Posts Tagged ‘firearms’
Posted by Richard on March 24, 2014
If you have kids in the government schools, you might want to check into what they’re being taught about the Second Amendment. In at least one Illinois school, it’s this:
“This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison,” the handout says.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: education, firearms, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 22, 2014
In a rational world, this story by Katie Pavlich wouldn’t be particularly newsworthy. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it is:
School officials in Pueblo County, Colorado are bucking the anti-gun trend and recently approved a field trip for middle school students to a local shooting range where they learned about gun safety and how to properly handle a firearm. The gun safety and marksman group Project Appleseed, an activity of The Revolutionary War Veterans Association, was brought in to instruct students, all of whom fired at the range with live ammunition. The trip was scheduled shortly after students learned about The Revolutionary War in their classrooms.
“We’ve never been allowed to bring actual real firearms into a school. Until this week. This is a very big deal. We had them touching fire arms, holding them and learning about how to handle them safely,” Appleseed Instructor Elizabeth Blackwood told KRDO.
Here is the money quote from student Jonah Statezny, who went on the trip: “I think everyone should learn how to use a gun but learn how to use it properly, and the precautions you’re supposed to take and how serious a gun really is.”
Jonah is pretty wise for a middle school student.
I certainly hope this sort of field trip will become more common in the future, because it will make both our youth and our society in general safer. A study published in 1995 by the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (PDF) tracked 4000 kids in urban Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY, over seven years. Vin Suprynowicz summarized the key findings related to whether and how the kids were introduced to firearms:
— Children who get guns from their parents don’t commit gun crimes (0 percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to do so (21 percent).
— Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in the house (24 percent) — and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.)
— Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned drugs (13 percent) than children who get illegal guns (41 percent.)
— Most strikingly, the study found: “Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns.”
This wouldn’t have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern welfare state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to get kids to act “responsibly” was precisely to give them some “responsibility.” Why would we assume a child taught by his parents to use a gun responsibly wouldn’t also be more responsible in his other behaviors?
“Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a gun-related crime or — heaven forbid — go on a shooting spree?” asked the national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release detailing these study results. “Buy your youngster a gun.”
“Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than they are in facts,” commented LP national director Steve Dasbach, himself an Indiana government schoolteacher. But “The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly.”
As Katie Pavlich said, “This is the definition of a well rounded, quality education. Bravo Pueblo County.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: children, crime, education, firearms, guns, responsibility, shooting | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 1, 2014
Illinois has issued the first 5,000 concealed carry permits under its new “shall issue” law. Another 45,000+ applications are in the pipeline. The Second Amendment Foundation celebrated the occasion yesterday (emphasis added):
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today offered congratulations to the first 5,000 recipients of Illinois concealed carry licenses, which were mailed out by the State Police.
It was a SAF case – Moore v. Madigan – that forced the Illinois Legislature to adopt a concealed carry law last year over the objections of anti-gun Gov. Pat Quinn and others including Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
“While politicians had to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the Second Amendment,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “the good citizens are rushing to enjoy their newly-restored firearms freedom. State officials said today they have received more than 50,000 permit applications. Last month, Fox News reported that concealed carry applications had outpaced the number of applications for Obamacare.
“We’re proud that our case brought about this opportunity for Illinois citizens to join millions of other Americans in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and especially bear arms,” he continued. “If the Illinois experience has taught us anything, it is that the die-hard anti-gun politicians who opposed this new law are horribly out of touch with their constituents.”
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, concealed carry, firearms, illinois, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 26, 2014
From the Citizens Committee for the Right to Bear Arms:
BELLEVUE, WA – The FBI’s semi-annual uniform crime data for the first half of 2013 confirms once again what the firearms community already knew, that violent crime has continued to decline while gun sales have continued to climb, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
The report, issued last week, says murders declined 6.9 percent from the first half of 2012, while aggravated assaults dropped by 6.6 percent nationwide and robberies were down 1.8 percent. Forcible rapes declined 10.6 percent from the same period in 2012 and overall, violent crime fell by 10.6 percent in non-metropolitan counties and 3.6 percent in metropolitan counties.
“This new information reinforces the notion that not only do guns save lives, their presence in the hands and homes of law-abiding citizens just might be a deterrent to crime,” observed CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “The National Shooting Sports Foundation has been reporting a steady increase in firearm sales for the past few years. Taken as a whole, one cannot help but conclude that the predictions from gun prohibitionists that more guns leads to more crime have been consistently wrong.”
Gottlieb said the tired argument from the anti-gun lobby that more firearms in the hands of private citizens would result in sharp increases in violence have run out of traction. Not only has the decline in crime corresponded with an increase in gun sales, it also coincides with a steady rise in the number of citizens obtaining concealed carry licenses and permits, he noted.
“The FBI report says burglaries and auto theft have also decreased,” Gottlieb said, “and it is impossible to look at this pattern and not suggest that increased gun ownership just might be one contributing factor. Gun prohibitionists would, of course, dismiss that suggestion as poppycock, but you can bet your life savings that if the data was reversed, and violent crime had risen, the gun control lobby would be rushing to every available microphone declaring that guns were to blame.
“This continuing pattern brings up a pertinent question,” he concluded. “If the gun ban lobby has been so wrong about more guns resulting in more crime, what else have they been wrong about? The word ‘everything’ comes to mind.”
2013 was yet another record year for gun sales.
In Detroit, where government services including law enforcement have been cut back, more and more people are taking responsibility for defending themselves. And, wonder of all wonders, they have the support of the police chief:
Detroit Police Chief James Craig has been an outspoken supporter of arming law-abiding citizens, and has publicly stated that “Good Americans with concealed pistols translates into crime reduction.”
Living conditions in Detroit have declined in recent years. The city’s bankruptcy led to a reduced police force, and residents have had to learn to protect themselves. Self-defense killings in Detroit rose to 2200% above the national average in recent years, and Chief Craig says that more than 300 legally armed citizens defended themselves last year.
Maybe wanna-be thugs in Detroit will think twice about messing with homeowners in the area.
UPDATE: Related — Michael Barone says the evidence of the last quarter-century has changed his mind regarding “shall issue” concealed carry laws:
The result has been that over the years the entire nation has become carry-concealed-weapons territory, as shown in a neat graphic in a Volokh Conspiracy blog post by Dave Kopel. Back in 1987, some people, myself included, worried that such laws would lead to frequent shootouts on the streets arising from traffic altercations and the like. That has not happened — something we can be sure of since the mainstream media would be delighted to headline such events.
To the contrary, violent crime rates have declined drastically during the last quarter-century. I don’t think you can prove that concealed-weapons laws caused that result, but they have probably contributed to it, because would-be criminals are less likely to assault people they believe might be armed. In any case the argument that concealed-weapons laws would lead to more violent crime has been about as thoroughly refuted as an argument can be.
One lesson, I think, is that responsible citizens tend to behave like responsible citizens, even if — or perhaps especially if — they’re armed. Another lesson is that the national political dialogue can be totally irrelevant to what really happens in American life.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: crime, firearms, freedom, gun control, human rights, second amendment, self-defense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 26, 2014
I guess being attacked by your own government for daring to protest its actions has a way of focusing the mind on what’s important. The Ukrainian Gun Owners Association recently issued this statement (emphasis in original):
Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.
After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.
As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.
People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.
Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!
Armed people are treated with respect!
Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Tim Knight of the Colorado Second Amendment Association, and the NRA have voiced their support. Townhall’s Katie Pavlich noted:
Currently, gun laws in the Ukraine are categorized as restrictive and only “licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition.” Ukrainians who apply for a firearms license must show “genuine reason” for why they are doing so, which must approved by the State.
I’m guessing that “I want to protect myself from government goons” is not an acceptable “genuine reason” for getting a firearms license there. Sort of like New York, Chicago, …
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, freedom, human rights, second amendment, self-defense, ukraine | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on December 19, 2012
In the wake of the Newtown school massacre, Rep. Diana DeGette (SD-CO1) is again pushing a bill to ban magazines (they’re not “clips”) that hold more than 10 rounds. Her argument for this legislation is interesting:
DeGette says banning high-capacity clips would go a long way toward limiting the number of shots that can be fired by a gunman in the event of future mass shootings.
“We can probably never stop a disturbed individual completely from taking a gun and going into a school or a shopping mall or a store parking lot and trying to shoot people, but we can give those victims a fighting chance,” she said. …
A “fighting chance”?? DeGette’s idea of a “fighting chance” is a chance to be the 11th or 12th person targeted by some homicidal maniac — the person who might be able to escape (or maybe risk trying to tackle the shooter?) during the two seconds it takes the shooter with a 10-round magazine to drop the empty mag and slam home a fresh one.
My idea of a “fighting chance” is a chance to actually fight back. To shoot back. How about legislation to ban so-called gun-free zones? Schools, colleges, shopping malls, and theaters where guns are banned are also known as “target-rich environments” because all the good guys are disarmed and helpless. And that’s the real problem — in these places, there are no guns in the hands of the decent, peaceful, and law-abiding.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: degette, firearms, gun control, gun violence, guns | 4 Comments »
Posted by Richard on December 17, 2012
Sunday evening, President Obama said in reaction to the NewTown, Connecticut, massacre that “we have to change.” He was right.
Obama and those who think like him have to change.
They have to abandon their irrational belief that laws are magic.
They have to realize that making someplace a “gun-free zone” doesn’t make the people there safer — it makes them less safe, because it only affects the peaceful, law-abiding, and harmless.
They have to admit that banning some weapon or weapons won’t deter madmen, terrorists, or other predators because it only affects the peaceful, law-abiding, and harmless.
Three decades ago, after a series of PLO terrorist attacks on schools, the Israelis realized that the only way to stop such attacks was to arm the adults at those schools. Are we too stupid to learn the lesson learned by those Israelis — that you stop someone from shooting your children by shooting back?
The problem at Sandy Hook Elementary school wasn’t too many guns — it was too few. The only guns in the school were in the hands of the deranged predator, Adam Lanza.
School principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach rushed Lanza in an attempt to stop him, but they were unarmed and defenseless. Lanza shot them down. Teacher Victoria Soto stood between Lanza and the door behind which her students were hiding. She too was gunned down.
What if Hochsprung, Sherlach, or Soto had had a .38 revolver and had been trained to use it? Could one of them have put two slugs center-mass into Lanza before he shot anyone else? We’ll never know.
But we do know this: the only way Lanza could have been stopped is if someone in that school had shot him.
Obama and those who think like him have to change.
They have to recognize that laws won’t keep weapons out of the hands of the bad guys. And they have to recognize that weapons in the hands of the good guys, and the will to use them, will save lives.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, gun control, gun violence, guns, obama | 11 Comments »
Posted by Richard on October 3, 2012
A week or so ago, the Spanish-language network Univision aired an interview with President Obama. As Investor’s Business Daily observed, it was a far cry from the fawning interviews full of softball questions that Obama has been able to count on from the mainstream media. They actually asked tough questions, particularly regarding Operation Fast and Furious and the administration’s immigration policy, and followed up with more tough questions when fed the usual pabulum. (The Daily Caller has the video and more about the interview.) I wish the presidential debates were being hosted by people like Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas.
Last Sunday night, Univision aired an hour-long investigative report on Operation Fast and Furious with lots of new revelations. The Examiner called it “hard-hitting” and “devastating.” The Blaze called it a “bombshell” and highlighted “5 Things You Didn’t Know About Operation Fast and Furious” (although those of us who get our news online and don’t rely on the MSM knew some of them).
Breitbart and Newsbusters both noted the almost complete absence of interest in these revelations by the mainstream media. ABC News did report on the story online (but not on ABC Nightly News), but not exactly prominently:
Nothing shows how much the media wants to downplay this story more than the ABC News site, which finds the Fast and Furious scandal a lower priority than Woman Sues Over Personality Test Job Rejection, Anne Hathaway Marries Adam Shulman, Banned Books Week: 10 Books That Keep Censors Jumping.
Why do I single out ABC News? Univision and ABC News enjoy a partnership. So what you have here is ABC downplaying the superb investigative work of its own partner.
Is anyone surprised by the MSM blackout? Not me. I admit I’m somewhat surprised (pleasantly) by Univision’s interview and investigative report. I understand they generally lean liberal. But in these two instances, they did journalism as it should be done — and as the MSM has long since quit doing it.
Thank you, Univision! These two stories could (and should) reduce the support for Obama in the Hispanic community by a small but measurable amount.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: corruption, democrats, firearms, gun control, journalism, violence | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on August 1, 2012
Forbes contributor Mark Gibbs would prefer more gun control laws, but he’s a realist regarding technological progress, and that progress makes his dream an increasingly impossible fantasy:
I’m in favor of tighter gun control and a ban on weapons that are unnecessarily powerful but I’m afraid that technology will soon make any legislation that limits the availability of any kinds of guns ineffective.
The technology that’s shattering Gibbs’ dream is 3-D printing, which like everything computer-related is getting cheaper and more powerful all the time. Although most entry-level 3-D printers can only produce objects in plastics, higher-end printers can work with ceramics and metals.
And that means you can print a gun. And someone has.
Not an entire gun, mind you, but the lower receiver of an AR-15.
The receiver is, in effect, the framework of a gun and holds the barrel and all of the other parts in place. It’s also the part of the gun that is technically, according to US law, the actual gun and carries the serial number.
When the weapon was assembled with the printed receiver HaveBlue reported he fired 200 rounds and it operated perfectly.
I believe you can buy all the parts to build an AR-15 except the lower receiver without any background check or paperwork. So if you can make your own lower receiver on your very own 3-D printer, you’re in business.
Gibbs recognized the implications:
What’s particularly worrisome is that the capability to print metal and ceramic parts will appear in low end printers in the next few years making it feasible to print an entire gun and that will be when gun control becomes a totally different problem.
Will there be legislation designed to limit freedom of printing? The old NRA bumper sticker “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” will have to be changed to “If guns are outlawed, outlaws will have 3D printers.”
One of the mantras of the computer/information revolution is “Information wants to be free (as in speech, not as in beer).” We may be on the verge of a new revolution in which the self-defense rights movement, the open source hardware movement, and advances in 3-D printing converge to lead to a new slogan: “Firearms want to be free (as in speech, not as in beer).”
(HT: Glenn Reynolds via David Aitken)
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: computers, firearms, gun control, guns | 3 Comments »
Posted by Richard on April 5, 2012
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed another suit against yet another public housing authority that bans residents from owning firearms, this time in Warren County, Illinois:
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronald G. Winbigler, a resident of Costello Terrace in Monmouth. Mr. Winbigler is a physically disabled former police officer who wants to have a handgun in his residence for personal protection. The lawsuit seeks equitable, declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the WCHA ban. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Rock Island Division.
“Ron Winbigler faces the same dilemma so many other residents of government-subsidized public housing face,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “He wants a firearm for self-defense, but he risks losing a place to live because of bureaucratic political correctness. As a police officer, he consistently trained and repeatedly qualified in the safe use and handling of firearms, and because of his experience, he understands the threat of crime.”
“People do not lose their Second Amendment rights just because they are of limited means,” added attorney David Sigale, who represents SAF and Winbigler in this action. “Nobody wishes to be in need of financial assistance, but it is an indignity to make the waiver of constitutional rights a condition of government-subsidized housing. We are confident the Courts will hold that those residents have the same right to defend their families and themselves as everyone else.”
Frankly, given the generous pensions and disability benefits unionized police officers receive in most jurisdictions, I have to wonder why Ron Winbigler resides in government-subsidized housing. But maybe his jurisdiction is different — I don’t know anything about how he came to reside there.
In any case, Winbigler is certainly a sympathetic plaintiff for this kind of case. And I agree wholeheartedly with Gottlieb (a classmate at the University of Tennessee) and Sigale. Government-subsidized housing, if it must exist, cannot require residents to give up their 2nd Amendment rights any more than it can require them to give up their 1st Amendment rights. This case, like similar cases in the past, should be a slam-dunk. Unless the judge is a Clinton or Obama appointee.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, gun control, second amendment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 30, 2012
The Second Amendment Foundation had a great month in March, winning four gun rights victories in court. The latest was in Massachusetts, of all places. The Federal District Court struck down a law barring permanent resident aliens from owning a handgun:
BELLEVUE, WA – A Federal District Court Judge in Massachusetts today granted summary judgment in a Second Amendment Foundation case challenging that state’s denial of firearms licenses to permanent resident aliens.
U.S. District Court Judge Douglas P. Woodcock concluded that “…the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment.”
The case involves two Massachusetts residents, Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal, whose applications for licenses to possess firearms in their homes for immediate self-defense purposes were denied under a state law that does not allow non-citizens to own handguns. SAF was joined in the case by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc. and the two individual plaintiffs. The case is Fletcher v. Haas.
The previous three victories came in North Carolina, Washington state, and Maryland. Read about them here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, human rights, second amendment, self-defense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on March 5, 2012
The Colorado Supreme Court killed the University of Colorado’s ban on campus concealed carry today. From Rocky Mountain Gun Owners:
This ruling supported the decision of a court of appeals from April 2010, and reversed a position paper by then-Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar (an opinion which the current Attorney General, John Suthers, refused to change).
The crux of today’s ruling states that the Colorado General Assembly did, in fact, intend on concealed carry permit holders to be able to carry on all campuses, statewide.
“First CSU and the Community Colleges, and now all the CU Campuses; finally, the administrators for Colorado’s public colleges have been told they don’t have dictatorial powers,” said Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO), and a lobbyist for the entire 9-year battle for Colorado’s Concealed Carry Act.
“The creation of this criminal safezone, where only criminals are armed, was ill-advised and dangerous to anyone who finds themselves on a college campus,” Brown said.
“Now, RMGO will move on to force more publicly owned facilities to live by the law.”
Meanwhile in Maryland, a federal court has ruled that the right to bear arms doesn’t end at your front door. The Second Amendment Foundation called it a “huge victory”:
Ruling in the case of Woollard v. Sheridan – a case brought by SAF in July 2010 on behalf of Maryland resident Raymond Woollard, who was denied his carry permit renewal – the U.S. District Court for Maryland ruled that “The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”
U.S. District Court Judge Benson Everett Legg noted, “In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment‘s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be’.”
“This is a monumentally important decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one’s doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be. Once again, SAF’s attorney in this case, Alan Gura, has won an important legal victory. He was the attorney who argued the landmark Heller case, and he represented SAF in our Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago.
“Equally important in Judge Legg’s ruling,” he added, “is that concealed carry statutes that are so discretionary in nature as to be arbitrary do not pass constitutional muster.”
“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Judge Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”
A very good day for self-defense rights.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil liberties, firearms, human rights, second amendment, self-defense | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on February 8, 2012
Reporter Amanda Kost had a great story on Denver’s 7NEWS tonight about the explosion in gun ownership among women and the growing number of them who get together at the gun range to enjoy the shooting sports and develop self-defense skills. Very positive, informative, and well-presented. Check it out.
A friend who went to the last Tanner Gun Show commented on how many more women there were than in the past. I haven’t been to a gun show since last fall, but I noticed the same thing then. IMHO, this is a very, very good thing.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, guns, women and guns | 1 Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 28, 2012
San Francisco’s new sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, helped found the Green Party of California, worked for Ralph Nader in 2000, and was a strident advocate of gun control. Even MSNBC described him as “fiercely liberal –even in the context of progressive San Francisco.” Before being elected sheriff, he served for seven years on the Board of Supervisors, where he worked hard to strengthen San Francisco’s already-stringent gun control laws.
Recently, Mirkarimi was charged with misdemeanor domestic violence battery, child endangerment, and “dissuading a witness” (Is that like intimidating a witness, but more polite? Or just more politically connected?) for an incident involving his wife. Since the initial charges, two former girlfriends have come forward alleging that he abused them, too. And it’s been reported that Mirkarimi has a bad temper and tyrannizes his staff.
As a result of the arrest, and to the surprise of many, he was forced to surrender three handguns that he owns. According to CBS San Francisco, “Mirkarimi would not comment about any aspect of his gun ownership, where he kept the weapons or in what manner the firearms were stored.” That’s interesting because one of the gun control laws he helped strengthen last year mandates that all guns be securely locked up (and unavailable for self-defense).
David Cordrea, while not exactly sympathetic to Mirkarimi’s plight, pointed out the injustice of the laws Mirkarimi and his ilk have long supported, and which are now applied to him:
“If Mirkarimi were convicted on the domestic violence charge, he would not be able to carry a gun as sheriff,” reporter Joshua Sabatini claims.
True, but it would entail more than that. If convicted, “thanks” to the infamous Lautenberg Amendment, he would be a prohibited person under federal law, forbidden not only to carry a gun, but to own or even touch one—forever.
And a protective order is enough to disenfranchise him from his fundamental right to keep and bear arms prior to being convicted of anything.
But even if convicted, a prohibition of a fundamental natural right over a misdemeanor is overkill. …
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb was less measured:
“Mirkarimi’s case presents a massive irony,” Gottlieb observed. “Here’s a man who has supported restrictive gun control measures while on the Board of Supervisors, and yet he had three handguns. He just was elected sheriff, and now he’s accused of a crime that, if he is convicted, could cost him his gun rights for the rest of his life under federal law.
“Perhaps Mirkarimi’s biggest problem is that he is now exposed as a double-standard elitist,” he continued. “News reports about this case over the past few days suggest that he may also have an anger-management problem.”
…“Someone who has been legally disarmed over a criminal charge,” he concluded, “should not be permitted to serve as a chief law enforcement officer. Someone like Mirkarimi, who has done whatever he could to discourage others from owning firearms, should admit his world-class hypocrisy and walk away from the public arena.”
Admit his hypocrisy? I’m not holding my breath. But I look forward to hearing him argue that he can continue to fulfill the duties of sheriff without so much as touching a gun.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: california, firearms, gun control, hypocrisy, leftists | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Richard on January 1, 2012
Mayor Sam Jones of Mobile, Alabama, is a member of Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, an organization that advocates much stricter gun control laws and opposes letting private citizens carry guns. On Dec. 20th, Jones returned home to find a burglar in his garage. He held the man at gunpoint until police arrived.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) pointed out the hypocrisy — and possible illegality — of the mayor’s actions:
… According to published reports, Jones was returning home from an errand, driving his private vehicle. “His bodyguard, who drives the mayor’s city vehicle, was not on duty,” the Press-Register newspaper reported. And now there are questions about whether the mayor has an Alabama carry permit.
“Here is a municipal mayor who has a bodyguard, and believes it is okay for him to carry a gun, but he belongs to an organization that consistently works to keep everyone else from carrying,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If the mayor is legally licensed, why does he belong to a group that has fought to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their self-defense right?
“If Mayor Jones doesn’t have a permit,” he continued, “then he is a poster child for the double standards that elites like Mayor Michael Bloomberg believe separates them from the citizens they serve. Either way, Mayor Jones owes it to his constituents to show them his carry permit, and to oppose any further attempts by Mayors Against Illegal Guns to prevent private citizens from exercising their constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.
“It is no surprise that average American citizens are fed up with government officials at all levels,” Gottlieb observed. “We’re glad that Mayor Jones had the means and the willingness to protect his property, but we are stunned and disappointed that he belongs to an organization whose very essence is to make it virtually impossible for average citizens to do likewise.”
What he said.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: firearms, gun control, guns, hypocrisy | Leave a Comment »