|
Post by Michael Downing on Dec 5, 2015 8:41:44 GMT -5
I stopped by the shop of the local FFL dealer I use when I make a purchase yesterday afternoon just to say hello and see how they were doing. As expected they were busy but one of the owners took time to say hello and talk a bit. He said they had been seeing a continued upswing in business and that he was having a hard time getting inventory in to replace popular items quick enough to keep some of them in stock. He mentioned that people were not just shopping they were coming in to buy. He stared off into the distance and was quiet for awhile. I asked him what was on his mind. He said a lot of the people coming into buy were first time buyers or owner of hunting style rifles and shot guns looking to buy more tactical style rifles and handguns. He said people were afraid that "they" just might get gun control pushed through and so they were buying out of fear that tomorrow they might not be able to. I asked him what he really thought about the situation. He said he just didn't know anymore and didn't know just how far they would go to get their way. He said trying to pass gun control was bad enough but he said he felt that they just might try to force gun owners to turn in weapons they already own and that would end very, very badly. I woke up this morning to turn on the morning news and hear democratic candidates calling for a ban on all "assault" style weapons and a mandatory turn in of weapons already owned. That and The New York Times for the first time in over 90 years carried an editorial on the front page. www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=1End the Gun Epidemic in AmericaIt is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper. But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms. It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism. Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Dec 5, 2015 20:55:12 GMT -5
survivalblog.com/fighting-words-an-open-letter-to-publisher-arthur-sulzberger-jr/ Fighting Words: An Open Letter to Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr.
The New York Times just published the newspaper’s first front page editorial in 95 years. It urged America’s legislators to outlaw civilian ownership of semiautomatic battle rifles. This editorial twisted words to castigate our militia arms as follows: ” These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” The editor went on to urge: ” Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.” [Emphasis added.] Those are fighting words. They’ve made it clear: These statists want to enact a law forcing civilian disarmament. This would of course be enforced under color of law, by their recently militarized bully boys in black. (Formerly in blue.) I have a few terse points for Publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., Editor Dean Baquet, their subordinate editors of The New York Times, and all others of their ilk: 1.The words of our Founding Fathers were unequivocal: “…the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Those words can only be taken one way. 2.There are more privately-owned guns in America that there are inhabitants. The task of attempting go out and collect them is a Fool’s Errand. 3.These are indeed ‘”weapons of war.” They are in fact our most important militia weapons. It was the specific intent of our Founding Fathers that our civilian populace be armed on an equal footing with any standing army. They have their M4s and we have ours. And by the way we also have even more powerful scoped deer rifles with 500-yard effective range. Millions of them. 4.Even if just 3% of the citizenry were to take up arms against your intended tyranny, we would still outnumber the combined strength of the police and military by a substantial margin. 5.There are 10.3 million licensed deer hunters in the United States, and around 22 million military veterans. 6.Not everyone in law enforcement and the military will go along with your scheme. Many of them will have the backbone to stand against you. 7.Any attempt to disarm the citizenry by force will surely be met by a matching resisting force. Aggression begets aggression. It will be you and your minions who will be the first initiators of force, not us. Lastly, and most importantly: 8.You hint of “insurrection.” Yea, if you continue using such fighting words and if the fools in Congress do indeed enact such unconstitutional legislation, then by God, you will spark an insurrection of the sort that has not been seen in this land since 1781. There will be a second Civil War, and it will be concluded in a matter of weeks, not years. There will be blood, and that blood will be on the hands of the tyrants, not We The People. Tyrants deserve to have their bodies dragged through the streets. It happened to Benito Mussolini. It happened to Nicolae Ceaușescu. It happened to Muammar Gaddafi. Be warned: History does not precisely repeat, but it often rhymes. If you want my guns, sir, then come and take them. But when you send your thugs to my ranch, tell them to bring plenty of body bags and extra grub. Because they’ll certainly need them. Sincerely, – James Wesley, Rawles Founder and Senior Editor, SurvivalBlog.com
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 7, 2015 4:37:42 GMT -5
Talked to a few people in the area, gun sales have been brisk and will probably set a new record. I've noticed some of the ammo prices started creeping up.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 7, 2015 6:38:04 GMT -5
NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'Matt Vespa, Dec 06, 2015 First, let’s give it up for the New York Times, and their like-minded colleagues in the media–and in politics–for driving up gun sales. Undoubtedly, after all of this nonsensical discussion about gun control, gun and ammo sales will go up (that’s a good thing). The irony never ceases to amaze me how the very faction of this country what wants to deploy unconstitutional gun control measures, only end up becoming better gun salespersons. townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/12/06/nyt-certains-types-of-weapons-and-ammunition-must-be-outlawed-n2089403
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Dec 7, 2015 18:49:18 GMT -5
h/t WRSA www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/07/supreme-court-guns-assault-weapons-semiautomatic-ban/73817344/Supreme Court won't hear challenge to city's assault weapons banWASHINGTON — The Supreme Court's refusal Monday to hear a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on semiautomatic "assault" weapons keeps similar bans in place from Massachusetts to Hawaii — but not without complaint from two conservative justices. Acting only days after two Muslim terrorists killed 14 people and wounded 21 others in San Bernardino, Calif., the high court declined to reconsider two lower courts' rulings that the ban was constitutional. The action, hailed by gun control advocates, signaled that the majority of justices agree with the lower courts, or at least feel it's a matter to be left up to state and local governments. Similar bans are on the books in California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut and Hawaii. The court denied a petition, backed by the Illinois State Rifle Association, that sought review of the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in Highland Park, Ill. Such weapons have been used in several mass shootings across the country, including those in 2012 that killed 26 children and staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and 12 people at a Colorado movie theater. "We moved forward with this ordinance with memories of Sandy Hook in our minds," Highland Park Mayor Nancy Rotering said after the court action. In the wake of the San Bernardino shootings, she said, "there is a need and an opportunity" for other communities to enact similar prohibitions. Still, gun sales in the wake of the mass shootings and fears of terrorism continue to climb. November marked the fifth straight month of rising background checks — 2.2 million — recorded by the FBI. On Black Friday, one of the busiest shopping days of the year, a record 185,345 Americans underwent background checks. And since the San Bernardino rampage, retailers have reported yet another spike in sales, similar to what happened after the Sandy Hook shootings three years ago.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 8, 2015 4:40:01 GMT -5
Heard some analysis, that said until there are multiple cities allowing and disallowing ARs (how f-ing stupid is that?), then SCOTUS will not get off their ass and do the only frigging job they are supposed to have.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 12, 2015 4:41:03 GMT -5
Even ‘Friends’ on Supreme Court Diminish Purpose of 2nd Amendmentby David Codrea , December 11, 2015 The Supreme Court seems willing to ignore how it and the Constitution it was intended to serve came to be in the first place– citizens with military weapons, a no-compromise demand to be free, and a willingness to kill at the risk of their own lives made it all possible. (The third of four engravings by Amos Doolittle from 1775, depicting the engagement at the North Bridge) Without explaining why, seven members of the Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the Friedman v Highland Park challenge to a Chicago suburb’s clearly unconstitutional ban of so–called “assault weapons” and their standard capacity magazines. The reason why the Democrat appointees on the court did is obvious—they’re collectivists, and willing accomplices of the gun-grabbers. The reason Republican appointees, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Alito, declined may be for that reason too, but their presumed “conservative” credentials also open the door for fair speculation on other reasons. www.oathkeepers.org/even-friends-on-supreme-court-diminish-purpose-of-2nd-amendment/
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 20, 2015 8:17:32 GMT -5
Connecticut Supreme Court rules confiscation of firearms legal and constitutionalDecember 18, 2015 Coach Collins Should the court one day apply its reasoning to the First Amendment, it may well read: “As Connecticut residents may communicate a range of ideas adequate to reasonably vindicate their right of Free Speech, the State may proscribe the expression of other, inappropriate sentiments.” Works very nicely, doesn’t it. www.coachisright.com/connecticut-supreme-court-rules-confiscation-of-firearms-legal-and-constitutional/
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 23, 2015 12:50:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 28, 2015 12:46:27 GMT -5
The leftists keep begging for a civil war, although we are most assuredly on some govt generated 'list' for aggresively protecting our natural and constitutionl Rights... The anti-American Leftists, and others of their ilk, are also most assuredly on some patriots 'visit' list.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Dec 30, 2015 19:10:55 GMT -5
h/t WRSA www.redstate.com/2015/12/30/heads-california-starts-notice-gun-confiscation-january-1/Head’s Up. California Starts No Notice Gun Confiscation On January 1The left has always claimed that they were interested in “commonsense” gun safety laws, not in confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens. When they get enough power, you learn in very short order that their real agenda is actually ensuring that no private citizen is able to possess a firearm legally. What no one said would or could happen is coming to pass in California. The Washington Times: Gun-safety legislation going into effect in California next week will allow authorities to seize a person’s weapons for 21 days if a judge determines there’s potential for violence. Proposed in the wake of a deadly May 2014 shooting rampage by Elliot Rodger, the bill provides family members with a means of having an emergency “gun violence restraining order” imposed against a loved one if they can convince a judge that allowing that person to possess a firearm “poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself or another by having in his or her custody or control.” “The law gives us a vehicle to cause the person to surrender their weapons, to have a time out, if you will,” Los Angeles Police Department Assistant Chief Michael Moore told a local NPR affiliate. “It allows further examination of the person’s mental state.” “It’s a short duration and it allows for due process,” he continued, adding: “It’s an opportunity for mental health professionals to provide an analysis of a person’s mental state.” Why is this law even in place? Because in May 2014, a guy named Eliot Rodgers went on a stabbing and shooting rampage in Isla Vista, CA, that left six dead (three stabbed to death) and 14 injured (seven by automobile). The guy had mental health problems. The family had no inkling what he was up to until the attack was underway and alerted the police. In short, absolutely nothing in this bill would have had any impact on the Isla Vista killings. And, as it doesn’t cover knives or cars, there would still have been three dead and seven injured. In short, the law passed in reaction to this tragedy is EXACTLY the same kind of law that Obama pushed for in the wake of the San Bernardino shooting: one that has no bearing on the event itself. How does this work? A “friend” or “family member” (read that as angry neighbor or deranged and embittered ex) notifies the cops. The cops then ask a judge for a 21-day “temporary restraining order.” This is important. The people who make the allegation never have to appear in court. They only need to convince the police to go to a judge who is, no way possible, going to refuse the restraining order. At the end of that time, the restraining order can be extended for a year after a hearing. That one year can be repeated indefinitely. Can you give your weapons to a friend or family member for safe keeping? No. The police must hold the weapons for the duration of the restraining order. Oh, yeah, they serve you with a search warrant at the same time so they can “look for firearms.” Practically, this means once you are his with the restraining order you will never own a firearm again for the rest of your life and the ones the police take from you will never be returned. Is any California judge going to lift the restraining order and take the risk that at some later point you may be involved in a shooting of some kind? No.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Dec 31, 2015 5:36:23 GMT -5
With their continued blood dancing after every single tragedy, and with GUN CONTROL being the very first words coming out of their mouths, the Left has absolutely no chance of moving any kind of gun control through lawful legislation. Citizens have now seen what the progressives/Leftists are all about concerning the Second Amendment, and I don't think the 'People' will willingly toss the 2A to the side and disarm.
The Leftists/Progressives know this, and will try every under-handed, unlawful tactic they can to circumvent the 2A and tighten their grip on the population.
I strongly believe that they thought this fight over Gun Control would be complete after the charades at Sandy Hook, and we would be on our way to a globalist utopia. But to their dismay very few took the bait, even on their side. So the Government and their minions have been probing for an opening ever since to 'convince' the population that they are protected and don't need these weapons anymore.
But the continuing Government generated body count in the streets gives the citizenery a good view of what may befall them should they give up their Right to self-defense.... bodies in the streets laid there due to the government importing criminal illegals and foreign terrorists... bodies laid there by the Government subsidized black nationalist 'thugs' and 'gangsta's'... bodies laid there by a militarized police force that's subsidized and nurtured by the Government... and then of course the bodies laid out through 'direct action' by agents of this corrupted Government.
No, 'The People' will not willingly disarm.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 2, 2016 6:28:30 GMT -5
Veterans Denied Firearms by New Gun Control?Posted on January 1, 2016 by David I find it hard to believe that Obama would start a civil war by attacking our soldiers’ honor. Let us pray that the above is just fear mongering. Even so, the impending executive order attacking the 2nd amendment will have consequences. It appears that the pResident understands that his time to implement his agenda is running out. What happens when you corner a domestic enemy? ncrenegade.com/editorial/veterans-denied-firearms-by-new-gun-control/
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 2, 2016 8:34:10 GMT -5
I am not quite sure if they understood what history has shown them in 1946 with the Battle of Athens or perhaps they are ignorant enough to think this action would help them avoid such a situation. www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2662004/postsThe Battle of Athens(TN,1946)The GIs came home to find that a political machine had taken over their Tennessee county. What they did about it astounded the nation.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 2, 2016 8:39:23 GMT -5
Happy New Year New York. Do you need another reason to consider secession? www.gunsamerica.com/blog/new-york-legislators-mull-sweeping-ammo-sales-caps/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=20160101_FridayDigest_10g&utm_campaign=/blog/new-york-legislators-mull-sweeping-ammo-sales-caps/New York legislators Mull Sweeping Ammo Sales CapsA pair of New York lawmakers have announced their intention to propose legislation that would severely restrict the amount of ammunition residents would be allowed to buy at a time to twice a firearm’s capacity every 90 days. According to State Senator Roxanne Persaud (D) and Assemblywoman Jo Anne Simon (D), the Senate and Assembly bills were drafted in response to the San Bernadino shooting, in an effort to combat terrorism. Exactly how the bills are expected to control ammo sales will be outlined when they are proposed in 2016. “I can buy any kind of bullets regardless of what kind of gun I own. I don’t even have to own a gun to stock up on bullets,” said Simon in a joint press release, reports the Brooklyn Daily Eagle. “Nothing stops me from having friends buy even more bullets for me. The sky is the limit. The San Bernardino shooters had 6,000 rounds of ammunition. We need this legislation so that cannot happen here.” Because the bills restrict purchases based on how much ammo a firearm’s capacity is, gun owners would be limited to in most cases between 10 and 20 rounds of ammunition per gun in each 3-month period. For many shooters, that much ammunition may only amount to a minutes’ worth shooting or less. “Limiting the quantity and duration between purchases of ammunition is one step in preventing someone with criminal intent from easily accessing large quantities of ammunition,” said Persaud. The proposals would also make violating the law a felony, with prison sentences up to four years a possibility. With strict limitations and even stricter punishments, these proposals are unlikely to make New York gun owners happy.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 2, 2016 8:54:51 GMT -5
h/t Liberty's Torch... patricestanton.com/2016/01/02/did-liberty-loving-texans-just-get-their-pooch-screwed-with-opencarry/Did Liberty loving Texans just get their pooch screwed with #OpenCarry?Many businesses in Texas seemed to take little notice of concealed-carry permittees over the years. Today, January 1st, 2016, it’s a different story. A tyrant of sorts (Bloomberg? Everytown? Moms Demand Action? Fill-in-the-blank Against Guns?) has somehow awakened them to the “threat” that we personal-defense folks seemingly pose to them and their other clientele. With the chimes of New Year’s not yet faded, we wake to discover some of our favorite shops and theaters no longer welcome we the Free People, we the Citizen First-Responders. Not only have these places posted the new 30.07 Open-Carry Firearms’ Prohibition, but have added the 30.06 Concealed-Carry Firearms’ Prohibition where previously none was to be found. It is a sad day when one thinks they are gaining a Freedom (clearly it is a “privilege” or it would have been there all along) only to witness a measure of earlier Freedom+Safety snatched away. The irony (and let’s hope it’s coming from merely naivete) is that those professing the desire to “protect” the innocent who frequent their businesses have now left them more vulnerable than ever.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 4, 2016 5:07:24 GMT -5
We had the same thing happen here in GA after we removed some infringements, the anti-freedom crowd were talking about all the shoot outs that were gonna be happening everywhere with blood flowing down the streets and bodies laying all over the place. Businesses started putting up no weapons signs... until those businesses started getting robbed and/or people refused to use the business, then the signs went away.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 9, 2016 7:57:32 GMT -5
6 Reasons Obama Is Untrustworthy on GunsThe president's townhall and New York Times op-ed piece illustrate his slipperiness.Jacob Sullum|Jan. 8, 2016 3:24 am CNNCNNDuring last night's CNN "townhall" on "Guns in America," President Obama ruefully noted that "I've been very good for gun manufacturers," because fear of new firearm restrictions under his administration has repeatedly driven up sales. Yet he expressed dismay at Second Amendment supporters who do not trust him on this issue, who buy into the "imaginary fiction in which Obama's trying to take away your guns." At the same time, he demonstrated, both in his comments during the CNN special and in a New York Times op-ed piece published the same day, why he is not trustworthy. Here are six reasons: reason.com/blog/2016/01/08/6-reasons-obama-is-untrustworthy-on-guns
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 11, 2016 17:15:53 GMT -5
ncrenegade.com/editorial/pennsylvania-mayor-pulls-police-from-nra-gun-show/Pennsylvania Mayor Pulls Police From NRA Gun ShowThe mayor of Harrisburg, Penn., ordered his police department on Friday not to provide security for an upcoming NRA-sponsored gun show after the association refused to meet a demand to pay a 60-percent increase in fees for the service. Harrisburg police have provided security for the annual Great American Outdoors Show, scheduled this year for February 6-14, in the past. Mayor Eric Papenfuse said that the decision not to offer the department’s services this year was motivated in part by the NRA’s opposition to the city’s gun control policies. “We have an epidemic of gun violence,” Papenfuse told WHTM. “It’s no secret that the NRA has worked against the city’s interests repeatedly over the past year causing us to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend common sense gun ordinances. We don’t need to be doing them any favors.” An NRA spokesman said that despite payments of $600,000 directly to the city since 2014, the mayor wanted the gun rights group to pay additional fees in order to obtain police protection for the show. “Unfortunately, demands were made by the mayor for the 2016 show that included a 60 percent increase in fees to [the police department] to work the show and a requirement of a $50,000 grant for five years to the city,” Jeremy Greene, an NRA spokesman, said in a statement. “This offer was presented as all or nothing. If we did not accept, the mayor would pull [police] support.”
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 11, 2016 18:03:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 14, 2016 21:10:43 GMT -5
ncrenegade.com/editorial/georgia-democrats-introduce-assault-weapon-confiscation-bill/Georgia Democrats Introduce ‘Assault Weapon’ Confiscation BillOn January 11, Democrats in Georgia’s state house introduced a bill that bans “assault weapons” and opens the door for the “seizure” of such weapons, along with accessories like “high capacity” magazines. The bill–HB 731–is sponsored by Mary Margaret Oliver (D-83rd), Stacey Abrams (D-89th), Carolyn Hugley (D-136th), Pat Gardiner (D-57th), Dar’shun Kendrick (D-93rd), Dee Dawkins-Haigler (D-91st). According to the text of HB 731, the bill focuses on ” dangerous instrumentalities and practices” by prohibiting the “possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.” Moreover, the details punishment for crimes involving “the possession, sale, transport, distribution, or use of certain assault weapons, large capacity magazines, armor-piercing bullets, and incendiary .50 caliber bullets.” It also “[designates] certain weaponry and ammunition as contraband and [requires] seizure of such by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.”
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 14, 2016 21:51:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 15, 2016 4:47:17 GMT -5
I saw fox moving left years ago and rarely even view it these days. Even when I did watch years ago, I have never been able to stand oreilly.
Got OANN?
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Jan 20, 2016 4:50:52 GMT -5
Borderland Homicides Show Mexico's Gun Control Has FailedSubmitted by Tyler Durden on 01/19/2016 19:30 -0500, Submitted by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute, We often hear about homicide rates in Mexico and how they are among the highest in the world. While that is true for some parts of Mexico, much of Mexico — where nearly 80 percent of the population lives — has much lower rates than what are often quoted in the media. Most of the high-homicide areas in Mexico are found along the US border, and to a certain extent reflect the work of drug cartels working to keep drug trafficking channels open to the US. And yet, right across the border in the US, homicide rates are remarkable low. In fact, homicide rates along the US side of the border are significantly below the US average. Why is this? www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-19/borderland-homicides-show-mexicos-gun-control-has-failed
|
|
|
Post by Michael Downing on Jan 30, 2016 16:28:22 GMT -5
blog.cheaperthandirt.com/town-sheriff-requires-essay-obtain-ccw/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=013016chronicle&utm_campaign=CH013016-townsheriffrequiresessayobtainccwChief of Police Requires “Essay” to Obtain CCW As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment we are used to lawmakers and public officials coming up with new ways to subvert the law and enact defacto gun control. That being said, the Chief of Police of Lowell, Massachusetts, has set the bar to a new low. Massachusetts’ law mandates that it is an, “unrestricted right-to-carry” gun permit state. However, the police chief still has to issue the permit. In this case, the chief of the Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department has mandated that the residents of Lowell submit a written essay to the chief of police that explains just why they want that particular right. To actually receive the permit, the applicant must receive a passing grade. Massachusetts State Firearm Certificate The whole “shall not be infringed argument” is self-explanatory and needs no further explanation here, but how can anyone even conceive an essay requirement as a fair judge of whether to issue an “unrestricted right-to-carry” gun permit? I have read more than one report from police officers… based on their writing skills, more than a few would not have qualified to carry a firearm. However, that is not to say they were not good coppers. There is a lot that goes in to writing a report or an essay, including time, sleep, stressors, and education to name a few, but none of those have anything to do with the restriction of a Constitutional right. English, writing skills, grammar, they are all subjective to the interpretation of the reader. Even the SAT, the standard requirement to enter most four-year universities, requires multiple readers to grade an essay, but not in Lowell. In Lowell, the Chief merely makes up a rule and assigns a reader. In fairness, the Chief did not make the rule, he merely brought it up to the city council who approved it, but you get the idea. Adding insult to injury, in addition to the essay requirement, the residents of Lowell are also required to pay up to $1,100 for firearms training in order to obtain their permit.
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on Feb 1, 2016 14:24:33 GMT -5
Now Among Largest Firearms Investors, Soros in Gun Control Scheme to Dump Stocks: “I’m Very Much Against Guns”Mac Slavo, January 29th, 2016, SHTFplan.com Do you see the puppet strings? The plot to disarm Americans and suspend the 2nd Amendment is working with furious pace. But it is anything but head on. The 2nd Amendment makes gun ownership an inalienable right and guarantees armed and formidable populace. The NRA and other lobbies have gun rights firmly entrenched in the Republican party. So the other side works the back door. Infiltration, sabotage and other dirty tricks. Is that what is happening? By all appearances, Soros, the elite wolf in sheep’s clothing has been investing in firearms companies not to profit from them, but to destroy them, and destroy the access of people to guns and ammunition. www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/now-among-largest-firearms-investors-soros-in-gun-control-scheme-to-dump-stocks-im-very-much-against-guns_01292016
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on May 3, 2016 4:16:20 GMT -5
Another gutless 'republican' shows himself... Guns on Campus Bill Becomes Law Without Haslam SignatureMonday, 02 May 2016 06:16 PM A bill allowing staff and faculty at Tennessee's public colleges and universities to be armed on campus has become law without Republican Gov. Bill Haslam's signature. Haslam said in a statement Monday that he disagreed with the bill for not allowing campus leaders to make their own decision about allowing guns. But the governor acknowledged that the final version of the measure had addressed concerns raised by college administrators, with provisions protecting colleges from liability in lawsuits and a requirement to notify law enforcement about who is armed on campus. www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/tennessee-guns-on-campus/2016/05/02/id/726851/
|
|
|
Post by avordvet on May 5, 2016 4:27:00 GMT -5
April Marks 12th Straight Month of Record Gun SalesBY: Stephen Gutowski, May 4, 2016 4:03 pm This April saw the most gun-related background checks of any April on record, making it the 12th month in a row to achieve a high water mark for gun sales. The FBI ran 2,145,865 checks through the National Instant Background Check System last month, according to the agency’s records. That represents more than a 400,000 increase over the previous record set in April 2014. Though the numbers represent the best April on record, the month also saw the fewest checks of any month thus far in 2016. The trend of record-setting months began last May. In that period the background check system has seen records set for the most checks in a day, month, and year. Thus far 2016 is on pace to pass 2015 as the best year on record for gun-related background checks. freebeacon.com/issues/april-marks-12th-straight-month-record-gun-sales/
|
|