Category Archives: 2nd Amendment
Gun background checks won’t really deter psycho criminals from getting guns. Universal background checks could lead to a national gun registry. Bad idea all around. Libertarians, especially, shouldn’t support background checks.
Early Sunday morning, April 7, in Lumberton, Texas three robbers kidnapped and robbed one woman, but when they moved on to rob two more women they were met with an unexpected surprise. According to a report by 12 News Now, one of the would-be victims brought their robbing spree to a halt when she shot one of them.
The three robbers, identified as 21-year-old Scott Willis, Jr., 21-year-old Malik Washington, and 21-year-old Ariel Malveaux, all of Beaumont, have apparently been targeting women as victims of robberies since last month.
In the first robbery which happened on Sunday morning, the three abducted a woman at gunpoint, and forced her to drive to an ATM to withdraw cash. There has also been an unconfirmed report that she was sexually assaulted.
In the second robbery attempt, the three approached two women and demanded money. One of the women was able to retrieve her handgun and shot Willis in the abdomen, reportedly puncturing his liver.
- GUNS: Defensive use of a gun gets near ZERO coverage (reinkefaceslife.com)
- TX Woman Shoots Serial Robber Who Was Abducting Women & Robbing Them (secretsofthefed.com)
- Armed Robbery Spree Halted , Robber Shot … Thanks To A Gun (youviewed.com)
POMPANO BEACH (CBS4) – Ammunition sellers and manufacturers say there’s been a run on bullets and they can’t keep their shelves stocked.
Jeff Dillard who runs National Armory in Pompano says it’s the worst he’s ever seen.
“I have never seen ammo so impossible to get,” said Dillard.
He said demand for ammunition has been growing and spiked over the past couple of days.
“Because of the terrorist attacks and the gun control legislation people are getting in more of a panic situation,” Dillard said.
When he can get bullets, Dillard says, they’re expensive.
“We paid five times the price we would normally pay,” he said, adding that it isn’t just ammunition running low, he can’t even get the parts to make bullets. “All our vendors are telling us not only are they out of stock but some are two to three million bullet-heads in back-order. They won’t even take our orders because they don’t know when they’ll be able to fill them.”
Ammunition manufacturer Andy Delatorre says can hardly keep up with ammunition orders, but the shortage on parts has hurt his business so much he had to lay off four people last month.
“We have had to shut down 50 percent of manufacturing process. People are out on street without jobs right now. We just can’t find enough raw material,” he said.
Ammunition manufacturers and sellers say they see no end in sight to the demand for bullets. “A lot of the distributors and suppliers are telling us it could be 2-3 months before we can get an ample supply of ammo and all that’s going to do is to drive up the prices,” said Dillard.
Law Enforcement Stands With NRA and America’s Gun Owners
Back in February, several gun manufacturers decided to boycott law enforcement in states that are hostile to the Second Amendment, states like New York for instance. They would not be providing weapons or ammunition. Within a week that number had grown by over 700%. In the first article I provided information for several gun manufacturers that could be contacted to come on board with this boycott, including Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson and Remington. Well, now we know where Remington stands. They stand on the side of government as they have let it be known that they will be staying in New York and they have now acquired a government contract worth $80 million.
Remington informed New York state lawmakers that they were planning to spend $20 million to upgrade their manufacturing facility in Mohawk Valley. The word was that they were considering moving if New York implemented stricter gun control laws as they have in the NY SAFE Act. Remington had been approached by several states to move.
Lawmakers spoke with Remington about their expansion. The company has received $5.5 million in state incentives over the past five years.
In this segment of his Virtual State of the Union, the Virtual President talks about why politicians want to talk about gun control rather than crime control, and delivers the factual evidence and historical truths that make the case for the Second Amendment self-evident.
Alaska House Passes 2nd Amendment Preservation Act, 31-5
Today, February 25th, Alaska’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, HB69, has passed the State House and will now move on to the Senate for concurrence.
On the 20th of February, HB69 was read during the House Judicial Committee meeting where it was then scheduled for a hearing that was held today. During that hearing meeting, the bill was read for a second reading where the committee unanimously consented to the bills adoption. It was then considered by the full house. The vote was 31-5.
HB69 states, in part: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is possessed in this state or manufactured commercially or privately in this state and that remains in the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce as those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.” [emphasis added]
The bill continues, “The authority of the United States Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include authority to regulate firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition possessed in this state or made in this state from those materials. Firearm accessories that are imported into this state from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in this state.”
Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws?
As sheriffs around the country get more and more media attention for making statements that they will not comply with or enforce federal gun control schemes, the Montana State house – and a number of others – is taking things a step further.
House Bill 302 was introduced last month by State Representative Krayton Kerns. If passed, it would be another line of defense for the right to keep and bear arms in the State of Montana. Instead of Montana residents having to rely on the goodness, courage, and constitutional understanding of their own local Sheriff – HB302 would make it state law that no state agent, agency or peace officer working in the state of Montana would be allowed to enforce such violations of the 2nd Amendment.
The bill states, in part:
A peace officer, state employee, or employee of any political subdivision is prohibited from enforcing, assisting in the enforcement of, or otherwise cooperating in the enforcement of a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines and is also prohibited from participating in any federal enforcement action implementing a federal ban on semiautomatic weapons or large magazines.
In Wyoming, recently, the state house passed a similar law prohibiting such federal bans. That bill also included criminal charges for federal agents who attempt to enforce the ban. Both bills play a big part in nullifying unconstitutional federal acts regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions?
The Kentucky state Senate on Monday overwhelmingly passed a nullification bill (SB129) that would prohibit Kentucky from enforcing new federal gun control laws if they’re enacted.
What opponents are missing, however, is the fact that the federal government itself acknowledges that it has NO constitutional authority to force a state to enforce its laws. It often resorts to funding “bribes” to encourage compliance, but it cannot force it. This was upheld by the supreme court multiple times – most notably in the 1997 Printz case and in last Summer’s Obamacare ruling.
The is ZERO serious discussion that the federal government can require the state of Kentucky – or any other state – to enforce its laws.
Sen. Jared Carpenter, a Berea Republican, sponsored the bill. He said the Supremacy Clause applies only if Congress is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, which he said wouldn’t apply to stricter gun measures.
“If I thought the bill would be symbolic, I would’ve written a resolution,” Carpenter told the Associated Press. “I thought it needed more than that.”
The one-page bill deems unenforceable federal bans on gun ownership and registration. It specifically mentions semiautomatic firearms and their magazines.
The bill applies to federal laws as well as federal rules, regulations and orders.
Track all nullification legislation here:
- Will Kentucky Nullify New Federal Gun Restrictions? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Will Montana Nullify Federal Gun Laws? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Two Bills Would Nullify Federal Gun Laws and Regulations in Idaho (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Wyoming lawmakers propose bill to nullify new federal gun laws (godgutsandoldglory.wordpress.com)
- All Federal Gun Laws Are Unconstitutional (realnewsworldwide.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (secretsofthefed.com)
- 3 More States Propose Bills to Resist Federal Gun Control (activistpost.com)
Well everybody, wave goodbye to your 4th amendment right . . . buh bye!
The supreme court has decided a dog is the only thing standing between you and the (now defunct) 4th amendment of the (now defunct) constitution that used to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Now if a cop wants to search your car or your person, all s/he needs is a dog and to utter the magic words “My dog alerted.” That’s it. A dog is all the probable cause the law needs to search you and your person.
What’s next? Deciding guilt or innocence using a magic 8 ball?
The supreme court made this decision despite some drug-sniffing dogs being proven wrong more than half the time, no mandate that police be required to video record the dog encounter and any doggy indications of a “hit” or “alert” and the police not being required to track the historic accuracy of their dogs.
The dog that ratted you out may have been wrong 75% of the time in past encounters, but that doesn’t matter because, as (in)justice kagan so brilliantly put it, “the dog may not have made a mistake at all,” instead it “may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate.”
See? Dogs aren’t wrong, us humans just can’t corroborate their unerring accuracy.
So a dog is called, you get searched and/or arrested and you don’t have any way to cross-examine a dog or check the dog’s record of hits and misses or even review a video recording of your encounter with the dog. It’s just your word against a dog and a cop.
Your 4th amendment rights have just gone to the dogs, literally. Good doggy. Shi**y supreme court. We are f**ked.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “a court can presume” an alert by a drug-sniffing dog provides probable cause for a search “if a bona fide organization has certified a dog after testing his reliability in a controlled setting” or “if the dog has recently and successfully completed a training program that evaluated his proficiency in locating drugs.” The justices overturned a 2011 decision in which the Florida Supreme Court said police must do more than assert that a dog has been properly trained. They deemed that court’s evidentiary requirements too “rigid” for the “totality of the circumstances” test used to determine when a search is constitutional. In particular, the Court said it was not appropriate to demand evidence of a dog’s performance in the field, as opposed to its performance on tests by police. While the Court’s decision in Florida v. Harris leaves open the possibility that defense attorneys can contest the adequacy of a dog’s training or testing and present evidence that the animal is prone to false alerts, this ruling will encourage judges to accept self-interested proclamations about a canine’s capabilities, reinforcing the use of dogs to transform hunches into probable cause.
Myth #1: Field performance is a misleading indicator of a dog’s reliability. When a dog alerts and no drugs are found (as happened twice in this case), “the dog may not have made a mistake at all,” Kagan says. Instead it “may have detected substances that were too well hidden or present in quantities too small for the officer to locate,” she suggests. “Or the dog may have smelled the residual odor of drugs previously in the vehicle or on the driver’s person.” This is a very convenient, completely unfalsifiable excuse for police and prosecutors. But probable cause is supposed to hinge on whether there is a “fair probability” that a search will discover evidence of a crime, and the possibility that dogs will react to traces of drugs that are no longer present makes them less reliable for that purpose.
Myth #2: Police department testing is the gold standard by which a dog’s reliability should be judged. Kagan says the uncertainties of the real world “do not taint records of a dog’s performance in standard training and certification settings,” because “the designers of an assessment know where drugs are hidden and where they are not.” That is precisely the problem when the designers are the dog trainers, as is usually the case, because they may deliberately or subconsciously indicate the locations of the drugs. Lawrence Myers, a veterinarian and neurophysiologist at Auburn University who is an expert on dogs’ olfactory capabilities, observes: “Typically if a cop says, ‘I train the dog every week,’ he’s hiding things and then going around and finding the things he’s hidden. Putting something out, you as the handler, then taking the dog through, you are going to seriously skew the training; you’re going to cue. You can’t help it; you know exactly where the damned thing is.”
- SCOTUS Approves Search Warrants Issued by Dogs (reason.com)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (sacbee.com)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (miamiherald.com)
- Supreme Court Rules On Police Dog Sniffs (huffingtonpost.com)
- Opinion recap: Trust the police dog (scotusblog.com)
- Supreme Court Says Drug-Dog Alerts are ‘Up to Snuff’ (wired.com)
- Every drug dog has his day – in court; even Supreme Court (sacbee.com)
- Supreme Court Won’t Raise Standards For Drug-Sniffing Dogs (thinkprogress.org)
- Court says police don’t have to prove dog training (seattletimes.com)
They always say, they will never take your guns away..
Forget police drones flying over your house. How about police coming inside, once a year, to have a look around?
As Orwellian as that sounds, it isn’t hypothetical. The notion of police home inspections was introduced in a bill last week in Olympia.
That it’s part of one of the major gun-control efforts pains me. It seemed in recent weeks lawmakers might be headed toward some common-sense regulation of gun sales. But then last week they went too far. By mistake, they claim. But still too far.
“They always say, we’ll never go house to house to take your guns away. But then you see this, and you have to wonder.”
That’s no gun-rights absolutist talking, but Lance Palmer, a Seattle trial lawyer and self-described liberal who brought the troubling Senate Bill 5737 to my attention. It’s the long-awaited assault-weapons ban, introduced last week by three Seattle Democrats.
Responding to the Newtown school massacre, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic weapons that use detachable ammunition magazines. Clips that contain more than 10 rounds would be illegal.
But then, with respect to the thousands of weapons like that already owned by Washington residents, the bill says this:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
In other words, come into homes without a warrant to poke around. Failure to comply could get you up to a year in jail.
“I’m a liberal Democrat — I’ve voted for only one Republican in my life,” Palmer told me. “But now I understand why my right-wing opponents worry about having to fight a government takeover.”
He added: “It’s exactly this sort of thing that drives people into the arms of the NRA.”
I have been blasting the NRA for its paranoia in the gun-control debate. But Palmer is right — you can’t fully blame them, when cops going door-to-door shows up in legislation.
I spoke to two of the sponsors. One, Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, a lawyer who typically is hyper-attuned to civil-liberties issues, said he did not know the bill authorized police searches because he had not read it closely before signing on.
“I made a mistake,” Kline said. “I frankly should have vetted this more closely.”
That lawmakers sponsor bills they haven’t read is common. Still, it’s disappointing on one of this political magnitude. Not counting a long table, it’s only an eight-page bill.
The prime sponsor, Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, also condemned the search provision in his own bill, after I asked him about it. He said Palmer is right that it’s probably unconstitutional.
“I have to admit that shouldn’t be in there,” Murray said.
He said he came to realize that an assault-weapons ban has little chance of passing this year anyway. So he put in this bill more as “a general statement, as a guiding light of where we need to go.” Without sweating all the details.
Later, a Senate Democratic spokesman blamed unnamed staff and said a new bill will be introduced.
Murray had alluded at a gun-control rally in January that progress on guns could take years.
“We will only win if we reach out and continue to change the hearts and minds of Washingtonians,” Murray said. “We can attack them, or start a dialogue.”
Good plan, very bad start. What’s worse, the case for the perfectly reasonable gun-control bills in Olympia just got tougher.
via Washington Times
President Obama hit the road Monday on a nationwide gun-grabbing tour. His show doesn’t have many fans inside the Beltway, since being seen favoring gun control can be the kiss of death for senators with rural constituencies. So Mr. Obama is trying to shore up fence-sitting members by bringing his community organizing skills to their districts.
His first stop was Minnesota. “I need everybody who’s listening to keep the pressure on your member of Congress to do the right thing,” said Mr. Obama, surrounded by uniformed officers at the Minneapolis Police Department Special Operations Center.
“Ask them if they support common-sense reforms like requiring universal background checks or restoring the ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Mr. Obama added, “Tell them now is the time for action, that we’re not going to wait until the next Newtown or the next Aurora.”
An extensive 2002 study by the Centers for Disease Control examined firearms laws from all across the country and concluded none were effective in thwarting violent criminals. Such facts can’t always stand up to the effect an all-out White House campaign can have on public opinion. A Pew Research Center Poll released Thursday shows that support for the “assault weapons” ban reached 55 percent. Two years ago, a Gallup poll put support for the ban at only 43 percent.
Liberal governors are harnessing the public’s fears and sense of helplessness over rare mass shootings to rush through new gun control laws.
MORE . . .
Something about a hot woman having fun with some high powered firearms!!!
MSNBC Caugh Editing Video Out Of Context (again!)
via Doubtful News
Even though this was cleared up, the damage was done.
After finding itself embroiled in another controversy about edited video, NBC News has re-aired a clip its critics say was selectively edited.
On Monday, MSNBC’s Martin Bashir aired a video that seemed to show grief-stricken Neil Heslin being heckled by pro-gun lobbyists as he talked about his 6-year-old son, who was killed in Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. While making a plea for gun control at a legislative hearing, Heslin at one point he turned to the audience and said: “I ask if there’s anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.”
When the audience remains silent, Heslin adds, “Not one person can answer that question.” And that’s when a few people recited the Second Amendment in response.
The video that host Martin Bashir aired, though, clipped out Heslin’s question and pause in the audience’s direction. The resulting edit made it look like boisterous audience members interrupted Heslin’s testimony.
Here is the video:
MORE . . .
- MSNBC pummeled for Sandy Hook video editing controversy (doubtfulnews.com)
- MSNBC Will Not Apologize for Deceptive Editing of Sandy Hook Parent ‘Heckling’ (breitbart.com)
- Did The Media Blatantly Mischaracterize Video Of Newtown Father Being ‘Heckled’ By ‘Gun Nuts’? (mediaite.com)
- After Twitchy’s report, MSNBC is reportedly ‘reviewing’ video of Newtown dad’s testimony (twitchy.com)
- Outrageous: How the left-wing media lied about Newtown ‘hecklers’ (twitchy.com)