Get Adobe Flash player

gun rights

Obama Wants to Disarm Us For Our Own Good

From Big Government:

On March 13, 2010, the Arizona Star Daily carried an op-ed written by President Barack Obama that called for more gun control in the name of “common sense.”

Using the Tucson shooting as a justification for this new effort, Obama also cited various other violent acts committed by criminals, including Columbine, to convince us that it’s time to go after guns once more.When will liberals learn that going after the criminals who use guns is far more effective than going after the guns that law-abiding citizens possess? (In fact, let it me state here at the outset that “we the people” know politicians are being disingenuous about their intentions to keep us safe when they react to crime by targeting the tools we use to keep ourselves safe – guns – instead of targeting those who misuse the tools – criminals.)

Throughout the op-ed Obama pushed and pulled: that is, he pushed for more gun control by describing it as an “intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer…place” then pulled back to focus on how certain he was that “almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible [citizens]… who buy their guns legally and use them safely.” At the risk of parsing Obama’s words a bit more than he did, it doesn’t make sense to speak of gun control as “intelligent” if you’re also going to admit “almost all gun owners are highly responsible.”

In truth, Obama’s words demonstrate that more gun control is actually unintelligent and thus against commonsense, for it will only result in greater scrutiny on those already designated as “highly responsible” (which will do nothing to stop crime.)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) immediately saw through Obama’s new gun control scheme. Thus, when Obama invited them to come and take part in a meeting between pro-gun control advocates and the Justice Department, the NRA said thanks but no thanks. Instead, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre sent a letter to Obama saying: “[T]o focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely.”

And when I asked Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA), about Obama’s new gun control push, he suggested that Obama might start by reigning in federal agencies if he’s serious about a “common sense” approach:

A common sense gun law would be to abolish the BATFE (ATF).  Operation Gunrunner has resulted in the deaths of two ICE agents and an unknown number of Mexicans.  In the pursuit of more funding and more gun control the agency was willing to let guns get into Mexico.  They have wanted to increase the number of US-sourced guns that the Mexicans find so the ATF could point to the growing problem

My guess is LaPierre’s criticism will not be seriously received and that Pratt’s words will fall on deaf ears. Why? Because the administration has no true interest in preserving gun rights, much less in reducing crime while simultaneously preserving the “robust 2nd Amendment” Obama conveniently referenced in his op-ed.

Instead, phrases like “common sense” will continue to be used to convince us that Obama means us no harm. That our natural rights are safe and secure in his hands, and that he is disarming us for our own good.

Gun bills on the move in the Indiana Senate

From Indiana Law Blog:

Current law provides that a person who does not possess a valid handgun license may not carry a handgun in any vehicle or on or about the person’s body unless the person: (1) is in the person’s dwelling or fixed place of business or on the person’s property; or (2) is carrying the handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place where the handgun was purchased to the person’s dwelling or fixed place of business, between a handgun repair shop and the person’s dwelling or fixed place of business, or from one dwelling or fixed place of business to another.

SB 506, which was approved in the Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters by a vote of 9-1 today, allows a person to carry a handgun on or about the person’s body without being licensed to carry a handgun if: (1) the person is in or on property, or in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by the person; (2) the person is lawfully present in or on private property, or in a vehicle, that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person; (3) the person is carrying the handgun at a shooting range, while attending a firearms instructional course, or while engaged in a legal hunting activity; or (4) the handgun is unloaded and securely wrapped.

Kevin Rader of WTHR 13 reported on the vote on this evening’s newscast. The video isn’t posted yet, but the story quotes Sen. Greg Taylor (D-Indianapolis), the only”no” voter, as asking:

“If you allow people without a license to drive around with a gun in their car, doesn’t that smack in the face of our licensing procedure? Why go get a license?”

SB 411, which may also have passed out of the same committee today [ILB update – see below] appears to be a companion to last session’s “take a gun to work” law. As reported in this story about the new law on July 6, 2010:

It is considered the most controversial law to take effect in Indiana this year: Now for the first time, employers cannot stop employees from taking a gun to work as long as the employees have a permit to carry and keep it locked in their cars and out of sight.

Under the new bill passed out of Senate committee today, however, employees would no longer need the permit to carry. (Here is more on the 2010 law, in this July 2, 2010 entry headed “Ind. Law – Take a gun to work law goes into effect.”)

 Maureen Hayden of the CNHI Statehouse Bureau reported on SB 411 yesterday in the Anderson Herald Bulletin:

The NRA has asked its members to contact Indiana lawmakers to urge them to support new legislation that would allow employers to be sued if they require applicants to disclose information about gun ownership or require employees to reveal if they have weapons or ammunition in their cars. * * * The author of Senate Bill 411, dubbed “the Parking Lot 2.0 bill” by the NRA, is state Sen. Johnny Nugent of Lawrenceburg. Nugent said he expects a repeat of last year’s arguments that pit the NRA against business interests that advocated that employers had personal property rights that allowed them to forbid firearms on company property.

“I’ve been a strong supporter of individual property rights,” Nugent said. “I understand how employers might feel the way they do. But there are things that trump those property rights, and one of them is the defense of my life.”

In the 2010 session, NRA lobbyists argued that citizens had a constitutional right to self-protection that doesn’t stop when they drive onto their employer’s property.

Indiana lawmakers agreed and passed a bill that allowed employees to keep their legally permitted firearms in their locked vehicles while parked on company property. The law allowed some employers, including schools and day care operators, to be exempt.

But the law failed to address what employers could do to find out if their workers had guns in their cars, or what action they could take to verify those guns were legally permitted.

In response, some employers have created designated parking areas for employees who carry guns in their cars and have begun asking employees to provide more information about those guns, including serial numbers. * * *

The NRA, in an advisory sent to its members recently, contends “numerous Indiana employers, both large and small, have falsely declared themselves exempt” from the 2010 law, which went into effect last July.

The NRA also contends some Indiana employers have created “onerous requirements” of gun-owning employees, including requiring employees to provide detailed descriptions of weapons in their vehicles.

[Updated 1/26/11] Kevin Allen of the South Bend Tribune reports today that SB 411, discussed above, also was passed out of committee by a 9-1 vote. 

The Second Amendment Under Attack In 2011

From RedState:

America is a nation in mourning as a result of the violent tragedy in Arizona last weekend.  This is an appropriate time for prayer and national healing.  This is not the time to restrict the Second Amendment rights of Americans to defend themselves from unbalanced individuals.

The enemies of freedom will use the Arizona tragedy to push for gun control.  streiff of Red State said it well when he argued that the left is using this tragedy for political advantage.  This is true and we have evidence that politicians are already coming up with ideas to restrain freedom in the name of security.  Expect 2011 to be a year when the opponents of the Second Amendment try to push for legislation to take away your rights to “keep and bear arms.”

Ben Keane and I wrote a piece for The Foundry, where we argued that Gun Control Is Not Proper Reaction to Arizona Tragedy.  There are two new proposals on the table.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) has one idea to create gun free bubbles around elected officials.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) was one of the first to offer up a hasty legislative reaction to the Arizona tragedy, proposing a new law that would “make it illegal to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of certain high-profile government officials.”   While King has yet to develop specific legislative language for the bill, he asserts that such a law “would give federal, state, and local law enforcement a better chance to intercept potential gunmen before they pull the trigger.”  In the abstract, this overarching goal may play well politically and receive positive media reaction in the wake of the horrible atrocity in Tucson.  In reality, however, King’s provision is likely to prove impossible to enforce, raise a number of constitutional objections, and provide little in the way of additional protection for government officials.

Keane argues that this new idea would create a “roving 1,000-foot gun-free bubble around every so-called ‘high-profile government official.’”  This will cause practical law enforcement problems that raise constitutional issues.  How will people know when they are violating this law?  What if a Congressman goes to a gun range and others are at the range engaging in target practice?  All individual at the gun range will be subject to criminal liability.  It will also criminalize gun shows when a Member of Congress attends one.

Read the rest at RedState.

EPA Backs Off on Second Amendment Attack

From Moonbattery:

There is no limit to the tyranny our liberal rulers would like to impose on us. However, there are limits to what they can get away with, and they know it. An attempt to repeal the Second Amendment through a ban on lead ammunition by the fascists infesting the EPA has been abandoned:

In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.

The EPA had planned to solicit public responses to the petition for two months, but this afternoon issued a statement rejecting a 100-page request from the Center for Biological Diversity, the American Bird Conservancy, and three other groups for a ban on lead bullets, shot, and fishing sinkers. The agency is still considering what to do about sinkers.

The decision was a huge victory for the National Rifle Association which just seven days ago asked that the EPA reject the petition, suggesting that it was a back door attempt to limit hunting and impose gun control. It also was a politically savvy move to take gun control off the table as the Democrats ready for a very difficult midterm election.

Push back, patriots. It works, so long as we push hard and don’t ever let our guard down.

Gun Control Advocates Make up Facts about Concealed Handgun Laws

From Big Government:

People walking the streets armed with guns must be dangerous, right? The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center keep claiming that even those individuals who have legally obtained permits to carry concealed handguns are extremely dangerous. With millions of Americans already having been issued such permits from the various states, this is an important issue.

The gun control organizations have frequently made these claims in the press. The Associated Press articles by Erik Schelzig and by Jim Abrams have given extensive, uncritical coverage. Members of the gun control organizations have made these claims unchallenged on such places as Fox News and on the Huffington Post. But the gun control advocates inaccurately describe many shooting cases, choosing to ignore that the majority of incidents involve people properly defending themselves.

Over the past three years, the number of active permit holders in the United States has gone from about 5 million to more than 6.2 million today. The numbers issued by the state regulatory agencies show time after time that these permit holders abide by the law.

Take Florida, which currently has the most concealed handgun permit holders in the country and is one of the two most populous states with right-to-carry laws. Between Oct. 1, 1987, and May 31 this year, permits had been issued to 1.8 million people. On average, the permits had been held for quite a long time, well over 10 years. For all those individuals across the more than 22 years of legal carry, there were only 167 cases where the permit was revoked for a firearms related violation, or about 0.01 percent of permit holders. While the state doesn’t provide a precise breakdown of the reason for those revocations, the vast majority were apparently for people who accidentally carried their concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as an airport or school.

Throughout the past 30 months, beginning January 2008, only three additional permit holders have had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation. With more than 739,000 active permit holders, that is an annual revocation rate of 0.00017 percent.

Read the rest at Big Government.

Protecting the Second Amendment (But Just Barely)

From The Heritage Foundation:

In what is probably the most important Second Amendment case in Supreme Court history, the Court today held that the “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” cannot be infringed by the states. In 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court for the first time held that the right to bear arms was an individual right. But that decision, which struck down a virtual ban on handguns and a requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock” in the District of Columbia, applied only to the federal government because the District is a federal enclave. What had never been decided before today’s decision in McDonald v. Chicago was whether the protection of the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply to state and local governments.

In a long-awaited decision on the final day of the Supreme Court’s term, a 5-4 majority of the Court in an opinion written by Justice Alito overturned the City of Chicago’s regulations on firearms. These regulations included a ban on handguns, a requirement that other guns be registered prior to their acquisition (which is impractical in many cases), a burdensome annual reregistration requirement and annual fee, and a punitive provision that would bar the reregistration of a gun once its registration expired.

The opinion holds that the right to keep and bear arms is among the most fundamental rights necessary to this Nation’s system of ordered liberty and is deeply rooted in our history and tradition. Thus, it applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read the rest at The Heritage Foundation.

The UN and Obama Versus Gun Owners

From Big Government:

Gun owners might not feel besieged right now, but they should be very concerned. Last week the Obama administration announced its support for the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty poses real risks for freedom and safety in the United States as well as the rest of the world.

According to the U.N., AR-10 guns used in armed conflicts cause 300,000 deaths worldwide every year. Their proposed solution is a simple one. Keep rebels from getting guns by requiring that countries “prevent, combat and eradicate” what those countries define as “the illicit trade in small arms.”

The UN’s solution isn’t too surprising when one looks at the long list of notorious totalitarian regimes, such as Syria, Cuba, Rwanda, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, and Sierra Leone, which support these “reforms.” But not all insurgencies are “bad.” To ban providing guns to rebels in totalitarian countries is like arguing that there is never anything such as a just war.

In hindsight, during World War II, should the French or Norwegian resistance movements simply have given up? Surely this would have minimized causalities. But that is hardly a one-time event. What about Afghanis in their fight against the Soviet Union or Nicaraguan rebels fighting communist dictators during the 1980s? Was it wrong to help out? What about totalitarian governments that massacre their citizens? Don’t they have a right to protect themselves?

Many countries already ban private gun ownership. Rwanda and Sierra Leone are two notable examples. Yet, with more than a million people hacked to death over the last decade-and-a-half, were their citizens better off without guns?

Read the rest at Big Government.

Chicago Mayor Begs World Court to Overturn Second Amendment

From Moonbattery:

Apparently, Mayor Daley (and Mayor Nutter) didn’t get the memo that Democrats aren’t really trying to take away the people’s right to possess firearms.

Friday, April 30, 2010: Fearful that America’s Supreme Court will soon strike down Chicago’s handgun ban, frustrated by the Illinois legislature’s rejection of his anti-gun agenda, and repudiated by American courts and legislatures over his plan to sue federally licensed manufacturers and dealers of firearms for third-party crimes, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley (D) is showing contempt for his own country’s and state’s institutions, by seeking a foreign entity to enforce his anti-gun agenda against the American people. This week, Daley called for “redress against the gun industry” in the World Court, in The Hague, Netherlands. Forgetting or not caring who his constituents are, Daley blurted “This is coming from international mayors. They’re saying, ‘We’re tired of your guns, America.'”

Daley’s global gun control fantasy received the endorsement of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (D), whose enthusiasm for international law is apparently matched by his novel interpretation of the United States Constitution. “I love the Second Amendment,” Nutter recently said, but “I have a First Amendment right not to be shot.” Nutter’s utterly ignorant statement proves that in our country, you can be elected to public office while knowing remarkably little about the Bill of Rights. …

If only progressives applied their abortion “logic” to gun control; if you don’t like guns, don’t own one, but don’t interfere with other people’s right to own guns.

But of course, that would be demanding that progressives be ideologically consistent and rational, which is simply not possible.

Coats Standing Up for the Second Amendment is News to Gun Owners

From HoosierAccess:

I’m amused by the “shoot first, ask questions later” response from the Marlin Stutzman crowd after I wrote about how the State Senator voted for the highest tax increase in state history.  That said, it’s time to take heat from the establishment crowd.  Boy, I know how to pick my fights don’t I?

Last night during the debate, the topic of Second Amendment rights came up.  I couldn’t help but chuckle when former Senator Dan Coats spoke of defending gun owners.  When I see his ad proclaiming his support for Second Amendment rights, I almost want to jump off the couch and yell at the tv “LIAR!”  Why such a strong reaction?  Much like Stutzman’s record of raising taxes on small businesses in the midst of a recession, Coat’s record on gun rights and punishment of gun use in violent crime is far more appalling.  Did you know that:

  • In 1991, during the George H.W. Bush administration, Coats voted for a gun control-laden “crime bill” that included the so-called Brady Bill as well as a ban on semi-automatic firearms
  • In 1993, Coats voted no on mandatory sentences for using firearms in commission of drug or violent crime
  • In 1993, Coats cast another vote for the Brady bill, which was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.  He also voted for another ban on many semi-automatic firearms, both as a stand-alone amendment and again as part of the infamous 1994 Clinton crime bill
  • In 1994, Coats voted no on mandatory minimums for violent crimes with guns and death penalty for murderers

In my humble opinion, Dan Coats support for the Second Amendment is about as clear as President Obama calling for tax cuts for the rich.

Read the rest at HoosierAccess.

God Bless America

Find Us On Facebook!

Hot Topics

Random Quote

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. — James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788

Today’s Events


Upcoming Elections

  • No dates present