As if there were any doubt…

Take that FactCheck! He’s no longer even trying to hide it.

From Barack Obama’s own website:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

(h/t Armed Canadian)

Share/Save

Here we go again!

Apparently Washington D.C. has a reading comprehension problem.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

DC Rejects Handgun Application

WASHINGTON (WUSA) — District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Besides obtaining paperwork to buy new handguns, residents also can register firearms they’ve had illegally under a 180-day amnesty period.

Though residents will be allowed to begin applying for handgun permits, city officials have said the entire process could take weeks or months.

Share/Save

Meet the new boss…

…same as the old boss!

Apparently the D.C. City Council and Mayor Fenty just can’t help themselves when it comes to their gun ban. Didn’t these fools learn anything from their SCOTUS smack down?

I smell a lawsuit coming…

The gun bill establishes regulations for residents to keep handguns in their homes legally to comply with last month’s historic Supreme Court decision that found the city’s 32-year prohibition of handguns unconstitutional.

City leaders say the legislation goes as far as it can on gun regulations while respecting the high court’s ruling. Weapons must be unloaded, disassembled or trigger-locked, except when there is a “threat of immediate harm to a person” in the home.

The legislation also requires that guns remain inside homes. It requires eye and written exams for gun owners, and ballistics tests conducted by police.

Opponents of the gun ban say the new legislation and the city’s continued prohibition of semiautomatic weapons are not in accordance with the high court’s decision. Fenty (D) and council members, presenting a unified front on the gun ban, say they are prepared for lawsuits.

Council member Phil Mendelson (D-At Large), chairman of the Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary and one of the mayor’s most vocal critics, said he and the administration collaborated on the legislation.

“I want to commend my partners on the Council for their swift, sensible action on our gun laws today,” Fenty said in a statement yesterday in which he singled out Mendelson’s leadership. “None of us wanted this bill to be necessary. But I think we have struck the right balance between honoring the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and protecting the safety of our residents.”

Share/Save

Barr Posters

Here are a couple of entries in David Codrea’s Bob Barr poster contest. Click them to bigify.

Share/Save

Plaintiff in San Francisco Gun Lawsuit is Gay

In an interesting, and I think appropriate move, the man at the center of the new lawsuit targeting San Francisco’s gun ban law is gay. As a group, this minority is beset by violence from without and definitely need a means to protect themselves. It’s not an orientation issue, it’s a human rights issue. I wonder how the left is going to react to this one?

SAN FRANCISCO — Using the new judicial muscle provided by the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the right to bear arms, the National Rifle Association and another pro-gun group sued San Francisco and its housing authority on Friday to invalidate a ban on handguns in public housing. The lawsuit said the ban violated the Second Amendment and “renders responsible, law-abiding adult public housing residents especially vulnerable.”

…

In an interesting turn in a city known for its embrace of gay rights, the chief plaintiff in the suit against the city is a gay man living in a public housing development, owned by the federal government, who wants to have a gun to protect himself from potential hate crimes.

…

A city of about 725,000, San Francisco has 12,000 residents living in public housing, all of whom are required to sign a lease that forbids a broad variety of weapons, including pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, automatic rifles, BB guns, as well as nunchucks, brass knuckles and stun guns. This blanket ban was begun in 2006, and the penalty for violation of the lease is eviction.

In the case filed on Friday, an anonymous gay man said that stipulation had deprived him of “any effective means of self-defense.”

The story goes on the describe the horrors of living in the “gun plagued” projects. They quote a guy who says it’s not hard to get a gun there. If so, it makes me wonder why they haven’t been evicted if this is the case.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Share/Save

More Idiocy from Seattle

Share/Save

More on the Seattle ban

Here is a transcript of the press conference. Below is a section of the questions and answers from after the conference. There’s more, but I thought these were most pertinent. I understand the video of the press conference will be available soon, and I’ll post it when it does. One thing about Washington state law concerning firearms you should understand. Besides the legally restricted areas like courthouses and the like, you can carry a gun anywhere, even the state capitol. “No Guns” signs mean nothing unless you are discovered, and when asked to leave you refuse. You can be charged with trespassing at that point. Because of state preemption, Mayor Nickels has absolutely NO RIGHT to restrict guns anywhere state law does not. I forsee a legal challenge in Mayor Nickels future.

Reporter: Do you foresee metal detectors at City Hall or other facilities?
Nickels: “Signage will go up at all of the city facilities initially. They will let people know that they have a responsibility themselves not to bring a weapon into that city facility. And then we will look at different ways that we can effectively enforce this.”

Reporter: Do you have the legal authority to do this? Isn’t this the exclusive purview of state law? All it might take to undermine it is a legal challenge
Nickels: ‘That is a great question. And I certainly would not be surprised if there is a challenge to our authority on this. The state pre-empts all laws relating to firearms. They do not allow us to adopt a law strong than state law.
“But a recent Washington State Supreme Court case recognized that cities could adopt rules that regulate guns on city property. The name of that case is Northwest Shooting Park Associates v. the City of Sequim.
“So we believe we do have the authority to adopt a rule that protects people while they’re using city facilities.”

Kerlikowske: “The concealed firearms statutes in this state, through the RCW (Revised Code of Washington) already precludes carrying firearms at schools, municipal courts, all of the court houses, etc. So it isn’t like this is the only place.
“When you go to a Sonics game and you have a concealed firearm… it’s not your right to stay there if you have that firearm on you. You can then be asked to leave or you can, essentially, leave.
“I wouldn’t quite say that is a constitutional right to carry a gun at every city sponsored event or in many buildings that already exist throughout the state. … “

Nickels: “It is not my goal to infringe on people’s rights to possess firearms. It is my goal to keep people safe when they are using city facilities and when they are going to events that take place in the public realm such as Seattle Center and parks.
“There are three exceptions to that. There are three groups that I think should not be allowed to carry firearms at all. Those are convicted felons. Those are people who are mentally disturbed and might do harm to themselves and others. And those are children.
“And unfortunately, with the lax gun laws that we have in this state, all three of those groups find themselves with easy access to deadly force.”

Reporter: How does your executive order keep those types of people from carrying a gun?
Nickels: “It will keep them from carrying a gun into City Hall, or into Folklife Festival, or some other city event. Why this one individual was able to get a concealed weapons permit, I can not explain how that happened. A person with a serious history of mental illness, and a serious history of drug abuse, it seems to me, ought to, on the face of it, not be able to get a such a permit or buy a weapon.”

So a sign is going to make a criminal not carry a gun into a restricted area? Don’t insult our intelligence Mayor Nickels. It’s not about public safety at all is it, it’s about control and pushing your gun banning agenda, even if it means breaking state law.

Perhaps the Mayor needs a refresher on just how stupid “Gun Free Zones” actually are.

Share/Save

News From Seattle

Share/Save

From Canada’s National Post

The Post editorial board: How did a demagogue like David Miller become the mayor of Canada’s biggest city?

Let’s see if we have this right. Toronto has a problem with young gang members using smuggled handguns to kill one another in rave clubs and warehouses — and in order to fight this trend, mayor David Miller wants to … take away target pistols from Olympic shooters and close down law-abiding gun clubs.

Mr. Miller’s logic is so bizarre, it’s hard to know where to begin to dismantle it. He either completely misunderstands the causes of crime in his city — or, worse, he is cynically redirecting public anger from criminals to law-abiding gun collectors and target shooters. Whichever the case, Torontonians ought to be outraged.

Brandishing a report from city bureaucrats that claims “up to” 40% of gun crimes in Toronto are committed using firearms stolen from their rightful owners — RCMP and Ontario Provincial Police estimates are closer to just 10% — Mr. Miller said shooting sports are a “hobby … that creates danger to others.”

The mayor’s choice of language is telling: He insisted many of the crime guns used in his city “are stolen from so-called legal owners.” But there is nothing “so-called” about the legal status of rightful owners. They are law-abiding Canadians — unless of course you are a spin-doctoring politician out to demonize them.

As usual, the mayor is too timid to take honest action necessary to curb gun crime, namely beefing up police in neighbourhoods where most of the crimes occur. That might get him labelled “insensitive” or even racist, and that would never do. So instead, Mr. Miller has latched onto gun owners as convenient whipping boys, knowing that in our urbanized culture most voters cannot understand the allure of shooting sports.

In short, Mr. Miller is counting on the public’s ignorance about guns to give his useless proposals the look of a real effort to tackle crime. His recommendations, though, will do nothing to prevent murders, shootings and other gang-related violence. Nor will they prevent the influx of illegal handguns from the United States, which are the weapon of choice in almost all violent Canadian gun crimes.

In Britain, after the tragic elementary school shootings at Dunblane, Scotland in 1996, all private handgun ownership was banned and all handguns confiscated. Even England’s Olympic shooters, for a time, were forced to shuttle across the Channel to France for practice. Since then, though, New Scotland Yard and the Home Office estimate that the inventory of illegal handguns in Britain has expanded by 3 million. Gun crime has nearly doubled. And many cities now have more gun crime than comparable U.S. cities. Police refer to Manchester as Gunchester.

And Britain, remember, is an island — and all its neighbours have tough gun-control laws. If even the UK cannot keep guns out despite a universal prohibition, what chance has a single city such a Toronto, whose criminals have easy land access to the United States and its guns?

Municipal gun control is useless. In cities where handguns are banned or severely restricted — Chicago, Washington D.C., London, Tokyo and others — gun crimes remain common. As they do in Toronto, criminals in these cities merely go underground, or to a neighbouring jurisdiction, and buy an illegal weapon. Only in New York, which implemented much more aggressive policing in the early 1990s, has gun crime fallen significantly.

Instead of following New York’s lead, though, Toronto Mayor David Miller is intent on replicating the failure of Britain. In the process, he threatens the enjoyment of reputable gun hobbyists without any chance his ideas will do a thing to stop shootings in Toronto. Can someone please tell us how this ignorant demagogue became the mayor of Canada’s biggest city?

Photo: Tyler Anderson, National Post.

Share/Save

A Modest Proposal

“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.”

-Ephesians 6:12

I was reading the bill known as Brady II and taking note of some of it’s more draconian measures, when the thought came to me. If this is what the anti-rights crowd considers “common sense” and “reasonable” gun control, then there’s no point in debating them. They keep hammering away at us, accusing us of being unreasonable and not caring for the children, etc. There’s no reasoning with this kind of person. Seriously. We could have “reasonable discourse” until the sun explodes and we’d still get nowhere. Some may flinch at my characterization of these kinds of people as evil, but how else would you describe someone bent on depriving you of a god given, constitutionally protected human right?

So, if this is what they consider “reasonable” “common sense” infringement on the second amendment, I thought it’d be interesting to apply their tactics to the first amendment and see what happened. Below is what I came up with. I don’t consider it to be a comprehensive list, but it’s a start. Feel free to add to it in comments if you want.

Make it illegal to sell or give writing implements or supplies without a license and a federally mandated background check. This includes typewriters, word processors, word processing software, paper, pens and pencils. In addition, each writing device or implement shall be registered with the state. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for issuance of a license.

Require members of the media, including television and radio, to be licensed. Each license shall remain valid for a period of two years. Licensing involves a background check, fingerprinting and a photograph. In addition, the potential licensee must be able to demonstrate proficiency in spelling, punctuation and be unbiased. The penalty for lapses in any of these shall be revocation of the license and one year in prison for each “willful” violation. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for these services and the license.

The exercise of “free speech” shall be limited to once per month. Every instance of “free speech” shall require a permit from the states chief law enforcement officer, who has 60 days to approve or deny the permit. This permit must be applied for at least 30 days in advance. The chief law enforcement officer of the state may be authorized to charge a fee for issuance of a permit.

The licensee must report the theft of writing supplies within 24 hours after the theft, or loss is discovered. Failure to report the theft is punishable by a civil penalty of $1,000 or such greater amount as State law may provide.

No person shall have access to writing implements or devices who is under the age of 16. No exceptions. In addition, all such implements and devices shall be stored in a manner where juveniles cannot access them. Failure to do so will result in a $1,000 fine, 1 year imprisonment, or both. “Zero Tolerance” for these offenses will be allowed.

This license or permit shall be revoked upon the occurrence of one or more of the following: any “willful violation” involving spelling, punctuation, bias or attempting to use writing implements in a manner not authorized by the state.

It shall be unlawful for a person to possess more than 20 writing implements or more than 100 reams of paper unless the person is a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer; or has been issued an store/manufacturer license. Such license lasts for three years and costs $300.

I reccomend everyone click on the link above and read for themselves what the anti-rights people think is “reasonable” and “common sense.”

Here’s a sampling of some of what would be banned if they had their way, at least a couple of which are safety and ergonomic features:

“(i) any of the firearms, or types, replicas, or duplicates in any caliber of the firearms known as–“

(I) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat
Kalashnikovs (all models);

“(II) Israeli Military Industries Uzi and Galil;

“(III) Beretta AR-70;

“(IV) Colt AR-15 and Sporter;

“(V) Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

“(VI) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

“(VII) Steyr AUG;

“(VIII) Intratec TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

“(IX) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (but not limited to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

“(ii) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(II) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(III) a bayonet mount;

“(IV) a flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle; and

“(V) a grenade launcher;

“(iii) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

“(II) a barrel having a threaded muzzle;

“(III) a shroud that is attached to or partially or completely
encircles the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm
with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

“(IV) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol
is unloaded; and

“(V) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

“(iv) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of the following:

“(I) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(II) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(III) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

“(IV) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”

More reading here.

Share/Save