New York Patriot Refuses to Surrender His Rifle

"This is the last legal gun that you can have without registration in New York," Littlejohn said. "And yet Mayor Bloomberg is driven crazy by my flintlock gun - the one that won the American Revolution.

A police source says the war could end peacefully if Littlejohn applied for a permit with the NYPD handgun license division.

Littlejohn would rather fight. The Brooklynite says he's willing to sue for his rifle rights." [link]

I can't figure out if it is hilarious that these crackpots in New York are going after this man and his rifle, and that he could end it peacefully by registering with the "NYPD handgun licensing division". Or so outright infuriating that these people are so terrified of individual rights that they act this irrationally.

Newest Victim Disarmament Zone

Officials said Wednesday that starting July 17th, no guns will be allowed on Beale Street. All clubs and businesses will post signs notifying patrons of the ban.

Police officers and private security guards will use handheld metal detectors to search patrons before allowing them inside the famous street's barricades.

Merchants will have to cover the cost, but they say it's worth it to maintain Beale Street's reputation as one of the country's safest entertainment districts.

John Elkington of Performa Entertainment says he wants to offer tourists and other patrons the opportunity to visit Beale without the fear of encountering armed citizens. [link]

You can now count this place off my places in America to visit. It is a shame really, I visited Beale Street several years ago and it is truly a nice place. Good entertainment, good food, and a relatively family friendly atmosphere. However if you will no longer allow me to legally protect myself and my family then I will not be going. For those that request it though, will you provide an armed security guard or a police officer to escort people around?

How long do you think it will be before the criminal element realizes there is a massive victim disarmament zone full of tourists with cash?

"Smart" Gun Failure

From today's Gun Rights Examiner, Mr. C0drea looks at a possible failure of the so called "smart" gun.

College Demands Student Cease 1st Amendment Rights!

"A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) has been threatened with disciplinary action for her efforts...administrators banned her informational pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies of them, and told her that further "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated."

So now exercising a perfectly legal right is considered misconduct. Handing out information on a college campus to those that voluntarily take said pamphlets is considered "academic misconduct". I always considered "academic misconduct" plagiarizing, cheating, breaking into professors offices to steal tests, etc...

"In April, CCAC student Christine Brashier created pamphlets to distribute to her classmates encouraging them to join her in forming a chapter of the national Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) organization at CCAC.

Brashier reports that she was also interrogated about why she was distributing the pamphlets, whether she owned a licensed firearm and had ever brought it to campus (she has not), whether she carries a concealed firearm off campus, and whether she disagrees with the existing college policy banning concealed weapons on campus." [link]

Rather reminiscent of Joseph Goebbels censorship in Nazi Germany isn't it? To think that our institutions of higher learning would chastise a student for doing on their own and learning first hand about organizations and how to run one is unthinkable, on the other hand I wonder how they would handle someone handing out ACORN pamphlets?

Misplaced Lies of the MSM Regarding Guns in Mexico

Geez...what a title for a post, anyway, had to get the point across, and on to today's Gun Rights Examiner Column!.

I Plan on Some Flack From This

By now many of you that keep up with my blog probably know about the passage of the concealed carry in national parks having been re instituted. What will probably surprise nearly all of you is that I was against this legislation!

Now before the flame wars start let me explain. First off this legislation was added as an amendment to another bill before congress. I have always thought that this was unethical and underhanded (even when it comes to the 2nd Amendment). Secondly the original bill was a bill that imposes restrictions on credit card companies. I believe this to be un-Constitutional. Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution forbids states from impairing obligations to contracts. However a pretty good argument could be made against the Federal government via the 14th Amendment and the due process clause.

Also notice that republicans (not true conservatives) in order to stand up for gun rights had to go against their own free market rhetoric (restricting credit card companies, a for profit business and industry). Granted nearly all of the credit card companies use aggressive tactics all of these changes in an individuals credit card fees are listed in the contract when they sign up for one, it is ones own responsibility to read the fine print.

Isn't it funny to watch republicans line up to vote for firearms at the expense of fiscal responsibility? Weren't they always the party that wanted the government to keep their hands off of what someone did financially?

Don't get me wrong, I am glad that concealed carry of firearms is "legal" but it should never have been illegal due to the 2nd Amendment.

What Happens When You Meet Violence Head On!

"I just leaned forward and punched him in the forehead with my gun," she said. The man "screamed like a girl and almost dropped his gun" as he ran away, she added." [link]

I don't know her, but she is a wonderful person, and someone I would love to meet. I can just picture him running away. I bet he either left a wet or smelly trail or a combination!

They Will Never Get It

"...The City of Chicago had suffered nearly twice as many fatalities as all American soldiers in Iraq over the same period...the City tallied over 500 homicides, 80 percent of which were caused by gunshot wounds. In total, the social costs of gun violence in Chicago are estimated at $2.5 billion. Despite the devastating impact on local communities, federal gun control has essentially been taken off the table as a valid issue due to concerns of its unpopularity in elections. To reinstate such an important and consequential dialogue, Democrats must re-frame gun control as a pro-security measure." [link]

I don't happen to see any mention anywhere in the article that gun ownership in Chicago is for all intents and purposes illegal. So wouldn't logic dictate that making something that is already illegal in an area illegal again have no effect, or would the double emphasis on being illegal make all the difference?

Also notice the strategy that has been put forth, that of "re-framing" the issue. I posted yesterday about the mastery of the left in using language as a means of winning support. They change the focus but everything else remains the same. This is a tactic that has worked for them in many areas and one that liberty and freedom minded people need to be more aware of if we wish to stop the encroachment of our liberties.

Dangerous Legislation: Goodbye Due Process

"A new gun law being considered in Congress, if aligned with Department of Homeland Security memos labeling everyday Americans as potential “threats,” could potentially deny firearms to pro-lifers, gun-rights advocates, tax protesters, animal rights activists, and a host of others – any already on the expansive DHS watch list for potential “extremism.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159...permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any “known or suspected dangerous terrorist.” The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is “appropriately suspected”...

Gun rights advocates, however, object to the bill’s language, arguing that it enables the federal government to suspend a person’s Second Amendment rights without any trial or legal proof and only upon suspicion of being “dangerous.” [link]

This should scare the pants off anyone. Just imagine the government being allowed to curtail rights based on legislation that is based on loose interpretations. I am all for not letting known terrorist own weapons, the question needs to be asked though, if they are a known terrorist what are they doing running around free?

When you try to pass legislation based on fear you get..."The Patriot Act" (anything but), the massive "porkulus" bill, the bailout (can you say bankruptcy for 2 of the Big 3). These actions make no sense to start with, but start talking doom and gloom and straight to the presidents desk for the signature.

More Spin From the Violence Policy Center

"The Violence Policy Center says each of the states with a high death rate has lax gun laws and higher gun ownership rates. The report defined states with "weak" gun laws as those that add little or nothing to federal restrictions and have permissive laws allowing civilians to carry concealed handguns." [link]

So I am assuming by this logic, that Washington DC should have virtually no gun related deaths? Right... [go here]. I wouldn't trust the VPC as far as I could throw them.

How then would they rank Vermont where any law abiding citizen may carry concealed without a permit, training, etc...they actually rated Vermont in their 1996 study 38th with only 5 homicides which correlates to a rate of .89 per 100,000 for that state in 1996.

They also fail to mention that the national average has dropped even thought more states have adopted concealed carry laws and relaxed federal firearm laws. In fact according to the article national gun related deaths are 10.3 per 100,000, while in 1996 according to a VPC report they were 12.94 per 100,000. How do they account for this? [source]

Powered by ScribeFire.

Excellent News

"Guns purchased legally in the United States this year could outfit two armies – and not just any armies, the armies of China and India, according to new government reports cited by a website for sport-shooting enthusiasts.

You also bought 1,529,635,000 rounds of ammunition in just the month of December. Yeah, that is right, that is billion with a 'b.' This number takes no account of reloading or reloaded ammunition," the report said. " [link]

Very excellent news. In other words, to those of you that wish to limit the rights of law abiding gun owners I make this personal challenge to you and those like you: "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!"

This also means that Threepers are armed to the teeth or there are a lot more of us than people suspect!

Good News, to an Extent

"For the first time in a Pew Research survey, nearly as many people believe it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns (45%) than to control gun ownership (49%). As recently as a year ago, 58% said it was more important to control gun ownership while 37% said it was more important to protect the right to own guns." [link]

Well, things are moving in the right direction. But what people need to realize is that it would not matter if it were 3% for protecting gun rights (and we Threepers know who we are), we live in what is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy (despite what the media, the left, and public education "teaches"). Which means mob rule cannot take away the rights of others by force, legislation, fraud, etc... And this goes for all rights, all the time, regardless. I personally detest what some people say, write, promote, etc... but that is their right to do so, and if anyone tried to take that right from them I would stand up for it just as staunchly as I would for the 2nd Amendment.

I have posted before that Liberty is a bitter pill even for those of us that promote it to the utmost of our ability.

Some Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

In studying the 2^nd Amendment and the history behind it, I as a pro-gun advocate have noticed several things, most of these have already been expounded upon in detail by other’s that support gun rights. I will merely mention them here as a background for this piece. The first one being that the people of the 2^nd Amendment are the same people as are referred to under the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 9^th, and 10^th Amendments. Each of these other amendments have been upheld by courts to apply to individual citizens. That means the 2^nd Amendment is not solely for the arming of an army and/or National Guard force(s).

Secondly the Constitution was written in plain English (for the day) and would have been meant to have been easily understood by the vast majority of colonists to whom it would have applied. In fact the Constitution was not only circulated to large cities, but also to smaller hamlets/towns/settlements so that the colonists could read (or have it read) and discuss whether to approve it or not. Let us also not forget that at this point and time a sizeable portion of the population had at least one firearm in their homes to supply food, and aid in the town/settlements defense (remember, Indian attacks were very common at this time). Hunting at this time was not a “sport”, but rather a way of survival for a large part of the population.

From here you should have gotten the general idea, but I have one other point that is very rarely mentioned, or even brought up. We have all heard by now about the militia of the day and how each and every able bodied man was expected to take parts in the routine drills/exercises enough to be familiar with how a group of men fought as a group (at least in the military philosophies of the day). Each man was expected to provide his own weapon, but if he could not then one would be supplied for him.

Here is where things start to get interesting. What type of weapon do you think those that could supply their own brought along, a smooth-bore musket or a rifle? The vast majority showed up to these exercises with rifles, because the smooth-bore musket was not practical for everyday colonial life. The smooth-bore was the choice of the military because with large amounts of troops it was easier to reload and fire volleys than was the rifle. However, it was severely inaccurate as compared to the rifle. Hence a case could be made that the rifle in a way was far superior to the smooth-bore that was in common military usage. Therefore the founders by their wording of the 2^nd Amendment intended for the people to be able to arm themselves with firearms superior to those of the modern military, at least as far as accuracy is concerned.

One Hurdle Overcome in Wisconsin

"Madison gun owner Auric Gold said he often carries a handgun in a holster while walking in his east side neighborhood, a right that attorney general J.B. Van Hollen affirmed in a memorandum to prosecutors on Monday."

"To me it's a very different issue whether you're walking down Wisconsin Avenue in Milwaukee with a gun on your hip and . . . if you're carrying a hunting rifle through a town during hunting season," Doyle said.." [link]

You are so correct Heir Doyle a hunting rifle during hunting season is a tool to harvest game. A gun on your hip in Milwaukee is a tool to protect your life and the lives of your family. I can see which one would hold the most importance for you. Oh, but I am sure you have an armed security detail with you don't you?

Excellent news here. Wisconsin is one of only two states (Illinois being the other) that do not allow concealed carry. Good to see that at least those that wish to protect themselves at least have an option now. Could be better, but you take what you can get, when you can get it. Just keep up the fight and keep pushing for concealed carry in Wisconsin.

Maybe If We Tell The Same Lie Often Enough...

"Mexican President Felipe Calderon on Wednesday made an assertion -- cited in the past by Mexico's U.S. ambassador and even by U.S. leaders, but debunked as a myth -- that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S." [link]

How often will this evident lie continue to be promulgated as fact! Evidently they are working on the assertion that if you quote the exact same lie often enough over time, people will start to believe it. So what needs to be done, is to counteract this lie every time we see it with the truth to set the record straight. When those that continue to attempt to spread this lie start looking like the complete fools that we know they are then part of our job will be complete.

Support For Gun Control at All Time Low

Not exactly the numbers I would like to see, but at least the trend is heading downward. Go to the link and see the rest of the report. [link]

Skip That Doctors Appointment, Buy a Gun Instead

"We have 32 people being murdered by guns every day in this country," said Michael Wolkowitz, a board member of the Brady Center, which lobbies for tighter gun restrictions. "If peanut butter or pistachio nuts or spinach killed that number of people once in one day, they'd be pulled by the [Food and Drug Administration]." [link]

Ok, Mr. Wolkowitz, let's look at your "logic" in two parts. Part I: If there are 32 murders a day that comes to the unfortunate total of 11,680 people a year murdered by guns in the United States. Unfortunately murderers are criminals and by definition criminals will not follow the laws. They will find a way around any and all gun control regulations, as they do already. So that statistic is irrelevant.

Let's look at the the second part of your statement. Part II: I am assuming that by using the word "pulled" you mean banned, regulated, restricted, etc...such as you would like to see with firearms. Well we can look at other things that cause more than 11680 deaths per year in the United States and see how hard they are to come by.

Wait a minute, how about if I can show you something that is responsible for roughly 225,000 deaths per year, but when I pick up my phone book is far more prevalent than gun stores, firearms, or sporting goods in the yellow pages. How about physicians! Yes believe it or not physicians and the health care establishment as a whole are the third leading leading cause of death in the United States behind cancer and heart disease. [source]

Yet I can go see a doctor anytime I want to. How come they are still allowed to practice? Why aren't they being "pulled" by a government agency? Go spread your lies and your untruths elsewhere.

As for me, I have a cough and a sniffle, but for some reason I think I will head to the range now instead of the doctor...

More on Canadian Gun Control

The other day I wrote a post about Canada looking at ending their long gun registry. We now have some more news from our neighbors to the north...

"It should be a no-brainer.

The registry of long guns in Canada, that has cost the country over $2 billion with little or no effect on shootings, accidental or otherwise, should never have been implemented.

Why no federal government (until now) has moved to disband the whole thing stands as testimony to the hesitancy if not cowardice of politicians... Of all homicides, 2.3% have been committed with registered guns. Hand guns are the weapon of choice for criminals. And they've been registered in Canada since 1934, with legal ownership further restricted since 1968. Yet the percentage of their use in crimes hasn't varied much over the years." [link]

Looks like gun control hasn't worked up there. Seems the only thing it might do is prevent law abiding people from protecting themselves, and their loved ones.

Then What is the Purpose?

"Owners of more than 5,000 firearms previously unknown to NSW police have come forward during the first month of the state government's gun amnesty.

Police Minister Tony Kelly says 796 firearms have been surrendered in the first month of the amnesty...

However, Mr Kelly doesn't expect anyone involved in crime to be among those coming forward to surrender or register guns during the three-month amnesty.

"I'd expect none, if any, have come from hardened criminals," he said." [link]

At least he will openly admit that the intent here is not to get the guns out of criminal hands. Now the question needs to be asked, if the purpose is not to remove weapons from criminals, then what is your purpose? The only answer here is control pure and simple. Because we say so, you must obey. Besides, if you can't fight back you have to follow whatever orders the man in the uniform with the gun tells you.

Pittsburgh Shootings

"Three Pittsburgh police officers killed by gun-loving maniac; afraid Obama would limit gun rights...

A gun-loving lunatic who was afraid President Obama would ban firearms killed three Pittsburgh cops Saturday in a blizzard of bullets, police and witnesses said."

"The implications here are clear: gun owners, and those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms are maniacs and lunatics, all to be judged based on the actions that took place here.

This story is still developing. You can click here for updates." [link]

Does anyone not need to start asking the question, what is causing this rampage of shootings? Were there this many acts of massive violence when Bush was in office? Let me make it clear very quick, that I am in no way supporting Bush's presidency, he was just one in a long line of Constitution Shredders. However he was a bit more friendly to gun owners than Clinton was.

Dare I mention that it is possible that there might be something to furthering the gun-grabbers agenda involved in all of these sudden acts of violence. Maybe we should do well to remember the words of Obama's chief of staff: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," --Rahm Emanuel.