a lot of heat.
But it's not just gun owners complaining this time. The ACLU is complaining, and the executive director of the National Black Police Association says he won't let officers in to search his home.
Besides the Big Brother mentality behind this initiative, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier should think about the danger this could pose to officers. And frankly, given their hope that the parents of young gang members will call D.C. police and ask that officers search their homes for guns, they should think about the message they send when they announce that anybody found with an illegally possessed gun won't be prosecuted.
It's another example of politicians targeting the gun instead of the violent criminal. It's not going to reduce violent crime. It's only going to tell criminals they can get away with violating the law, while putting officers at increased risk and encouraging an atmosphere of government intervention at all times, in all places.
This plan should be scrapped before it can cause any damage. And the politicians and politically appointed police chief should get back to doing what works: locking up violent criminals and taking them off of the streets. |
|
In the coming weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior will announce proposed changes to the rules that bar the carrying and transporting of firearms in national parks. This comes after nearly five years of efforts by NRA-ILA and others to get rid of the rules that prevent law-abiding Right-to-Carry holders and gun owners from having to disarm and store their firearms in an inaccessible part of their vehicle.
Some opponents of the change say that you don't need access to a firearm in a national park. But these people ignore the fact that park rangers are wearing protective vests and carry semi-automatic rifles for self-defense from predators of the two- and four-legged variety. Heck, back in 2003 the media quoted David Barma, the chief spokesman for the National Park System, as saying, "The most [visitors] used to worry about is running into a grizzly bear. Now there is the specter of violence by a masked alien toting an AK-47."
But now the media ignores the recent up-tick in violent crime in our national parks. And they ignore the fact that many parts of the national park system are, by their very nature, remote and rugged wilderness areas, where help isn't just a phone call away.
I'm glad that Congress isn't ignoring these facts, and I'm very pleased the Department of the Interior is now keeping these facts in mind as they revise and update the rules for our national park system. |
|
Canadian journalist Lorne Gunter is taking gun-banners to task for proposing a handgun ban in Canada. And he makes a great point about these gun-control schemes, saying, "Activity is confused with achievement."
How true that is. Just look at the "gun buybacks" that cities promote on a regular basis. Sure, there's activity. But what's the achievement? Every study done on these "buybacks" says they don't work to lower crime, nor do they do anything to make homes safer. Still, politicians love these made-for-media events. They guarantee that the politicians behind the "buybacks" will get face time on television and in the local newspaper. But that's the only thing "buybacks" achieve.
It's easy to confuse action with achievement. But the goal of all Americans, on both sides of the gun-control issue, should be a reduction in violent crime while maintaining liberty and freedom for the law-abiding. And every gun-control proposal should be looked at through the dual lenses of liberty and common sense. But we should reject schemes that are action that achieves nothing, or worse, action that achieve more crime and less freedom.
So the next time you hear some goofy plan to restrict gun ownership, ask yourself what it would really achieve. I think you'll find that the answer is "not much to nothing at all." |
|
I still can't believe Claude Willoughby is gone. The oldest NRA member passed away on Sunday, March 9, at the age of 102. Those of you who've attended the NRA Annual Meetings in years past remember Claude. For years now, he's been honored as the oldest member in attendance. We didn't see him in St. Louis last year because his son was ill and couldn't take him, but we were all looking forward to seeing him in Louisville in May.
Claude's devotion to the Second Amendment was legendary. I remember back in 2002 at the Annual Meetings when Claude took time to challenge us in that election year.
"We did half a job last election, so we must do more next election," he said. I have a feeling I know what Claude would tell us this year. He'd tell us that as gun owners, we must do more this time around as well. We have to get involved. We have to make calls. We have to support pro-gun candidates and we have to speak out against the anti-gunners running for office. We can't rest. We can't do half the job.
I'm going to miss Claude Willoughby, and the prayers of NRA staff and members go out to the Willoughby family. But hopefully they can take comfort in the fact that he'll continue to be an inspiration to me and thousands of other NRA members who take his words to heart.
"We must do more."
We won't let you down, Claude. |
|
I was at the Supreme Court today, and based on what I heard, I have every expectation that the Court will soon restore the Second Amendment to the District of Columbia.
Everything I saw in court shows the District's ban on functional firearms is out of sync with American history. The arguments today clearly indicated the Second Amendment is an individual, and not a collective, right. The District's attorneys spent their time swimming upstream against the U.S. Constitution.
In Washington, D.C., the law is simple. Once a gun becomes usable, it becomes illegal. That means when your window breaks at 2 a.m. and you're facing an armed criminal heading towards your bedroom, the politicians in D.C. want you to just call 911 and pray help arrives before it's too late.
That's why the District's law isn't just unconstitutional, it's unreasonable. The D.C. Gun Ban has been on the books for decades and hasn't increased public safety. In fact, the crime rate has skyrocketed. When you couple the gun ban with the District's revolving-door criminal justice system, it's open season on honest people.
The District seeks the supremacy of the government. The NRA believes that individual freedom is of the utmost importance in our country. The idea that the government can protect you from all harm is a fantasy. Even the beat cops, the law enforcement officers who risk their lives every day, will tell you that.
This case is ultimately about the good people in society, and what rights they have to protect themselves against those who ignore our laws. It's about whether the good people will have their God-given right of self defense returned to them. And after what we've seen today, I'm confident the Second Amendment will soon return to the District. |
|
The veto of two self-defense bills by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has infuriated many gun owners in the state. Kaine campaigned as a guy who wouldn't sign gun-control legislation, and would respect the rights of gun owners. But the veto of these two bills shows us that Kaine's support for gun owners seems to only come out when it's politically expedient.
Take, for example, Kaine's displeasure with the fact that Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell signed on to the amicus brief that 30 other state Attorneys General supported in opposition to D.C.'s gun ban. Kaine isn't willing to say that D.C.'s ban on firearms in the home is unconstitutional, because (in the words of his spokesman) he's not the "governor of D.C."
That has to be one of the dumbest arguments I've heard lately. A lots of folks have given their opinion on the D.C. gun case, and most of them don't live in the District of Columbia. With an issue that could affect every American, it's no surprise there's interest from around the country. But when a politician tries to straddle the fence between his pro-gun constituency and party leaders who are anti-gun, it's no surprise to hear the ridiculous stated with a straight face.
Tim Kaine doesn't support allowing restaurant owners to decide for themselves if they want to allow Right-to-Carry. He doesn't support common-sense measures like allowing legal gun owners to lock their firearms away in their car, rather than having to display them in the open. And he's not telling us whether he thinks it's okay for the government to ban firearms in the home.
I don't know about Kaine's aspirations for higher office, but I do know gun owners won't forget these positions the next time they have a chance to vote. |
|
Yet another new study shows that ballistic fingerprinting doesn't work the way the gun-banners claimed it would. Doubts about the validity of the science, combined with problems in real-world implementation, mean that for the foreseeable future, we probably won't be hearing the anti-gunners clamoring for this new piece of gun control.
Instead, expect to hear a lot of talk about "microstamping." The authors of the study on ballistic fingerprinting mentioned microstamping as an alternative. But they never got into the real-world problems with that technology, either.
From the additional cost to the easily defeated stamp itself, microstamping is another illusion of "gun safety." The problems with microstamping are numerous and not easily corrected, but that won't stop gun-controllers from trying to pass microstamping laws around the country.
The other day I saw a story from Massachusetts. It seems criminals are increasingly having surgery to try and remove their fingerprints. If they're going through this much trouble, do you really think they're going to legally purchase a firearm that could be tied back to them? Give me a break. They'll continue to acquire their firearms illegally. Meanwhile, an honest gun owner who tries to replace a firing pin on his handgun may inadvertently become a criminal by removing the microstamped part.
We're all for helping law enforcement. But that means real help, not pie-in-the-sky proposals that will only drain law-enforcement dollars instead of truly helping the cops on the street. |
|
In my last blog, I talked about the importance of having a real discussion on the issue of Right-to-Carry on campuses across this country. Instead of having that honest debate, people like Paul Helmke and Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign seem intent on talking about anything but the real issue.
They accuse groups like Students for Concealed Carry on Campus of being "funded by the gun industry," instead of simply recognizing that this is an issue that is important to tens of thousands of students and faculty. And their arguments against Right-to-Carry on campus are just straw men that collapse with ease.
They say that allowing Right-to-Carry on college campuses would lead to alcohol-fueled bloodshed. But they ignore the fact that there are many young adults who are already gun owners and Right-to-Carry holders across the country. They're serving in our military, they're serving as law enforcement officers, and yes, there are many who are just responsible gun owners. These young men and women are already gun owners of legal drinking age, and they're not causing mayhem. There's simply no reason to believe that extending Right-to-Carry to campuses would cause these responsible adults to act irresponsibly.
The gun-control crowd also likes to say that when a madman is shooting into a crowd of students and faculty, the presence of an armed citizen would actually make things worse, not better. This is a ridiculous argument. At Trolley Square Mall, at New Life Church, at Appalachian Law School, and on and on, the presence of gun owners—whether they were off-duty officers, volunteer security guards, or simply students—didn't lead to more violence, but to less.
That's because these Instant Responders can always do what First Responders can never do: Immediately stop attacks on innocent people.
Finally, the Brady Campaign and others say they don't want our schools to look like prisons. With Right-to-Carry, they wouldn't. They would look just like our restaurants, our grocery stores, our bookstores, and every other place that people lawfully exercise their Right to Carry. And I'd much rather our campuses look like that than continuing to look like slaughterhouses. |
|
In Virginia, the state legislature recently voted to extend the Right-to-Carry into restaurants that serve alcohol. Frankly, it wasn't a controversial vote. Both chambers passed the bill easily, with very little opposition. And that's how it should be. Virginians have been exercising their Right to Carry for years now, and fears of "blood in the streets" have, of course, not come true.
So why is there such controversy over extending the Right-to-Carry onto school campuses? The fact of the matter is, we're not changing the requirements of who can exercise their Right to Carry. We're merely expanding where RTC holders can exercise that right.
There are millions of RTC holders in this country. You drive next to them, you shop with them, you see them every day. They're your dentist or your pastor, your boss or your star employee. They're everywhere. And the reason you may not know that is because they're not the problem.
They're already carrying in your church, the grocery store, and the public library. They're with you at your favorite restaurant or your local bookstore. And the reason you never think about it is because they're not the problem.
The problem is that there is evil in this world, people who want to prey on the innocent and defenseless.
The gun-control crowd has also flamed the fears with their embarrassingly weak arguments against extending the Right to Carry. They have played on emotion at the expense of logic and reason. And in my next blog, I'll take their arguments apart one by one. The discussion over extending Right-to-Carry is too important, and knee-jerk calls for more gun control serve no purpose but to avoid the issue. |
|
I'll give the mainstream media this: They're consistent. They're consistently ignoring Barack Obama's statements that he "supports" the Second Amendment, and they're also consistently ignoring Senator Obama's repeated calls for the kind of gun control that would spell the end of the Second Amendment as we know it.
Back in 1999, Obama called for a laundry list of gun control, including a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition. He called for bans of affordable handguns. He called for mandated "smart gun" technology. He demanded that FFLs not be allowed to maintain their business within five miles of a school or a park. In short, he wanted to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence.
To my knowledge, not one reporter has asked Obama about the positions he took back then. Nor have they asked him about the position he's taking now, "supporting" the Second Amendment in speeches while refusing to sign on to the congressional amicus brief opposing the District of Columbia's gun ban. Fifty-five of his fellow senators signed on to that brief, but Obama still pretends the issue is about "local control," not constitutional rights.
When the mainstream media refuses to ask a presidential frontrunner about his position on an issue, you can't help but wonder why. When the issue is the Second Amendment, it can't be because the press doesn't like what Obama has to say. Maybe it's just that they don't want you to hear it. |
|
I know the gun-control crowd likes to pretend they're on the side of law and order. And they love to paint gun owners as somehow on the side of criminals. But what they and their cohorts in the mainstream media never tell you is that their gun-control laws actually give criminals the upper hand.
Keep that in mind as I tell you about Keith Ingram, a Right-to-Carry holder from Tennessee. Early one recent morning, he woke up to the sounds of his cousin, who lives next door, begging for help. A man had broken into her home and was holding her sister. The two females, one aged 22 and one aged 12, had both been tied up by a convicted sex offender and attempted rapist who had broken into their home. One of the females was able to escape and run for help. She found her cousin.
Keith Ingram went next door armed with his pistol. When 44-year-old David Fleming attempted to attack Ingram, the gun owner defended himself. Fleming, the convicted sex offender, was killed. His two intended victims should be okay.
I'd like all those in favor of the D.C. gun ban to travel to Brighton, Tennessee, and look those two females in the eye. I'd like them to explain to that 12-year-old girl that, gosh, they're really happy she's okay, but they don't think her cousin should have had that firearm in his home.
And then I'd like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to talk to the more than 1,500 rape victims in Washington, D.C., since 2000. I'd like the senators to explain how they can claim to support the Second Amendment while continuing to insist that these victims remain disarmed and helpless. Not only can you not depend on yourself in D.C., you can't even hope for help from a neighbor. D.C.'s gun ban has emboldened criminals, who know that in the dark of night they have the upper hand over an unarmed citizenry. |
|
Across the United States, thousands of college students are preparing to send their administrators a clear message: that a so-called "gun-free zone" only puts college students and faculty at risk of a madman.
Back in October, the first Empty Holster Protest took place on 125 college campuses. Organizers of the spring protest are hoping that the second protest will be even bigger.
The group Students for Concealed Carry put it this way: "While opponents may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, SCC contends that it is the rap | | |
