Tag Archives: 2nd Amendment

Will Connecticut choose to ignore or make war against 300,000 gun registration scofflaws?

Doug Book,  editor

To date, a reported 50,016 people have guaranteed the eventual confiscation of their firearms by obeying the “Assault Weapons” registration requirements of Connecticut’s new gun law.

But according to a 2011 study commissioned by the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research it is estimated that more than 300,000 additional weapons have NOT been registered, their owners refusing to relinquish either their semi-auto rifles OR their liberty to Connecticut lawgivers. (Given recent record sales years that 300,000 could today be 400,000 or more.)

So in spite of the threats of Connecticut’s left-wing politicos to imprison those with the courage to defy unconstitutional legislation, the overwhelming majority of gun owners in the Constitution State have effectively told their elected officials to shove it. 

And it’s this wholesale repudiation of unjust legislation that spells disaster for lawmakers in Connecticut as it will for like-minded  legislators throughout the nation. For it has always been the case that compliance with enacted legislation is essentially voluntary. Police are capable of dealing with the small minority who refuse to obey statutes against murder or robbery. But law enforcement does not have the resources to handle millions or even the 300,000 plus who have refused to register their guns according to the demands of a dangerous state government.

And dangerous is the word, for governments dedicated to the enforcement of legislation believed by the people to be unfair and illegitimate “…will be stuck in a pattern of escalating brutality and declining legitimacy.” It is governance by intimidation, dispensed by arrogant, unthinking politicians who have effectively declared war on the people they were elected to serve.

From Governor Dannel Malloy to Under Secretary for Criminal Justice Mike Lawlor, Connecticut officials have put themselves in a Jackpot. With bluster and threat they expected American gun owners to behave like sheep and willingly surrender their rights and eventually their guns. Only liberals could fail to know that such expectations were doomed from the start; that intimidation would never, ever succeed.

And now they have to choose between enforcing a detested law on a resolved populace, outright repeal or just looking the other way as though their kneejerk statute never really existed. The smart choice would be repeal. But the left are incapable of retreating on such an important agenda item as gun confiscation. After all, it’s not as though THEY will be looking down a barrel one day. That’s left to police and goodness knows politicians consider them as expendable as any other commoner.

To liberals, the important thing is that the law is on the books. Eventually some lunatic will pick out another gun free zone and murder a few dozen defenseless people. With any luck, maybe a Day Care center! And then the left can begin their assault against the law abiding with fresh ammunition!

Of course, by that time another 150,000 AR 15s will have found their way to Connecticut residents.

Makes you wonder why liberals don’t work on separating guns from criminals rather than from the rest of us.

Sources:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/02/mass_defiance_in_connecticut_against_assault_weapon_registration_law.html

http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-gun-group-issues-ultimatum-to-government-molon-labe-or-repeal/

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/ct-cop-who-wants-to-kick-in-doors-confiscate-guns-suspended-not-before-spilling-the-beans-on-what-gun-registration-is-all-about_032014

http://benswann.com/connecticut-sends-letter-to-unregistered-gun-owners-to-surrender-firearms/  

http://www.publiusforum.com/2014/01/28/millions-high-capacity-magazines-disappear-connecticut/

http://www.infowars.com/surrender-your-firearms-connecticut-tells-unregistered-gun-owners/

http://www.infowars.com/connecticut-gun-owners-revolt-refuse-to-register-firearms-magazines/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/13/tens-of-thousands-of-connecticut-gun-owners-may-be-staging-a-massive-act-of-civil-disobedience/

Gun store owner pays price for betrayal of pro-gun public

by Doug Book,  editor

When Oak Tree Gun Club owner James Mitchell decided to be the first U.S. seller of the Armatix iP1 smart gun, he opened the flood gates to such widespread animosity from gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters that it would threaten the continued existence of his store.

In October of 2013, the National Shooting Sports Foundation polled 1200 Americans on smart guns and smart gun technology. Seventy four percent said the guns were not reliable, 81% said they would NOT buy a smart gun and 70% said the government should not mandate use of the technology. 

But the story of Mitchell’s enthusiastic support for the iP1, a pistol which features “smart gun technology,”–that is, a gun designed to fire only for its officially recognized owner–had already gone viral. Mitchell had long before leased office space in his store to Armatix; he had built a special display area for the .22 caliber, LR product and dedicated a portion of his pistol range to the exclusive demonstration and test-firing of the pistol.

In February, the Washington Post reported smart gun technology to at last be available to gun buyers. “Electronic chips inside the gun communicate with a watch that can be purchased with the gun, making it impossible to fire without the watch. Gun control advocates, who believe smart guns could reduce gun violence, suicides and accidental shootings, marked the moment as a milestone.”

The Post also reported that, according to the “extremely pro-gun Mitchell,” the iP1 could “…revolutionize the gun industry.”

But unfortunately, in addition to revolutionizing the gun industry, the anti-gun left was equally determined to revolutionize the rules of gun ownership.

For on February 20th, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey introduced a bill entitled the Handgun Trigger Safety Act (S-2068). According to the Act, smart gun technology must be included on ALL handguns within 2 years of the law’s passage. And within 3 years, “…all pre-smart” handguns will become illegal to sell … until they are retrofitted with the technology.” It is already existing statute in New Jersey that within 3 years of the very first smart gun sale anywhere in the nation, “…only those handguns with the new “feature” will be legal to buy in the state (except by “Only Ones” [police] and other government hired muscle).”

How much will smart gun retrofitting cost America’s gun owners? Not a thing as Sen. Markey’s bill also mandates all existing handguns be made into smart guns FREE OF CHARGE by the nation’s gun manufacturers. Rather a clever way to bankrupt every company which makes pistols in the United States, isn’t it!

So not only will the nation’s anti-gun politicians have a field day dismantling both the 2nd Amendment and the country’s gun makers, it will all be accomplished in the name of a firearm manufacturer, Armatix, which proudly guarantees their product will determine “…with 90 percent accuracy, whether a gun was being held by a person wearing a watch meant to pair with the firearm.”

Huh? Does that mean one shot in every 10 round magazine might be fired by someone not meant to be able to use the weapon? Or is Armatix saying that the gun might misfire 10% of the time?

Either way, the Examiner reports Oak Tree owner Mitchell “…is facing a furious backlash from customers and gun rights advocates who fear the new technology will encroach on their Second Amendment rights if it becomes mandated.” And make no mistake–James Mitchell was DEPENDING upon the state and/or federal governments to mandate the purchase of smart guns in order that he might cash in. For even in California, who in their right mind would pay the Armatix asking price of $1,399 dollars for the pistol, plus another $399 for the companion watch when the manufacturer guarantees their pistol to function properly only 90% of the time?

In 2010, my Glock 23–a  .40 caliber pistol which fires EVERY time–was $525.

“These people are anti-gunners,” said a customer on the Oak Tree Facebook page. “If you care about the ability to exercise your [Second Amendment] rights, I would suggest that you do not continue to frequent this place,” added another.

So distressed is James Mitchell by the nationwide animosity resulting from his having gone “all in” with Armatix that he is RUNNING, not walking back the story of his relationship with the company.  In fact, the Oak Tree owner now effectively claims to have never even HEARD of the smart gun manufacturer! What leased space, what exclusive right to sell the gun, what remodeling of his store and pistol range? According to Mr. Mitchell, “our facility does NOT carry the Armatix pistol, never has, and the comment (that Oak Tree was) ‘the only outlet in the country selling the [Armatix] iP1′ was taken out of context in an interview conducted by the Washington Post.” This from the gun store whose address Armatix  “… lists on its importation FFL as its premises.”

Like so many before him,  self described, “pro-gun conservative” James Mitchell found discretion to be the better part of valor and cancelled plans to make a bundle by embracing the smart gun agenda of the gun-grabbing left.

No one should wish that bad things happen to a businessman for wanting to make a profit. In Mr. Mitchell’s case one might make an exception.

Sources:

http://www.captainsjournal.com/2014/03/07/smart-gun-failure/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/california-smart-gun-store-prompts-furious-backlash/2014/03/06/43432058-a544-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we-need-the-iphone-of-guns-will-smart-guns-transform-the-gun-industry/2014/02/17/6ebe76da-8f58-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html

https://www.gunowners.org/a032100.htm

http://bearingarms.com/new-jersey-assemblyman-rips-smart-gun-that-fails-every-single-magazine/

http://www.examiner.com/article/backlash-against-gun-shop-shows-gun-owners-smarter-than-smart-gun-pushers

http://www.markey.senate.gov/news/press-releases/markey-announces-new-legislation-efforts-to-combat-gun-violence     Feb 14. 2014

http://www.guns.com/2014/03/08/oak-tree-gun-club-denies-anything-smart-gun-maker-armatix/

http://nssf.org/newsroom/releases/show.cfm?PR=111213_americans-skeptical-of-wont-buy-smart-guns.cfm&path=2013

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/03/06/the-smart-gun-controversy-at-oak-tree-gun-club/

Cuomo forces “conservative” Remington out of New York; Democrats force Occidental out of California

by Kevin “Coach” Collins

This week brought two sharp reminders of what our country will increasingly look like should Democrats be given complete control of our lives. Here’s why we cannot give up the fight for our freedoms.  
Last month the Democrat Governor of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, told a public radio host he thought, “….extreme conservatives” who are “right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay,” have “no place in the state of New York.”

Honesty like this, even on a public radio station few people actually listen to, is rare for any politician especially a Democrat.  Given the size of his audience Cuomo was likely using the opportunity to generate a few lines of red meat quotes to use in fund raiser letters. Nevertheless, what he said is how he really feels and now, Remington Arms, one of the largest gun manufacturers in New York has opted to take him at his word.

Well-placed sources are reporting that Remington, an upstate New York company that has been making America’s firearms since 1816, will be moving its expansion project to Alabama. The new Birmingham plant will employ about 2000 workers and generate $87 million in economic benefit for Alabama one of the Reddest States in America. While there are no immediate plans to close the existing New York plant, it’s not hard to image it will eventually close based on the very rapid and clear cause and effect nature of the Birmingham move. As long as Cuomo and his far Leftist Democrats run New York Remington will not be welcome and they know it.   

In California last Friday, Occidental Petroleum, a huge player in America’s energy industry, announced it was moving its corporate headquarters to Houston, a small blue stain in very red Texas. It has begun the process of consolidating all of its remaining Los Angeles based subsidiaries into a new separate company. The story in the Los Angeles Times uses lots of soothing language designed to obfuscate the truth, but in plain English Occidental said, “We’re outta here!” 

Located in Los Angeles for almost a century, Occidental could no longer abide the total all-out assault by a state government infected by rabidly anti-business and even more rabidly anti-oil lunatics. They finally forced Occidental to see the truth and move. 

There is no reason to believe these two items are not the beginning of a trend. Election Day grows nearer and Democrats, frightened of what they see coming in November, will be in a mad scramble to prove they hate America more than ever before to attract big anti-American donor money. They will attack capitalism like a pack of rabid dogs and chase still more companies toward freedom.  Watch it happen.     

Sources:

http://yellowhammernews.com/nationalpolitics/remington-arms-moving-1200-jobs-ny-alabama/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-mo-occidental-petroleum-california-houston-20140214,0,5645166,print.story

Police using lawful gun ownership as an excuse for “No Knock” home invasions

by Doug Book,  editor

Texas courts have ruled that because legally owned firearms represent “a threat of physical violence” to police, officers may ignore the 4th Amendment rights of Texas residents by treating ALL legally issued warrants as “No Knock” warrants, even if the issuing judge has made it clear that officers “…must knock on the door and announce their identity and purpose before attempting a forcible entry.” 

In August of 2006, police in Collin County, Texas obtained a warrant to search the home of John Quinn based on information that Quinn’s son might be keeping a controlled substance on the premises. Although the warrant “…did not authorize police to enter the residence without knocking and announcing their entry,” the County SWAT Team broke through Quinn’s door unannounced, “…based solely on the suspicion that there were firearms in the Quinn household.”  Not aware of who had broken into his home, the suddenly awakened Quinn was shot by officers as he grabbed a nearby gun for the purpose of defending his life, family and property. All firearms in the home were legally owned by Quinn. Police discovered less than 1 gm of cocaine on the premises.

When Quinn took the Collin County SWAT Team to court for ignoring the terms of the search warrant by turning it into a “No Knock” warrant, the court ruled that “…because police had information that guns were present at the residence, they were justified in making a forced and unannounced invasion into Quinn’s home.” In short, a judge decided John Quinn represented a criminal danger based upon the legal exercise of his 2nd amendment rights.

The Rutherford Institute has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the Quinn case, writing to the Court that:

“…in the absence of any evidence of actual danger to police, the legal possession of a firearm, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, is not sufficient to justify allowing police to override the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unannounced “no-knock” home invasions when executing warrants.”

The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that law enforcement may NOT look upon the free exercise of constitutionally protected rights as an inference of guilt. For example, police may NOT presume that because an individual asserts his right to remain silent or speak with an attorney, he is  deserving of additional suspicion of guilt.

Should Americans who exercise their God given, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms be refused the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures? The suggestion by law enforcement, courts or lawmakers that the exercise of one constitutionally protected right should somehow render an American ineligible for the free exercise of–or protection guaranteed by–another right is despicable, disgraceful and a thoroughly unconstitutional assault on each of us.

Law enforcement has been given the “legal” authority to view Texas gun owners as potential criminals and to treat them accordingly. Every armed Texan is therefore presumed guilty until proven innocent. Does this mean police may legally gun down the holder of a Concealed Carry license on sight, based on the belief that being armed makes such a person likely to kill an officer?

Courts have dramatically weakened our 4th Amendment protections during the past several decades. If this trend is not reversed, open warfare will eventually become the only means of reclaiming lost liberty.
 

Sources:

https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/rutherford_institute_asks_us_supreme_court_to_ensure_that_lawful_gun_owners

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Additional reading:

http://www.examiner.com/article/government-violations-of-4th-amendment-tsa-airport-procedures

http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/did-police-officers-violate-a-homeowners-fourth-amendment-rights/?utm_source=The+Liberty+Crier&utm_campaign=359e249b8a-The_Liberty_Crier_Daily_News_3_9_2013&utm_medium=email

Florida’s state universities not allowed to ban guns on campus

by Doug Book, editor

Last week, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that statutes originating in the Florida Legislature take precedence over regulations passed by local governments or state agencies. This authority to preempt local ordinances prevents counties, cities and townships from creating a patchwork quilt of regulations which most citizens would find impossible to obey. What the decision means is that the 12 state universities in Florida cannot overrule a 2011 law in which the Florida Legislature “…pre-empted the regulation of guns by local governments and state agencies.” (1) 

The lawsuit–Florida Carry Inc. and Alexandria Lainez vs. the University of North Florida–was brought be Lainez because the university did not permit her to store a pistol in her car while attending classes on campus. A twenty four year old mother, Lainez has been a CC license holder for 3 years and is working to get students interested in gun training courses offered in the state.

Liberal Appeals Court Judge Philip Padovano dissented from the court majority, writing “this remarkable conclusion is not supported in the law, and with due respect for my colleagues, I believe that it defies common sense.” (2)

It’s remarkable how many clearly stated constitutional rights “defy common sense” when the left happen to disagree with them.

Good for Alexandria Lainez, Florida Carry, Inc. and the majority members of the Court of Appeals. 

 
Sources:

(1) http://watchdogwire.com/florida/2013/12/12/florida-1st-district-court-universities-cannot-ban-guns-on-campus/

(2) http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/florida-universities-cant-regulate-guns-on-campus-court-says#ixzz2naGYfSg4

Appeals Court opinion:

http://opinions.1dca.org/written/opinions2013/12-10-2013/12-2174.pdf