As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.
Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter can be downloaded here.
The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.
“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”
At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.
The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.
But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof. Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.
“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.
Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”
Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.
“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”
Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.
A Colorado state representative that survived the Columbine shooting said that arming teachers might be the key to preventing another such tragedy.
Video of Columbine shooters in action.
Rep. Patrick Neville introduced legislation that would eliminate gun free zones within schools, TheHill reported.
State Rep. Patrick Neville, a Republican from Castle Rock, Colo., on Monday introduced gun legislation that would allow teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry firearms in Colorado public schools.
Neville, who graduated from Columbine High School and was there on the day of the shooting in 1999, believes that arming teachers is the best way to protect students.
“This bill will allow honest law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm for protection if they choose to,” Neville said. “But most importantly, it will give them the right to be equipped to defend our children from the most dangerous situations.”
Neville’s bill is a long shot in the Democrat-controlled Colorado House.
Teachers learning to shoot as some states move ahead with plans to arm teachers.
Gun control advocates have long been proponents of gun free zones and say they prevent shootings. Neville strongly disagrees.
Neville said that laws blocking teachers from carrying guns put students in harm’s way and make them “sitting targets for criminals.”
“As was the case in 1999, criminals aren’t deterred by a flashy sign on the door,” Neville said. “The only thing that is going to stop murderers intent on doing harm is to give good people the legal authority to carry a gun to protect themselves and our children.”
“Our teachers and faculty were heroic in so many ways that day,” he continued. “That’s why I truly believe had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends would still be alive today.”
A new Gallup poll indicates that almost two thirds of Americans believe that having a gun at home makes them safer.
The poll finds that 63% of respondents, more than six in ten, say that owning a firearm makes their house a safer place to be.
The figure is double what it was in 2000, when just three in ten said owning a gun made them safer. Interestingly, the same number in the new poll, three in ten, now say they believe having a gun in the house makes it a more dangerous place.
The percentage of those who feel safer has increased steadily and significantly since 2000, and is now a significant majority.
The number is still a majority when measured according to the demographics of gender, race and location. The only majority grouping of Americans who feel less safe with a gun at home are Democrats (53%).
In addition, Americans of all political persuasions have become more disposed over time to the idea that gun ownership makes their home more secure.
Since 2000, 37% more Republicans, 29% more independents, and 13% more Democrats feel this way.
The poll also found that 42% of Americans keep at least one gun in their home.
“The percentage of Americans who say that having a gun in the home makes that household safer has drastically climbed over the past eight years.” Gallup notes, adding that “Americans have become more likely to view guns as a means of self-protection.”
“The increase in the perceived safety value of owning them suggests that guns are taking on more of a protective role than they have in the past.” Gallup concludes, noting that violent crime rates have also fallen in line with the increase in those views.
The latest poll comes in the wake of findings that that support for stricter gun laws has fallen below 50%, close to a historical low.
Appearing on Monday’s NBC Today, ex-CNN host Piers Morgan kept up the anti-gun crusade that caused his ratings to plummet, denouncing his colleagues in the press: “I wish more American media people, American news anchors stood up.
Because so many of them privately to me would say, ‘I love what you’re doing. Keep going, it’s really important.’ But I never heard that on air. And I think there’s a certain moral cowardice in the media in America that needs to be addressed about guns.”
Co-host Matt Lauer began the interview by asking Morgan if he had spent the five months since being fired from CNN in March “thinking about what went wrong.” Morgan argued: “Yeah, I mean, not a lot went wrong from where I sit. I had a fantastic time at CNN.” He explained: “…you had the two big gun massacres in Aurora and Sandy Hook and something inside me just exploded, I guess. And then for the next year, it became a kind of war of attrition on air between me and the NRA and the gun lobbyists and the show changed as a result.”
Lauer followed up: “So this wasn’t – it was about ratings because people started to turn away, but it was because you became an incredibly polarizing figure in this country. Do you have any regrets about that?”
Morgan replied: “I don’t, actually….I couldn’t see, for me, how a great country like America – and it is a great country. Great people. How you could let 20 first graders be shot dead in their classrooms and the reaction would be absolutely nothing? So I don’t regret standing up for trying to affect change.” At the end of the exchange, Lauer suggested a possible comeback for Morgan: “Are you coming back to TV?…Do you want to get back on the air and talk about these things?”
Morgan joked: “Well, I’ve been tapped up for your gig [as Today co-host], obviously.” He then gushed over Lauer: “No one could replace you. You’re the best at what you do in the business and I really believe that.” Responding to the question, Morgan declared: “I would love to be back on American television. It’s great to be back in here….I’m itching to get back in the game.”
Meanwhile, Morgan promoted his latest job as editor-at-large of Mail Online, the website for Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper: “Mail Online is an extraordinary website, I mean it has 60 million visitors a month in America alone. It’s the biggest English-speaking website in the world. If you don’t know it, it’s a bit like you on the Today show. It’s addictive, a little pleasure.”
On his former employer, Morgan professed to Lauer: “I had a great time at CNN. And it’s a great company….A lot of great friends there, wish them all the very best.” However, as recently as Thursday, Morgan blamed Anderson Cooper for not being a good ratings lead-in and in May trashed his predecessor Larry King as a “constant poisonous twerp.”
Here are excerpts of Morgan’s October 6 appearance on Today:
7:40 AM ET
MATT LAUER: We’re back now, 7:40, with Piers Morgan. For three years he hosted his own primetime show on CNN. Now he’s taking on a new adventure as editor-at-large for the news website Mail Online. Piers, welcome back. Good to see you.
PIERS MORGAN: It’s great to be here.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Piers Morgan One-On-One; New Role for British News Personality]
LAUER: It’s been a while. March is when you said good-bye to your viewers on CNN.
MORGAN: I have spent five months with my cricket bat back in England.
LAUER: Have you spent five months thinking about what went wrong?
MORGAN: Yeah, I mean, not a lot went wrong from where I sit. I had a fantastic time at CNN. Amazing news organization. But I went in there to do big interviews with big figures and I did many of those for the first two years. And what then happened was you had the two big gun massacres in Aurora and Sandy Hook and something inside me just exploded, I guess. And then for the next year, it became a kind of war of attrition on air between me and the NRA and the gun lobbyists and the show changed as a result.
LAUER: So this wasn’t – it was about ratings because people started to turn away, but it was because you became an incredibly polarizing figure…
LAUER: …in this country. Do you have any regrets about that?
MORGAN: I don’t, actually. You know, in Britain, we had our own Sandy Hook in the mid ’90s at Dunblane, 16 young children were killed in their classroom. And we banned all guns, assault rifles, assault weapons, handguns, all got banned. And I couldn’t see, for me, how a great country like America – and it is a great country. Great people. How you could let 20 first graders be shot dead in their classrooms and the reaction would be absolutely nothing? So I don’t regret standing up for trying to affect change.
LAUER: It’s interesting you bring this up. So I tweeted on Friday, which I don’t do that often. And I tweeted, “Gonna catch up with Piers Morgan in our studio.” Wow. I mean, the reaction on my Twitter.
MORGAN: I’m sensing praise?
LAUER: There were some people who said “Good, love him. Welcome back.” But then there were people, Piers, who came in there and the anger was palpable in their tweets. And the feeling I got from it was, especially when it was like the gun issue, was how dare this outsider have such a critical eye on the United States. Am I close?
MORGAN: Yes. And I totally respect that. And I understand that having someone – like Jay Leno, a good mutual friend of ours, said to me, “Look, it’s like you’re going to Germany and telling them they can’t speed on the Autobahn. They may know that it’s dangerous but they don’t want to hear that from you and they definitely don’t want to hear it from your accent. And I accepted that having a Brit guy trying to reform gun law in America-
LAUER: Somebody else could have gone on the air and said what you said and gotten away with it or not had the same negative impact?
MORGAN: I wish more American media people, American news anchors stood up. Because so many of them privately to me would say, “I love what you’re doing. Keep going, it’s really important.” But I never heard that on air. And I think there’s a certain moral cowardice in the media in America that needs to be addressed about guns.
LAUER: Are you coming back to TV? I know you’ve got a busy job now. Do you want to get back on the air and talk about these things?
Remember this wonderful moment?
MORGAN: Well, I’ve been tapped up for your gig, obviously.
MORGAN: No one could replace you.
LAUER: Not true.
MORGAN: You’re the best at what you do in the business and I really believe that. I would love to be back on American television. It’s great to be back in here. I did a couple of weeks co-hosting with Hoda, who I know will be watching and missing me. Yeah, I’d love it.
I had a great break to clear my head. I mean, I had a great time at CNN. And it’s a great company run by Jeff Zucker, who used to obviously run the Today show and NBC. A lot of great friends there, wish them all the very best. But yeah, I’m itching to get back in the game.
Mail Online is an extraordinary website, I mean it has 60 million visitors a month in America alone. It’s the biggest English-speaking website in the world. If you don’t know it, it’s a bit like you on the Today show. It’s addictive, a little pleasure.
LAUER: You end with a flourish. Piers Morgan, nice to see.
Colleen Hufford beheaded by recent Muslim convert Alton Nolen
As has been pointed out by a number of conservative commentators on AT and elsewhere, the Left cannot countenance the obvious connection between the Oklahoma killer and the actions of Muslim terrorists in the Middle East. But the Oklahoma murder doesn’t just undermine the Leftist narrative of Muslims as a persecuted minority, rather than as assertive, and sometimes aggressive proselytizers. It also presents a problem on the issue of gun control, as the killer was brought down by a citizen (maybe using a so-called assault weapon) rather than by a small army of SWAT officers. This combination could be the perfect storm for two of the Left’s cherished ideas — that Islam is the “religion of peace,” and gun control.
In general, the media and the Obama administration have downplayed or ignored the Oklahoma case. My own hometown newspaper, the Washington Post, on Sunday September 28, relegated this story to a below the fold digest section on page A2. On the facing page (A3) was a large and sensitive story — complete with large above the fold photo — about Michael Brown’s parents, of Ferguson, Missouri fame. Next to that was a similarly fawning piece on the Clinton’s new granddaughter. The Post’s website on September 29, featured a sympathetic story about the Oklahoma killer’s family, expressing shock that he could have perpetrated the crime.
Obama says Islam is a religion of peace…or is it pieces!!
Meanwhile, the details of Vaughan Foods CEO (or COO in some accounts) Mark Vaughn’s actions in stopping the Oklahoma terror attack remain obscure, at least in part because the mainstream media has not pursued them. What’s known is that Vaughn shot and seriously wounded Alton Nolen with a rifle during the rampage. The only other fact that has been widely disseminated is that Vaughn was also a reserve sheriff’s deputy. Almost any mainstream account of the incident trumpets this detail. While there is no doubt the Vaughn is a reserve deputy, there is also no publicized evidence that at the time of the attack, or during his courageous actions Vaughn was on duty, or acting as anything other than a private citizen. Vaughan Foods was his company. And although Vaughn evidently had recently sold some or all of his interest in the business, he remained on board in a management capacity, and it appears that it was in this capacity — not as a reserve deputy sheriff — that he engaged the terrorist.
There are many terrifying aspects to this episode, including the horrendous way Nolen killed Colleen Hufford and wounded Traci Johnson. But for the Left, another frightening part of the story is the damage a fair reporting of the incident would do to their gun-control agenda. And as the feckless Obama administration blunders through its last years in office, with Islamic terrorists of all varieties encouraged like never before, it is more evident than ever that the Oklahoma attack, rather than an aberration, is part of a long-term trend of organized lone-wolf Islamic terrorism in the United States that dates back several decades. Despite unprecedented security efforts and concomitant infringements on the rights of ordinary law abiding Americans, the attacks keep coming, with greater frequency and unpredictability.
Since 9/11, home-grown Islamic terrorists have struck targets in particularly vulnerable areas. The Beltway snipers preyed mainly on the D.C. suburbs, thick with federal installations and police, but low on armed citizens — particularly in gun-rights hostile Maryland. Nidal Hasan attacked a Fort Hood clinic, where soldiers were prohibited from arming themselves. A wounded Boston Marathon terrorist shut down an entire unarmed city, which effectively surrendered itself to the draconian imposition of martial law, before he was caught. This came only after a homeowner discovered the terrorist after emerging from a government-imposed curfew.
Such lone-wolf Islamic terror attacks are bound to proliferate, aided and abetted by a government and media that refuse to acknowledge reality. As this happens, public pressure to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans will likely recede, especially if further instances of armed citizens acting in their own defense, or in defense of others, accompany the trend.
Several years ago, after a string of similar lone-wolf terror attacks in Israel were frustrated by private citizens, I wrote an article anticipating similar events in the United States. In the Israeli cases, quick thinking off-duty or former soldiers took matters into their own hands, sometimes in the presence of slow-reacting police or security personnel, to put an end to terror attacks. While the United States doesn’t have the same percentage of military veterans as Israel, it still has millions of veterans, and millions of other well-trained and experienced gun owners, target shooters and hunters, who are more than capable, and likely willing, to defend themselves and fellow citizens in the case of a terror attack.
In states like my own (Maryland) where draconian gun laws both restrict the purchase and possession of firearms, several things may happen, none of which will please the Left.
First, terrorists of all stripes will likely prefer to target such states with an increasingly disarmed populace.
Secondly, as such attacks take place, previously indifferent unarmed Americans will wish to arm themselves, only to find government imposed obstacles in their way. For example, Maryland’s recently enacted licensing requirements have already produced a dramatic slowdown in gun sales, and the closing of local gun shops. This no doubt pleases many liberal Maryland politicians. But for ordinary citizens, particularly young people with families who would rather not see loved ones murdered or maimed, the case for an unarmed citizenry should appear weakened.
An armed American citizenry produces a safe America.
Third, judicial and political action against jurisdictions which impose unreasonable restrictions against gun ownership and carry laws might receive increased popular and judicial support. In just the past couple of weeks, the District of Columbia, under court order, was forced to enact legislation permitting some form of self-defense carry for its citizens. Reluctant D.C. politicians relied in part on Maryland’s heavy strictures against concealed carry (which make it virtually impossible to carry a firearm for personal defense) in drafting its new legislation, despite the court’s order. Public and judicial unease about such restrictions in an increasingly dangerous environment won’t help preserve such anti-constitutional legislation.
Message to Islamic terrorists… Hell is your destination and I will be sending you there personally!!
For the Left, such scenarios would be a disaster. So while both the mainstream media and Democrat politicians have done their best to ignore or downplay the terror in Oklahoma, you can count on anti-gun hysterics if a private citizen acts in defense against an Islamic terrorist and either fails to end the threat or makes a mistake. In the bizarre twilight world of Leftist politics, nothing would be better. But that is not what happened in Oklahoma, and so for now the Left will just pretend that what actually happened didn’t.
Early last year, as Americans feared that the federal government would enact unconstitutional anti-gun measures via executive edict, support for the Constitution came from some unlikely places.
Even in Oregon, a Democrat stronghold in elections, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller flat-out declared that he and his office would refuse to enforce any such unconstitutional federal laws or regulations.
Wicomico County, Maryland Sheriff Mike Lewis
“We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”
Mueller later stated,
“We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”
Since then, anti-gun crusaders have slowed down amidst fierce push-back from patriots. Still, patriotic law enforcers are willing to speak out.
Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis, a sheriff in the state of Maryland, recently reminded the citizens of his county that he will not violate the Constitution and warned the federal government that any attempt to disarm Americans will result in an all-out Civil War.
“I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”
Sheriff Lewis is mindful of keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous felons, but also explained, “[W]e do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”
Sheriff Lewis also added a stern warning to the federal government about what will happen if they try to disarm the law-abiding populace:
“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”
It’s encouraging to see that even as federal lawmakers and supposed federal law enforcers forget their duty to preserve liberty on behalf of the American people, rampant tyranny is bound to be checked by local authorities and the will of a fierce American population that is armed and unwilling to acquiesce to tyrants.
In May 2010, Richard Burgess was arrested after walking into a Wallingford, Connecticut pool hall with a Glock 23 on his hip, even though the state of Connecticut does not bar the open carry of firearms.
The charges against him were dropped. Afterward, CT News Junkie reported Burgess filed suit against “the town, five members of the [police] department, and a bail bondsman who was at [the pool hall]… and called the police” on Burgess.
Since then, a Connecticut federal judge dismissed Burgess’s suit, and this month “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit” upheld the dismissal.
The lawyer for the town of Wallingford reacted by expressing his approval of the court’s willingness to support police in making arrests even where no law is broken:
In this day and age people do get worried when they don’t know what someone else’s intentions are… To me it signals that at least in our jurisdiction the courts are willing to support the police who make breach of peach or disorderly conduct arrests when a member of the public becomes alarmed at the sight of another person openly carrying a firearm.
Burgess’ lawyer Rachel Baird does not agree. She said, “Legal conduct cannot be established by what people are alarmed or annoyed by. What you basically have in Connecticut is something that’s legal and not prohibited, but it is prohibited by the courts.”
Americans who don’t believe in gun control are “intimidating” the population, according to presumptive presidential candidate
At her recent book signing in Austin, Texas, Hillary Clinton said that Americans who don’t believe in gun control are “intimidating” the population, in addition to suggesting that the Drudge Report and independent media carry “bad information.”
In her characterization of the Drudge Report as “bad information,” Clinton alluded to the “marketplace of ideas,” in which the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in a public discourse, when she suggested that the alternative media can be countered with establishment spin, which is “truth” in her mind.
“…There’s so much opinion and information out there in the world and the best way to deal with bad information is with good information, right,” she said to Infowars.
Yet when it comes to Americans who don’t believe in gun control, Hillary is not in favor of a marketplace of ideas because, according to her, they are not debating the issue but are rather “intimidating” the population with their beliefs.
“What I meant to say and think I did say, that a minority that believes in absolutely no restrictions is terrorizing the majority,” she stated to Infowars. “I think universal background checks are imminently reasonable under the Constitution and I believe that they should have been passed after the murders at Sandy Hook and now we have many more murders.”
“They can, they can keep talking (inaudible) but they do more than talk; in my opinion they intimidate.”
So if you think that restrictions are infringements, just as the Constitution puts them, then you are “terrorizing” and “intimidating” the population, according to Hillary.
It certainly seems that to her, freedom of speech is great in principle, but when it conflicts with her agenda, it’s terrorizing.
Also, in a bout of hypocrisy, Hillary clarified to us, after we had to pass through layers of security at the book signing to even reach her, that the 99% of Americans without an army of security guards should just shut up about their right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
To her, the “right of the people” to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right. Anyone in government – federal, state or local – can put restrictions on it as they wish. She can call for rights to be restricted with bans on high capacity magazines, assault weapons (however they’re defined) and background checks.
But turning our God-given rights into government granted privileges by incremental restrictions is infringement; they simply reduce the Bill of Rights into a “Suggestion of Privileges.”
And don’t expect those who show contempt for some of our rights to respect any of them at all, especially not Hillary Clinton.
On June 12, the Washington Post ran a column by their editorial board claiming “no place is safe” in America without more gun control.
Gun Free Zones – Invitations to Gun Violence
They justified this claim by citing six gun-free zones–Troutdale, Newtown, Columbine, Blacksburg, Seattle, and the Washington, D.C. Navy Yard–in which guns were used to commit crimes. They cited three other crimes that happened in areas other than gun-free zones–Tucson, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara–but dismissed the obvious mental health problems associated with those crimes by citing President Obama’s statement that America “does not have a monopoly on crazy people.” According to the editors, the committing of crimes in gun-free zones does not prove the danger of disarming citizens but rather the danger of guns. And crimes tied to mental health problems cannot be viewed through the lense of a faulty mental health system because America is not the only country with “crazy people.”The only solution–gun control. And according to the Washington Post, “no place is safe” in America currently and no place will be until Congress steps up and restricts the right to keep and bear arms. via Washington Post: ‘No Place Is Safe’ in America Without More Gun Control.
In an attempt to prop up the failing gun control movement, television host David Letterman clamored for more gun control during a discussion with CNN anchor Anderson Cooper last night on The Late ShowWith David Letterman.
Letterman pushes gun-control lies on The Late Show
The nearly four minute segment was little more than a ploy to attack the Second Amendment, with Letterman setting aside comedy in favor of asking loaded questions designed to make the audience believe that support for gun control is much larger than it actually is.
“Daily in this country, a child or an underaged boy or girl is shot and killed by a gun,” he said. “And then we had the situation in Santa Barbara, California where a fellow was unbalanced and killed people, then killed himself.”
“I certainly thought that Newtown [Sandy Hook] was going to be the landmark, changing, touchstone point in this country where we changed our understanding and awareness about gun ownership.”
“People are shot and killed each and every day by private handgun ownership,” he said. “You can’t tell me that this isn’t an insoluble problem.”
Letterman also asked how the case for gun control is not “cut and dry.”
“I’m not anti-gun,” he claimed, “but for the love of Christ, when are we going to do something about this nonsense?”
It’s no accident that anti-gun propaganda is becoming more common on TV shows, movies and other forms of mass entertainment.
For one thing, the gun control movement did not originate from the grassroots but is rather a top-down movement bankrolled by powerful politicians such as former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg who want nothing more than to expand government powers at the expense of individual liberties.
Grassroots gun rights organizations, on the other hand, attract thousands of individuals who are working not to advance the agenda of politicians but to defend their birth rights, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they dwarf gun control groups.
Compare that to the grassroots open carry rally that also occurred during SXSW which attracted well over 100 gun owners on a weekday.
So in response to this obvious lack of support for gun control, the establishment is increasingly using TV shows, sports and movies to try and sway public opinion against the Second Amendment, which is exactly what happened last night on The Late Show With David Letterman and in 2012 when American sportscaster Bob Costas gave an anti-gun speech to millions of Americans who were watching an NFL game.
And this strategy to brainwash people into supporting unpopular gun control legislation was laid out by Attorney General Eric Holder back in 1995.
“We need to do this every day of the week and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way,” he said to the Woman’s National Democratic Club.
Oceans of ink will be spilled in efforts to fit 22-year-old madman Elliot Rodger into various political agendas. Of course the gun-control zealots were using him as a poster boy while the victims of his rampage were still being tallied up, even though his first three victims were stabbed to death with a knife. The clearest and most chilling conclusion to take away from the long build-up to Rodger’s bloody rampage, which caused six fatalities and a number of injuries before he shot himself, is that this young maniac slipped through the system far too often, despite loudly and clearly communicating his deadly intentions for years.
Weihan Wang, 20 — were male stabbing victims in Rodger’s own apartment, authorities say. Two of them were Rodger’s housemates, whom he described as the “biggest nerds I had ever seen.” He wrote in the manifesto that he’d “enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept.” At about 9:30 p.m., the shooting rampage began. Rodger killed 20-year-old Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, a student who was shot and killed inside the IV Deli Mart in Goleta. He also killed 22-year-old Katie Cooper, who was shot and killed by Rodger across the street from the Alpha Phi sorority house. Veronika Weiss, 19, a talented water polo player, was shot and killed alongside Cooper. Authorities who appeared at Rodger’s doorstep last month to check on his mental health hadn’t seen online videos in which he threatens suicide and violence, despite his parents contacting police about the alarming recordings. By the time law enforcement did see the videos, it was too late: The well-mannered if shy young man that deputies concluded after their visit posed no risk had gone on a deadly rampage on Friday. The sheriff’s office “was not aware of any videos until after the shooting rampage occurred,” Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman Kelly Hoover told The Associated Press. Sheriff Bill Brown has defended the officers’ actions, but the case highlights the challenges that police face in assessing the mental health of adults, particularly those with no history of violent breakdowns, institutionalizations or serious crimes. “Obviously, looking back on this, it’s a very tragic situation and we certainly wish that we could turn the clock back and maybe change some things,” Brown told CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m sick and tired of people in positions of responsibility musing that they’d make some changes to the space-time continuum, if only they could “turn back the clock.” You can’t, Sheriff Brown. That’s why you’ve got to handle these things right the first time. Rodger spent years putting up menacing videos on YouTube. The cops went to his apartment last month because his mother saw a batch of disturbing videos he posted online. He “tactfully told them it was a misunderstanding,” as he put it in his 107,000-word journal/manifesto, and away the police went, unaware that he already had a couple of handguns tucked away for the perpetration of a “Day of Retribution” he delayed until May because he got the flu.
Fox News quotes Doris Fuller, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center in Virginia, who has it exactly right: “Once again, we are grieving over the deaths and devastation caused by a young man who was sending up red flags for danger that failed to produce intervention in time to avert tragedy. In this case, the red flags were so big the killer’s parents had called police… and yet, the system failed.”
CNN has a fascinating timeline littered with those “red flags.” There has rarely been a more obvious ticking human time bomb than Elliot Rodger. He lived, raged, killed, and died in California, a state that is not lacking in either overweening nanny government or gun-control laws. He was seeing a therapist. He’d already attacked several people physically, but non-lethally, including a July 2013 effort to push girls who spurned him off a 10-foot ledge at a party – he was drunk, so he ended up falling off the ledge instead and breaking his leg. And it’s not just the system at fault here; whatever else we may learn about his relationship with his parents, it’s mind-boggling they allowed him to live at a campus so far away from them. They were in transit from Los Angeles County to Santa Barbara, driving to see him in a panic after receiving his sick manifesto by e-mail, when they heard about the shootings.
Somehow every element of the system failed, including the precautions designed explicitly to deal with people like him, created and refined after a number of previous campus incidents across the country. Was it partly because Rodger was part of the lower tier of Hollywood royalty – his father was an assistant director on “The Hunger Games” – and the rules work differently for the aristocracy?
While we wait for the answers to those questions, it’s interesting to read that CNN timeline and see how clearly Rodger was driven by a massive sense of entitlement, not so very different from what corrections officers report as the motivating factor for a great deal of criminal activity. This guy thought the world owed him, big time, and he was going to punish it for cheating him of the sexual gratification, fame, and fortune he felt were his due. The fact that he was already rolling pretty high – some of his twenty-two creepy YouTube videos were filmed from the driver’s seat of the BMW his mom bought him, and he had five thousand dollars salted away to buy weapons – did not diminish his sense of being cheated in the slightest.
This sort of complaint emanates from many criminals. Jailhouse interviews often show them unwilling to admit they did anything wrong, even when they readily concede their guilt in criminal actions, because they were only taking what they felt the world owed them, from material goods to bloody revenge. Rodger’s manifesto elevates this feeling of entitlement to a soaring, psychotic degree. He referred to his killing spree as a “Day of Retribution,” a day when he would punish everyone who had refused to give him what he deserved, which covered most of the human race, especially the female half.
Here’s the first entry in the timeline CNN distilled from Rodger’s manifesto, dated June 4, 2011:
“I was desperate to have the life I know I deserve; a life of being wanted by attractive girls, a life of sex and love. Other men are able to have such a life … so why not me? I deserve it! I am magnificent, no matter how much the world treated me otherwise. I am destined for great things.” He would give “the world one last chance,” he wrote. “If I still have to suffer the same rejection and injustice even after I move to Santa Barbara, then that will be the last straw. I will have my vengeance.”
Within a month, he was throwing hot beverages on young couples smooching at coffee bars because he was jealous of their shared affection… and he’d already begun explicitly referring to such people as his “enemies,” even though they didn’t know him, and their only offense was sharing a kiss in his presence. ”I wanted to kill them slowly, to strip the skins off their flesh,” he wrote. ”They deserve it. The males deserve it for taking the females away from me, and the females deserve it for choosing those males instead of me.” Soon he was throwing hot coffee on random girls because he felt they didn’t return his smiles with sufficient enthusiasm.
Rodger wasn’t keeping these feelings of entitlement and paranoid rage to himself. He was splashing them all over YouTube. He should have been on the radar screen of mental health and law enforcement officials as a serious threat for a long time. His first violent assault on his perceived “enemies” happened almost three years ago. No system for detecting such threats will ever be perfect, but any system that can’t pick up one as obvious as Elliot Rodger is in serious need of overhaul. No part of the answer involves punishing or persecuting innocent people who had nothing to do with this deeply disturbed young man. In fact, transferring blame for the situation away from the individual responsible, and the officials who didn’t pick upon the warning signs, into an indictment of society as a whole is exactly the sort of thinking Rodger would have endorsed.
Of course, we’ll inevitably have lots of hand-wringing about the evils of “society” anyway, from “gun culture” to videogames, which Rodger enjoyed. Much of this editorial criticism will of course be directed at the easiest targets for politicians to exploit, the social “evils” they’ll claim they can exorcise, if we just give them more power. While we’re having this discussion. let’s remember to throw in a few words for a culture that elevates the sense of entitlement – getting what you “deserve,” from a populace that supposedly “owes” you all sorts of goods, comforts, and gestures of respect – to one of the few officially-recognized social virtues.
Young people almost always go through phases of intense entitlement, despair, and alienation. One of the chilling aspects of Elliot Rodgers’ manifesto is how familiar many of his feelings will seem to most of us, if we’re still in touch with our teenage selves. Many of us swiftly conclude various aspects of our lives are over, after our first youthful brushes with severe disappointment. How many men reading this can say, with all candor, that they’ve never heard at least faint echoes of the angry loneliness and despair Rodger talks about, pouring from their own broken hearts? Who among us has never, ever had an ego fragile enough to crack into angry little slivers over perceived insults? Who can say they’ve never raged against a foolish world that doesn’t know what it’s missing, because it never took the time to look past the surface and see the great person shuttered away in the attic of our teenage minds? Who ever made it to eighteen without making a list, either mentally or on paper, of everything they think the world “owes” them?
Almost all of us go through such a phase. The only question is when it begins, how long it lasts… and whether it ends with us growing up, or remaining bitter prisoners of our bug-riddled Version 1.0 personality code. A healthy society rewards and encourages maturity, on the fastest healthy path available. Ours officially treats people as children into their late twenties, while flattering immature vanity and portraying extended adolescence as the dream lifestyle. Religious faith – one of the most powerful cures for entitlement, alienation, and despair – has been devalued into un-hip irrelevance, with every church and temple portrayed as an inscrutable cult whose members can’t possibly be serious about their beliefs. Everything in our culture either inadvertently, or deliberately, reinforces the notions Elliot Rodger had about both his “enemies” and himself. Where better than a college campus to hear long diatribes about what people deserve, and how shadowy villains are lined up to prevent them from receiving it?
There are no easy, facile answers to horror and sickness like this, but I wonder how much this supremely entitled youth – a kid who was already driving a BMW, but thought his life was pointless because he couldn’t manage to win the lottery, and could see no other workable path to fulfillment – might have benefited from some realistic expectations, and a concrete sense of movement toward achieving them… not just from people he knew personally, but from the entire culture surrounding him. We spend too much time telling people, especially young people, what they deserve, instead of providing them with realistic aspirations and honorable expectations. It’s wrong to hold everyone else guilty for the actions of a murderous lunatic, or to search for a great deal of rational insight in the ravings of an irrational mind, but I think a healthy culture would have done a better job of arguing with the desperate, hateful, self-absorbed garbage Elliot Rodger wrote in his journal.
Update: John Hinderaker at PowerLine notes that Rodger was, like “most of the other” mass killers in recent history, “a devoted liberal,” which makes the effort to use him as a totem for gun-control rituals especially galling:
As usual, the Left’s effort to gain political advantage from a murderous rampage by one of its own goes nowhere. Beyond that, some might argue that Rodger was a prototypical liberal male, only carried to a pathological extreme. Consider the profile: socially awkward, convinced of his own brilliance but not notably successful in life, hungry for revenge against those who have done better despite their obvious inferiority, eager to gain power over others, but through political influence rather than firearms–is this not a typical liberal on Twitter, or elsewhere on the internet? Or, for that matter, in the Obama administration? Isn’t state power the legal path to the long-awaited revenge of the liberal nerds? This strikes me as a plausible suggestion.
It does seem as if Rodger was almost completely insulated from anything that could be described as conservative or “red-state” America. Reading Hinderaker reminds me to append something to my earlier description of campus culture: it’s filled with “long diatribes about what people deserve, and how shadowy villains are lined up to prevent them from receiving it,” followed by lectures about how only force can be used to rectify these inequities.
Update: Evidently facile efforts to blame someone other than Elliot Rodger for what Elliot Rodger did are targeting Hollywood as well as videogames and “gun culture,” in predictably unfair and insulting ways. ”Insecurity” and “entitlement” are hardly unique to Hollywood, and blaming them for making movies wehre “the shlubby adolescent always gets the girl” is beyond ridiculous. For one thing, they’ve been making movies like that for a century, and people were telling stories like that for millennia before moving pictures came along.
Also, I would note that the point of most such tales – definitely including the bulk of Judd Apatow’s work, which has been cited as a factor in the Rodger rampage – is that the “shlubby” guy gets the girl when he stops being an arrested adolescent and grows up.It’s not a subtle, sub-textual message in those movies, either; it’s the explicit character arc of the protagonist. Maniacs can read whatever they want into any work of art, so it’s unfair to blame artists for the delusions held by individual members of their audience… and doubly unfair when the maniac completely missed the point of what the artists were saying.
Requests for public records under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act can result in threats of arrest under felony harassment charges. This is what former Florida State Trooper and school safety expert Wolfgang Halbig
discovered after repeatedly telephoning and sending the series of emails, a portion of which appear below, to Newtown, Connecticut state and U.S. federal officials demanding more information on the Sandy Hook School massacre of December 14, 2012.
From: Wolfgang Halbig
Fri, 27 Sep 2013 09:00:43 -0500
Subject: Mike Kehoe your Police Chief should be immediately fired for Negligence
I find this e-mail very difficult to write but as a Former Florida State Trooper and old now find the actions of your Police Chief very disturbing.
I have dedicated my life in public service and to read about your police chief giving Lt. George Sinko only a letter of reprimand for failing to respond to the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting on Dec 14, 2012
You should ask yourself as to how a Lt. working an off-duty detail at a construction site and making overtime money can ignore 911 calls and a Newtown police dispatcher requesting help from police officers for shots fired at The Sandy Hook Elementary School.
I cannot imagine any police officer ignoring emergency help requests when children and school staff lives are being threatened. To sit in your car and listen to all those emergency calls go over the airwaves and do nothing is negligence.
For over two hours he sits and does absolutely nothing while children and school staff are being shot and killed.
Halbig – Director of Risk Management for the Lake County (Fla.) Public Schools
Your Police Chief states in the newspaper that he is not a first responder. He also states that he was off duty.
I can tell you and so can any other certified law enforcement officer when working an off-duty detail that you are never off-duty especially when lives of children and school staff are at stake.
We in law enforcement are on duty 24/7 always on call.
This Lt is 24 year veteran and if he does not know his responsibilities then he should also be immediately be fired along with the Police Chief.
This is a national embarrassment that clearly demonstrates negligence by both the Police Chief for not calling him to duty that morning and for the Lt not responding to this crisis.
We are all first responders even if you are a Lt.
How embarrassing for the City of Newtown Ct having a Lt. sit for over two hours and not respond and only be given a letter of reprimand.
I know that there is more to the story and I only hope that you use common sense in handling this huge embarrassment for your City.
Wolfgang W Halbig
From: Wolfgang Halbig
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:11:53 -0500
To: Kathy June <email@example.com>
Cc: “firstname.lastname@example.org” “email@example.com”
Subject: Last try for Freedom of Information Act from your Interim Superintendent
Please tell your Interim School Superintendent that his response is total Horsepoop.
Hiding behind the safety of children and school staff in not releasing my information request is unprofessional if he is an educator.
I am simply asking for the Vendors name who you the school district or school hired to install the security system at Sandy Hook Elementary School with address and contact numbers
Just like Stanley Security Solutions has installed all of the security tools at the Sandy Hook replacement school.
They have donated over $100,000 thousand dollars in front door access control with CCTV CAMERA AND ACCESS BUTTON WITH CMAERA BEING A COLOR CAMERA.
THEY HAVE PROVIDED CARD READERS AT VARIOUS DOORS FOR STAFF USE.
THEY HAVE PROVIDEd YOUR SCHOOL WITH A NUMBER OF CCTV COLOR CAMERAS PLACED IN VARIOUS AREAS OF THE SCHOOL WHICH I DON’T WANT TO DISCLOSE SINCE IT MAY PLACE CHILDREN AND SCHOOL STAFF AT RISK.
What is wrong with your school district and your superintendents? What are they afraid off?
I need the total cost of the project.
I need the date of completion.
I need the breakdown of the total cost as to what did the cameras cost? Are they color or just black and white?
I do not want to know the locations as I do know the placement of the cameras at the Sandy Hook replacement school and I promise not to ever hurt any child or staff in your school district.
Please comply with my FOIA as soon a possible since I have been waiting forever.
Wolfgang W Halbig
From: Wolfgang Halbig
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:12:28 -0500
Cc: Kathy June <firstname.lastname@example.org>, “Katersky, Aaron” <Aaron.Katersky@abc.com>, “email@example.com”, “firstname.lastname@example.org”
Subject: Freedom of Information Act for the State of Ct.
Please provide me with copies of the contracts and costs for the Crime Scene Cleanup in Decontaminating and Sanitizing the Sandy Hook Elementary School after Dec 14, 2012 .
The School Districts was considering allowing children and school staff to return to the school and now they have decided just to tear it down.
Who was the company that you the police allowed in the school providing me with the start date and end date of removing all of the Bio-Hazard materials.
Copy of the licenses that the company provided to you for transporting Medical Waste.
They would have to remove all the blood, bodily fluids, brain matter, skull fragments and around 45-60 gallons of blood based on the number of children and school staff shot and killed that day.
I am the Chief Investigator for the Children’s Safety Institute and a School safety Expert which now requires this information to be made available since it has been 11 month and you have not even provided a simple police or incident report.
If you do not have that information then please direct me to the agency that would have been responsible for decontaminating the crime scene and Sanitizing it since you allowed them into the school to remove furniture.
My address is [address]
Wolfgang W halbig
To see the rest of the correspondence between Mr Halbig and various government officials requesting further information please go here.
In the meanwhile please see the video below for a great interview with Mr Halbig about the many inconsistencies in the Sandy Hook shooting story.
By Cheryl K. Chumley — Monday, 24 Mar 2014 11:02 PM
A Second Amendment fight is brewing in Connecticut over new legislation that turned tens of thousands of gun owners into potential felons.
The law, passed last April in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, put in place bans on magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of ammunition and on many types of weapons, including those that simply have the cosmetic appearance of assault weapons.
The law also requires residents to undergo mental and criminal background checks and to register certain types of guns with authorities.
The pro-gun group Connecticut Carry “calls on every state official, every senator, every representative to make the singular decision: Either enforce the laws as they are written and let us fight it out in court, or else repeal the 2013 gun ban in its entirety. We say: Bring it on,” the group said on its website in a memo intended to rally members.
A challenge to the law has already been shot down, although U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello acknowledged in his ruling that the text of the gun law was fuzzy and that legislators hadn’t written it “with the utmost clarity.”
But gun-rights groups aren’t giving up the fight and are steamed that the law was passed as an emergency measure on the heels of a visit from White House officials who were using the December 2012 shooting in Newtown as a springboard for more gun-control laws.
“The administration played a role by visiting here and pushing for it,” Connecticut Carry President Rich Burgess told Newsmax. “We were having public hearings, thousands were protesting.”
Then Vice President Joe Biden delivered an emotional plea for more gun laws at Western Connecticut State University, taking the stage with Gov. Dannel Malloy and telling listeners, “We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died” at the elementary school.
“Then suddenly,” Burgess said, “the bill passed with emergency certification. Nobody read it. [Lawmakers] got the bill and then overnight they passed it. A hundred thirty pages, nobody even had time to read it.”
Ever since, the mood in the state between gun owners and law enforcement authorities has been tense. The state has warned the estimated 325,000 to 350,000 residents who need to register their weapons that the penalty for noncompliance is arrest.
The Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection earlier this month sent a letter to gun owners who had failed to register the items by a Jan. 1 deadline, saying they faced charges of possessing an unregistered weapon or illegal magazines.
The letter further heightened concern among gun owners that the state was ready to seize the illegal items, but Dora Schriro, new head of the state police, told NBC Connecticut that there are no plans for door-to-door gun confiscation. “There’s no plan in place, nor has there been any execution of a plan where we would, for example, go door-to-door and be actively involved in the confiscation of weapons,” said Schriro, commissioner of the DESPP.
Connecticut Citizens Defense League President Scott Wilson said many in the state don’t even know whether they’re now deemed lawbreakers.
The gun law, “Public Act 13-3 . . . is vague in many instances, and hard to follow for a lot of people,” Wilson told Newsmax. “Many that did not register simply are unaware that they had to. Still, those individuals fall under the classification as criminals. Very simply, the lawmakers in Connecticut have disenfranchised ordinary people that own guns.”
“They were wrong to punish us for the acts that were committed by a mentally deranged individual,” Wilson said, referring to Adam Lanza, 20, who killed the children and school staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Police, meanwhile, are pressing forward with their enforcement efforts — in some cases with responses to residents that are shockingly forceful.
In one recorded telephone call to Connecticut State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance, a woman who gave her name only as Ashley is heard asking for clarification about the fate of her husband, who failed to register his weapon by the deadline.
The conversation spanned about seven minutes and ended abruptly when Ashley said, “You’re the servant, we’re the master,” and Vance cut her off, saying: “I’m the master, I’m the master, Ma’am.”
Another policeman, Branford officer Joseph Peterson, was placed on paid leave pending the outcome of an internal investigation about Facebook postings he made in response to citizens who wanted to know what he’d do if they didn’t turn in their guns.
Replying to a resident who asked if police would confiscate weapons from homeowners, Peterson replied on Facebook: “It’s not a Nazi policy, you thick-headed idiot, it’s a state statute, OK, I don’t come to your job [to] tell you how to do yours.”
The Hartford Courant added to gun owners’ fears with a February editorial that called for lawbreakers to be punished.
“The state must try to enforce the law. Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapons purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law. A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine,” it said.
“Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” the newspaper said. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”
Pro Second Amendment Rallies in Connecticut
The Citizens Defense League has planned a rally — the third at the Capitol in Hartford in the last few months — for April 5. This one is drawing attention from gun-rights activists in other states who see the potential for Connecticut’s crackdown to hit in their own backyards.
“We will be hosting contingents and individuals from as far away as Michigan and Texas,” Wilson said. “We know for a fact that people from New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and other Northeast states will be joining us.”
May we never forget. This is the text of the 2nd Amendment.
Members of the group “are seeking office and have joined town political committees” in hopes of beating back the state law, he said. The National Rifle Association has issued a rallying cry, calling for constituents to boot from office lawmakers who had a hand in pressing the new law.
NRA Connecticut state liaison Anna Kopperud said on a recent broadcast of NRA News’ Cam & Co. that her group will be “holding folks accountable for those votes they took last year” and that Second Amendment supporters should “help get rid of the folks that were true enemies and will be true enemies” of the constitutional right to bear arms.
Fight over weapons confiscation gets hot. Connecticut has created a crisis for itself: The possibility of having 350,000 new felons in the state – roughly 20 times its current prison population.
It’s all because the legislature adopted a law that bans some types of guns and weapons based on certain physical features. There is no grandfathering for people who already possess the weapons. The only alternative is for the owner to submit an application with identifying information such as fingerprints. It’s estimated that up to 350,000 residents didn’t meet the state’s deadline for submitting the information. The result? They’re felons. No one has been charged or convicted yet, but the law allows no half-measures. Even possessing the weapon makes a person a felon. And a judge who was asked to suspend the law while a challenge to its constitutionality is debated in the courts sided with the prosecution, refusing to make the allowance.
The result could be another civil war. Branford resident John Cinque challenged two of the members of the legislature, Sen. Leonard Fasano and Rep. Dave Yaccarino, both Republicans. “I tell everybody I’m not complying,” Cinque said. “I can’t – you have to be willing to stand up and say no. And there are a lot of us who are going to say no.” He cited the majority opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller case, which said the “conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.” “It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large,” the court said.
Cinque told the lawmakers that with “the stroke of a pen, from the ivory tower with the gold top, you have decided to create me to be a felon.” “A Class D felony. For doing absolutely nothing wrong,” he said. Others were joining in the chorus led by Cinque.
Connecticut Carry, a state Second Amendment organization, said: “Gun hating officials now have their laws on the books in Connecticut. They dreamed up those laws, in their tyrannical dystopias, but it was NOT the majority of the public that supported such laws.” The organization said there is “very little compliance with the new edicts, and there is absolutely no way for the state to know who is obeying the law or not.” “State officials have made their bluffs … and the state will enforce the laws,” the group said. “We say: Bring it on. The officials of the state of Connecticut have threatened its citizens by fiat. They have roared on paper, but they have violated principle. Now it’s time for the state to man-up: either enforce its edicts or else stand down and return to the former laws that did not so violently threaten the citizens of this state.”The gun group said there is “nothing that will so completely destroy faith in those edicts faster than the state-provoked chaos and violence that will be required to enforce the 2013 anti-gun laws.”
“Despite all the severe legal language that the government passed, there is still no open discussion of enforcing those tyrannical laws, as they stand,” the group said. “If officials of the state of Connecticut opt to get ‘froggy’ (jumping on citizens) and start to enforce the new laws (as officials have claimed a desire to do), Connecticut Carry stands ready to do whatever it takes and whatever it can do to represent and defend anyone impacted by the state’s violence.” The anti-gun forces capitalized on the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., to push forward with their agenda.
Laddy Hosankolli, who also was at the meeting with state lawmakers, said the law is a “knee-jerk reaction” to what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “They didn’t put anything in there to deter criminals, they don’t get the guns legally anyway,” he said. “But psychologists and grief counselors and everyone like that tell you you shouldn’t do anything for a year, so you gain perspective on the situation. Like if a loved one dies, you shouldn’t sell your house, you shouldn’t move to Florida.”
The organization said state officials claimed a warning letter they sent out telling owners of unregistered guns to get rid of them or take them out of state wasn’t really a threat of confiscation. “We find none of this reassuring. Simply put, the rule of law has broken down in Connecticut and the [Gov. Dannel] Malloy administration’s and CSP’s credibility on this issue has been severely compromised. In short, Connecticut’s approach to this issue is a glaring example of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of what was bad public policy in the first place.”
The New American reported the constitutionality remains dubious. “The whole fundamental structure of law, based on Connecticut’s Fundamental Orders (adopted on January 14, 1639) that made Connecticut ‘The Constitution State’), is being called into question,” the report said. The state’s constitution assures residents of the right to be armed.
WND reported just days ago on a heated telephone conversation between a blogger and state police spokesman Lt. Paul Vance. The woman on the call, who goes by the name Guerrilla girl Ashley and asked WND not to publish her last name, told Vance that her husband had received a letter from state authorities after failing to register his firearm by the statutory deadline. The instructions say gun owners have the options of selling the weapon to a dealer, rendering it permanently inoperable, removing it from the state or surrendering it to law enforcement. “My question is this: What happens if my husband decides not to do this?” Ashley asks the officer, who responds by suggesting that she contact an attorney but that his understanding is that non-compliance is a felony. “What will happen, then, if my husband refuses? Will you come to our home to arrest him?” she asks again.
Sounding calm and composed, Lt. Vance explains that “we haven’t crossed that bridge just yet.” He says her husband could be subject to arrest and that he did not have a “good answer” to the question. In either case, Vance emphasizes that he would not personally be visiting gun owners, but lower-ranking officers might. Ashley suggests that this was a “slippery slope”” that could potentially put the police in harm’s way if they go door to door in search of unregistered firearms and gun owners. “We’re in harm’s way every day,” Vance responded without addressing the prospect of door-to-door gun confiscation.
The caller then asks if the officer took an oath to the Constitution. “Did I take an oath to the Constitution?” responds Vance, who earned national notoriety in the aftermath of Sandy Hook. “What bearing does that have on this conversation?” Ashley goes on to argue that enforcing unconstitutional laws, which she said are all “null and void,” would be a violation of his oath. He responded by saying that until the law was struck down by the courts, it was a “lawful law” that would be enforced. “We’re not the Gestapo, and I don’t want the inference of that,” Vance says. “Your attorney can give you advice.” The officer also recommends contacting state legislators to express any concerns about the law. “How we’re going to go about the mechanism of enforcing this law, that’s still being determined,” Vance continues.
“I don’t want to talk about the Constitution, Ma’am, at all, at all,” he adds before Ashley suggests that officials were threatening families into compliance with an unconstitutional statute. “It sounds like you’re anti-American, it sounds like you’re anti-law,” Vance says, clearly becoming frustrated with the caller, who insists she is “pro-American.”
Eventually, with both call participants getting riled, Ashley lashes out. “You’re going to speak to me this way, somebody that pays your salary?” she asks. “You’re a servant, you serve me. … You can refuse to follow unlawful orders!” “Just remember, you’re the servant, we’re the masters, OK?” she adds. Vance responds by saying: “I’m the master, Ma’am, I’m the master.”
Hear the recorded call: (Be aware of offensive language)
Connecticut residents who spoke with WND said the mood across the state was tense, especially after a major newspaper essentially suggested rounding up everyone who failed to comply with the new law. “Authorities should use the background check database as a way to find assault weapon purchasers who might not have registered those guns in compliance with the new law,” the Hartford Courant said in an editorial.
The paper suggested that longtime fears among gun owners that background checks were being used as a tool to secretly and unlawfully create a weapons registry were not unfounded. “A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine,” the paper continued. “If you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.”
Connecticut Citizens Defense League President Scott Wilson Sr. told WND that he and other gun owners in the state are “very frustrated right now.” “We have all been put through the ringer, and the law is still not clear to many,” he said. “Many that own types of firearms that are now banned, simply still do not know about this law.” He hopes the law will be repealed or overturned eventually, and CCDL is currently focusing on a federal lawsuit, Shew v. Malloy, which is now headed to the appellate level.
The Washington Times editorialized that the state legislators “must come to grips” with the fact that “laws are more than just symbolic gestures. “If it’s really serious, the state will have to find space to imprison 300,000 residents for the next five years,” the newspaper wrote. “Faced with 300,000 potential offenders, officials must decide whether to ignore the new law, or enforce it by sending SWAT teams to raid the homes of anyone suspected of owning the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15.” The commentary noted the nearly 17,000 inmates now cost $620 million annually, and that “full compliance” with the gun law “would exceed the entire state budget at $55 billion.” “Respect for the law is essential for society, but this presupposes the laws themselves are worthy of respect.”
Sometimes lawmakers have been known to deliver a huge gaffe regarding guns. One such statement came last year from U.S. Rep. Diane DeGette, a Denver Democrat in Congress who intervened in the state-level argument by displaying her perspective on gun magazines. Her comment came at a time when far-left interests in the state legislature were trying to eliminate much of what the Second Amendment allows for Americans. Specifically she was endorsing the idea of banning ordinary gun magazines above a certain capacity. “I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.
WND columnist Jeff Knox wrote, however, that even DeGette wasn’t the top of the class regarding gun statements. He reported California State Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, “championed a new term intended to scare people into accepting more restrictions on their fundamental rights, and in the process he claimed his place as king of the gun control mountain of ignorance.” “In a televised press conference, he single-handedly brought the term ‘Ghost Guns’ into national notoriety and simultaneously crowned himself king of the gun control court jesters,” Knox wrote. “In the press conference, de León defined ‘Ghost Guns’ as homemade guns that have no serial numbers and, therefore, cannot be traced back through the manufacturer to their original purchasers. He particularly pointed at partially machined AR receivers known as ’80 percent lowers,’ which are sold as do-it-yourself projects for home gunsmiths, and the potential for guns made on high-tech 3D printers, which he erroneously claims are undetectable by airport screening devices. “But Sen. de León sealed his place in the Anti-Rights Hall of Ignorance, when he held up an illegally manufactured, illegally configured and illegally possessed AR15-style rifle and declared: ‘This is a ghost gun. This right here has the ability, with a .30 caliber clip, to disperse 30 bullets within half a second.’ He then reiterated, to make the point, ‘Thirty magazine clip in half a second,’” Knox wrote.“The YouTube video of that statement received over a million hits in just a few days. It is just so ridiculously wrong that anyone with the slightest knowledge about guns finds it totally hilarious, and is guaranteed to keep gun owners laughing for years to come. Not only does it display unbelievable ignorance, but the statement was delivered with such seriousness and importance, that it’s hard to believe that it wasn’t a parody. Add in the faces of the police officials being used as a backdrop to the senator’s press conference, and their studious efforts to maintain poker-faces while their political master spouts blathering nonsense, and the whole effect is absolutely priceless,” Knox wrote.
Knox explained, “For the record, .30 caliber refers to bullet diameter, not magazine capacity, and the correct term for a spring-loaded, ammunition feeding device is a magazine, not a clip.” He said the suggestion that a gun could fire 30 bullets in half a second is laughable.
by Mikael Thalen — January 4th, 2014
Updated 01/04/2014 at 9:07 pm
The Obama Administration announced two new executive orders on gun control Friday, after countless other attempts to erode Second Amendment rights failed to gain public support.
According to one of the proposed actions, patient privacy laws would be pushed aside to allow increased government access to mental health records. Currently required to protect that information, states would now be exempt, instead encouraged to submit a patient’s private records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
A second proposal from the Department of Justice would “clarify” who is barred from owning firearms, which would include anyone involuntarily committed to an inpatient or outpatient mental institution. In an attempt to diminish concern, the administration claims that seeking help for mental issues does not prohibit a person from firearm ownership.
“The proposed rule will not change the fact that seeking help for mental health problems or getting treatment does not make someone legally prohibited from having a firearm,” the statement said.
Unfortunately, even without the executive orders currently applied, the government has already deceptively used this exact tactic to revoke legitimate gun ownership without due process, an issue that will undoubtedly increase.
In 2012, Afghanistan and Iraq veteran Brandon Raub had his firearms confiscated after being involuntarily detained for psychiatric questioning due to Facebook comments on government corruption. According to Raub’s lawyer John Whitehead, as many as 20 others had recently been detained and declared mentally defective in the same Virginia county as well, despite no crime initially being committed.
That same year, David Sarti, best known for his appearance on National Geographic’s Doomsday Prepper show, was committed to a psychiatric ward and deemed “mentally defective” after complaining to his doctor about chest pains. Declining to have tubes inserted into his heart by cardiologists, doctors claimed Sarti was suicidal, prompting the FBI to revoke his Second Amendment right.
The targeting of veterans specifically is quite clear. A collaborative study from 2007 between the VA Medical Center and the Archives of Internal Medicine claimed that at least 1/3rd of returning veterans were mentally ill.
An amendment in a 2012 defense bill spearheaded by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer attempted to collect the names of veterans deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their finances. The list would then admittedly be handed over to the NICS, removing the gun rights of all listed veterans without due process.
Just last year, countless veterans began receiving a letter from the Veterans Administration warning that their mental health was suddenly under review. The letter continued by saying that the right to own weapons would be removed if bureaucrats deemed them “incompetent” outside of law.
Given the Obama Administration’s view toward returning military, the assault on veterans is unsurprising. In fact, a 2009 Homeland Security report labeled returning veterans as likely domestic terrorists. Despite the outrageous claim, former DHS chief Janet Napolitano defended the report. Incredibly, the DHS announced that Boy Scout Explorers were being trained to kill “disgruntled Iraq war veterans” in a New York Times piece only one month later.
Despite the endless denials of gun confiscation, California residents were greeted by Justice Department agents in California last year as the state expanded its confiscation program. Lynette Phillips, who had been involuntarily held in a mental hospital after her nurse exaggerated the severity of her condition, had her and her husband’s firearms removed by from their home by armed agents.
Following the passage of the NY SAFE Act, New York residents began receiving letters telling them to turn in their firearms and permits as well. One legal gun owner had his firearms taken after a provision in the law allowed his medical records, which detailed his prescriptions, to be shared with authorities.
The media and administration’s failure to mention these countless abuses, justified through accessing mental health records, paints a clear picture of how these executive orders would be carried out. Masquerading as a mental health fix, the same system that has pushed dangerous prescription drugs for decades is now using it against law-abiding Americans.
In an ironic and telling move, a Pennsylvania court recently ruled that a state trooper who was previously hospitalized for depression would not be allowed to own a firearm “off-duty.” Regardless if the officer was an actual danger, the court ruled that due to his likely mental illness, he would only be allowed to carry a firearm “on duty,” showing how government is not subjected to the same rules as citizens.
Despite gun homicide seeing a 49 percent drop since 1993, the establishment has continued to ignore facts with its attempt to push gun control. The same Justice Department involved in gun running through Fast and Furious is now attempting to lecture the public on gun safety, unsurprising given Attorney General Eric Holder’s comments on “brainwashing” the public to be anti-gun.