Tag Archives: NRA

The NRA stood tall and tough when it counted most

By Doug Book, editor

Though liberal Democrats have little appreciation for the spiritual meaning of Christmas, events of December 2012 would bring Joy to the Political World of every avid, gun-hating politician in Washington D.C.

For on December 14th, twenty children and six adults responsible for their care were shot to death at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Their killer ended his own life minutes later with a round to the head.

Understanding the importance of disarming the American people, gun confiscation advocates like Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein and Barack Obama no doubt wished the death toll had been higher. But as children were involved, even 20 dead would have the American public ready to accept—however unwillingly– a raft of new, anti-gun edicts. Democrats and the national media would see to that. For neither the NRA nor pro-gun Republicans would have the gall to stand in the way by quoting chapter and verse of the 2nd Amendment. Not this time.  After all, never had the left been blessed with such a delicious level of exploitable carnage! It would be a legislative gimme!

Then, four days after the killings, the NRA offered its eagerly anticipated response to the left’s set-up story of evil “assault weapons” and the ease with which they can be acquired. But refusing to be cowed by liberal Democrats or their equally anti-gun proponents in the national media, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told the American public that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The next psychopath intent upon taking advantage of the defenseless victims of “gun free zones” will only be stopped by the armed response of good people, not a new layer of ineffective legislation.

The media was stunned. Liberal Democrats were taken aback, feigning disgust at the brazen, unfeeling nature of LaPierre’s remarks. Of course the unexpressed media/Dem Party response was really one of: “Damn, what happened!” This collection of dedicated gun grabbers had expected a contrite, almost apologetic NRA. They would relish the unconditional surrender of an NRA which had for some years displayed a less confrontational side; one which earned the contempt of members across the country. The NRA had endorsed Harry Reid for God’s sake!

But far from apologizing for a history of oft times rigid, pro-gun positions, LaPierre hit the left right between the eyes. And guess what! The American people–gun owners and non-owners alike–stood 4-Square with the NRA. DC Democrats were apoplectic. All of their plans of gloating over the defeated carcass of the once feared gun group went up in smoke. Visions of mandatory gun registration, confiscation of “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines, SWAT teams intimidating American citizens with midnight raids and the ultimate manufacture of subjects from what had once been free citizens—it had all gone to Hell. The NRA had picked the right time to be tough. It had defined the problem of gun free zones and offered the only solution for the defense of unarmed innocents.

There is no question that NRA higher-ups have sometimes displayed weakness, stupidity, even lunacy. How can the premier American gun-rights organization endorse Harry Reid?

But one very courageous statement offered at exactly the right time did more to derail a dangerous, liberal assault against gun owners than the combined efforts of DC Republicans for the past decade. As gun owners, we owe the NRA a lot.

Do private police forces foretell America’s “Civil Divorce” between rich and poor?

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

Since the 1820s America’s police have protected everyone whether they were rich or poor. Of course the wealthy got the best of what their police forces offered but the poor got reasonable services as well.

Nevertheless, police services are changing, and not in a way everyone will like.

The NRA rejoinder, “When seconds count the police are only minutes away” is becoming more of a reality by the day. Years of being bogged down with ancillary activities and continuing budget cuts are taking their toll on what we think police should be doing.

For the “stretched to the limits” police forces around the country something has got to change and that “something” now means withdrawal of services in specified circumstances. When services are withdrawn in earnest they will not be made in poor neighborhoods (read minorities) where crime is committed, they will be made in more affluent (read White) neighborhoods where victims live. Victims are an “accepted” byproduct of managing dwindling police resources.

The supine majority have always just “grinned and accepted” being victims, but this is beginning to change. The purpose of police protection is beginning to turn back to its original, pre-1820s mission which was protecting and serving the wealthy.

Wealthy people are not going to hide in their basements when their town’s police stop driving by their homes.  They will, and have already started to, hire private police to protect them. This may be just beginning, but it will undoubtedly come to parallel the gap between the average public school and the average private school.

Eventually the big cities will not get the best applicants to join their police forces. Becoming a big city cop will mean an entire career of always working in dangerous high crime areas. Every call will be fraught with danger and eventually the private police will get and keep the best applicants.

Private police are already patrolling some parts of Houston Texas and Stockton California. It won’t be long before other cities see them on their streets as well.   

Those who understand how much they have to lose based on how America is changing will not roll over and accept what the system dishes out. When private police become the norm America’s “civil divorce” will proceed at full speed. Those who can’t/won’t pay for enhanced police protection won’t get it. Those who can pay will get it.               

Its last appeal turned down, Illinois may no longer legally prevent Concealed Carry

by Doug Book

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has told Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan for the last time that she MUST honor the Constitution of the United States by doing away with her state’s ban on the concealed carry of firearms.

It was back in December of last year that a 3 judge panel of the Court found the Illinois law banning concealed carry to be unconstitutional. “The Supreme Court has decided that the [2nd] amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside,” wrote 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, paraphrasing the opinion of S.C. Justice Samuel Alito.  Naturally, the scrupulously liberal Madigan then petitioned the entire 10 member court, hoping that the ruling might be overturned. But the full court refused to reconsider the ruling of the panel. (1)

And now the Illinois legislature has about 4 months to rewrite its unconstitutional ban into something acceptable to groups which strictly preserve the 2nd Amendment rights of the American people. And that is the REAL question: will the ONLY remaining state to disallow concealed carry abide by the ruling of the court by creating an honest and reasonable statute? If so, it will represent a truly staggering break with the leftist-inspired, Illinois tradition of governing as though rights were privileges of which the common classes are rarely if ever deserving.

After the 2010 McDonald v Chicago decision in which the Supreme Court struck down the city’s decades-old, unconstitutional handgun ban, brainless thug Mayor Richard Daley and city officials crafted a new ordinance to “comply” with the ruling. Naturally, this group of self-serving thieves and political prostitutes sought only to defy the Court with an ordinance which limited each person to ONE operable weapon; allowed no gun to be taken outside the home; prohibited the existence of gun stores and firing ranges within the city; mandated “approved” training and marksmanship; charged $100 for a 3 year pistol permit; banned handguns the police superintendent considered “unsafe due to their size” and, of course, required fingerprinting of gun owners and registration of their weapons.  Needless to say, these provisions did NOT apply to law enforcement or certain city officials. (2)

Since that time, constitutional rights groups have been in court with the City of Chicago on a seemingly daily basis, suing to terminate the Daley legacy of wanton abrogation of liberty. On three occasions, the city has lost court decisions to the NRA and twice Rahm Emanuel has decided to amend the Daley ordinance, “…conceding that the city had little chance of successfully defending lawsuits against certain aspects of it.” (3)

Incredibly, Chicago City Corporation Counsel Steve Patton has accused the NRA and others of “…cherry-pick[ing] the things they thought they could marshal a challenge (on).” How does one “cherry-pick” UNCONSTITUTIONAL provisions in a city ordinance? Could anything be more typical of a Chicago official than to whine because the city’s assault on freedom has been found unacceptable by those who prefer liberty to the beneficent dictatorship of nanny-state hoodlums!

Leftist Governor Pat Quinn is not likely to provide Illinois residents with the 2nd Amendment rights to which they are entitled. The 7th Circuit has given lawmakers till mid-year to write a constitutional law.  Don’t be surprised if the state is once again before the bench by year end.

(1) http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/news/16952071-418/appeals-court-tosses-state-ban-on-carrying-concealed-guns.html

(2) http://www.ammoland.com/2010/07/mayor-daley-says-stick-it-to-the-supreme-court/#axzz2LlaStZru

(3) http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-22/news/ct-met-chicago-gun-laws-20120722_1_gun-control-firearms-ordinance-legal-gun

 

ObamaCare guarantees “personal information” will CEASE to be personal. Yep, gun ownership info too

by Doug Book,  staff writer

Being a good, Democrat-run state, Minnesota has decided to build an ObamaCare exchange, turning all healthcare rights and choices of its citizens over to the tender mercies of federal death panels and untrained, IT technicians in Washington, DC.

But if anything, that’s the GOOD news for unsuspecting Minnesotans! For all information currently considered “personal” will, at the stroke of a keyboard, become known to countless bureaucracies throughout the State and federal governments.

As the Citizen’s Council for Health Freedom explains it:

“Buried in the text of the Minnesota Obamacare Exchange bill (MNHIX) [is] a tiny but controversial section allowing free-flow sharing of all data the government has on you. It also grants them access to the data “other entities” have on you. There is no limit to the agencies that can share data. There is no limit to the data that can be shared. There is no limit with whom the data may be shared.” (1)

Sound comforting? Well there’s more!

Minnesota “…state agencies shall share “not public data” with the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace if the board determines that the exchange of the data is “reasonably necessary” to “carry out the functions of the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace.” The exchange is also allowed to share “not public data” with state agencies, the federal government and “other entities,” a term that is left undefined.” (1)

According to Minnesota law, “not public data” means “any government data classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification as confidential, private, nonpublic, or protected nonpublic.” (1)

So, if the D.C. Board which runs ObamaCare decides it is “reasonably necessary” to know if you pay your taxes, are delinquent on your mortgage or own 4 pistols in order to properly “carry out the functions” of the ObamaCare exchange, that information will immediately become known throughout all “relevant” state and federal government bureaucracies!  

Uh, did someone say “own 4 pistols?” Yes! In the State of Minnesota, no one may purchase a handgun until they have first obtained a handgun transferee permit from their local Chief of Police or Sheriff’s office. That permit is then taken to a gun dealer to purchase a pistol from them, or presented to a dealer in order to make legal any sale between private parties. Naturally, that permit becomes part of the purchaser’s Minnesota, gun ownership record.

So gun registration is built right into ObamaCare in the State of Minnesota. Would Barack and the rest of the far left take advantage of such a law in order to track gun owners and their purchases? What’s that saying about Popes and bears?

ObamaCare has NEVER been about healthcare and the more the American public finds out about this Marxist scheme of federal ownership and control, the more obvious it becomes.

And sooner or later, the left will engineer their long anticipated overthrow of the 2nd Amendment. In Minnesota, at least, ObamaCare may well be instrumental in the process. But be careful what you wish for, ladies and gentlemen of the left. That whirlwind you reap might just shoot back!

(1) http://www.cchfreedom.org/cchf.php/644#.UQ7jp2daNXI

(2) http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/minnesota.aspx

 

Americans may soon be permitted to RENT guns but not own them

by Doug Book,  staff writer

The widely anticipated senate bill soon to be introduced by gun-banner extraordinaire Diane Feinstein will do far more than eliminate “assault weapons” (AW’s) and “high capacity” magazines.

According to a summary on the senator’s website, concealed carry license holder Feinstein–who proposed an outright ban on all handguns while packing her own for self-defense—will demand that owners of guns affected by her legislation: pay a $200 fee for EACH banned weapon owned; submit pictures, fingerprints and register AW’s with the ATF; have local law enforcement attest to the owner’s identity and specify the address at which each weapon will be kept.

But the NRA reports that the senator intends to go much further than bans or registration. For assessment of an acquired draft of Feinstein’s bill reveals a provision demanding that guns defined as assault weapons be immediately turned over to the federal government upon the current owner’s death.   

Under existing Federal Firearm Legislation, owners of AW’s are permitted to sell their weapons outright, modify them or pass them along to heirs. But not anymore. For should Feinstein’s bill become law, AW’s will be grandfathered into the possession of their current owners and “…[will] remain with [that] …owner until [his] death, at which point they [will] be forfeited to the government.” (1)

In short, our political ruling class would literally appropriate millions of “assault weapons,” rent the freshly acquired firearms back to their original owners and then seize them after those flagrantly cheated individuals have died. 

It is a very clever scheme of mortality-based confiscation!

Registration of the appropriated weapons will be conducted according to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the law which among other things, regulates ownership of machine guns and silencers. Fortunately the $200 per weapon fee has historically been charged only on the transfer of a weapon rather than on a yearly basis. But of course those banned, “high capacity” magazines must also be taken into account—and taxed.

Feinstein’s bill has yet to be completed, though she has vowed to read it on the Senate floor by January 3rd. Given the massive, nationwide dissent and bitter animosity which would surely result should the contents of the bill be published in an open and honest form, it’s possible that, like ObamaCare, congress will have to pass the legislation before the American public finds out what’s in it.

One thing is certain–gun owners will acquire many new responsibilities while preserving very few rights.

For example, Feinstein and Co. might demand holders of “assault weapons” purchase some form of renter’s insurance in order to protect themselves from legal responsibility should a gun be stolen and used in a crime. Naturally, the legal responsibility would be levied either by Congress itself or one of its partners in crime—the ATF comes to mind. After all, it would be a swell way to pick up a few bucks while encouraging a “pre-demise” weapon turn-in by owners who wish to avoid legal exposure or the expense of congressionally mandated insurance coverage.  Imagine the required purchase of an “ATF-approved” policy at $500 per year per weapon. A protection racket to make even Capone blush!

Will the Feinstein bill succeed? Almost certainly not. But consider how much closer it will likely come to passage now than a year ago. And what will happen after the next brutal murder spree deliberately facilitated by the left and its “gun-free zone” legislation?  And the next and the next?

Feinstein’s legislation reveals what the left is determined to achieve, sooner or later and by any means necessary. Those who wish to remain free must be prepared to do anything necessary to defeat them.

(1) http://cms.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/feinstein-goes-for-broke-with-new-gun-ban-bill.aspx

(2) http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IIG4.html

Additional reading on “assault weapons” and the Feinstein bill:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/sen-feinstein-unveils-sweeping-gun-control-agenda/

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

http://www.examiner.com/article/handguns-rifles-magazines-sen-feinstein-wants-them-all