Judge: Seattle Gun Ban Is Illegal
February 13, 2010
The law has sided with gun rights advocates who took the city of Seattle and former Mayor Greg Nickels to court over the city’s gun ban.
King County Superior Court Judge Catherine Shaffer on Friday ruled in favor of the plaintiffs – the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens’ Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors, National Rifle Association and five individuals – and declared the city of Seattle’s gun ban at public places is in direct violation of Washington state’s firearm pre-emption law.
In issuing the ruling, Shaffer wrote, “Seattle’s Department of Parks and Recreation’s Rule/Policy Number P 060-8.14 (”Firearms Rule”) violates Washington law and on that basis, is null and void.”
The city has been ordered to remove all signage banning weapons from public areas within 30 days.
Last June, Nickels issued an order banning guns on city facilities where children are likely to frequent. The places on the ban list include parks, playgrounds, community and environmental learning centers, sports fields and courts, swimming beaches, pools, water play areas, skate parks and golf courses.
The plaintiffs’ complaint challenged Nickels’ executive order, stating “ownership of firearm is a clearly protected right under the United States and Washington Constitutions.”
The complaint also cited Washington state Attorney General Rob McKenna, who issued an opinion in response to the city’s ban, stating state laws “preempts a city’s authority to adopt firearms law or regulations of applications of the general public.”
SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb called Friday’s ruling “a great victory for the rule of law and Washington citizens.”
“It is also a victory for the Legislature,” Gottlieb said, “because this case affirms the intent of lawmakers in 1983 to prevent cities like Seattle from creating a nightmare patchwork of conflicting and confusing firearms regulations.”
Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, on the other hand, said he’s “disappointed” in the ruling.
“Cities should have the right to restrict guns in playgrounds, pools and community centers where children are present,” he said. “The court’s ruling was based on a state law, RCW 9.41.290, which preempts Seattle from regulating the possession of firearms. It’s time for the state Legislature to change that law.”
Armed Citizens Are The Solution, Not the Problem
February 10, 2010
“Manners being violent, the wearing of arms was prohibited, but only honest folk conformed to the law, thus facilitating matters for others.” – Jusserand, A Literary History of the English-Speaking People from the Origins to the Renaissance, 1895
The right to bear arms is more than a Constitutional right: every human being has the natural unalienable right to self-defense. Cicero said 2,000 years ago, “If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.”
The U.S. Constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, common law, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use arms in self-defense. Right to carry laws respect the right to self-defense by allowing individuals to carry concealed firearms for their own protection.
So many liberal politicians and self-appointed experts want to keep honest Americans from having access to firearms, even though, since 2003, in states which allow concealed carry, violent crime rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1970s. The reverse logic of this “knee jerk” reaction is astounding and has lead to an outright assault on our basic Constitutional and natural rights. These misguided policies to keep firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens literally mean a death sentence for thousands of Americans.
Look at the facts. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, “[R]obbery and assault victims who used a gun to resist were less likely to be attacked or to suffer an injury than those who used any other methods of self-protection or those who did not resist at all.” In approximately 2.5 million instances each year, someone uses a firearm, predominantly a handgun, for self defense in this nation.
In research sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which almost 2,000 felons were interviewed, 34% of felons said they had been “scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim” and 40% of these criminals admitted that they had been deterred from committing a crime out of fear that the potential victim was armed.
South Carolina Moves To Block Gun Registration
February 9, 2010
South Carolina is one of 22 states considering legislation known as the Firearms Freedom Act.
But the folks in the Palmetto State are taking things a step further.
Around the country, twenty two states are currently considering a bill known as the “Firearms Freedom Act.” This bill declares that guns, accessories, and ammunition made within a state, sold within that state and kept in that state are not subject to federal laws or regulations under the “Interstate Commerce Clause” of the Constitution.
Montana and Tennessee passed a Firearms Freedom Act into law in 2009, and a number of states are moving that direction in the 2010 legislative session. In South Carolina, where a Firearms Freedom Act was also introduced in 2009, some representatives have taken things a step further.
NULLIFYING GUN REGISTRATIONS
Introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly this week is House Bill 4509 (H4509), which if passed, would make law that “no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.”
No caveat for regulations under the commerce clause. No caveat for types of firearms either. This bill says NO to all gun registrations – period.
Congress And The United Nations Are Coming For Your Guns
February 4, 2010
The Gun Grabbers are kicking their latest assualt against the Second Amendment up a notch.
Back in May of last year, we reported on how the Inter-American Convention Against The Illicit Manufacturing Of And Trafficking In Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives And Other Related Materials was signed by President Bill Clinton but never ratified by the Senate.
And now the zealots who consider private ownership of firearms a crime against humanity have found a new ally in the International Action Network On Small Arms.
To give you some idea of how delusional the gun grabbers in the UN really are, take note of the claim made in the first 10 seconds of the video:
“Small arms and light weapons are truly weapons of mass destruction.”
How do you reason with some United Nations bureaucrat who ranks a .357 Magnum on the same scale as a nuclear device?
You don’t.
Fanatics such as these have effecively banned private owneship of firearms in numerous countries around the world.
The fact that in all cases crime rates have risen dramatically doesn’t deter them from their anti-gun agenda.
It also fails to stop them, as well as other prominent public figures, from being the biggest hypocrites on Earth, as some of the loudest voices against private ownership of guns don’t go anywhere without armed bodyguards.
The threat to American firearms owners has never been greater.
With President Obama being on record as an anti-Second Amendment individual, along with his falling over backwards to try and make the rest of the international community love America no matter what, he may feel that urging Congress to sign the UN gun ban treaty will somehow make him a great statesman in the eyes of the rest of the world.
So if you want to protect your Second Amendment rights, click here to find contact information for your Senators and tell them in no uncertain terms that they should not ratify an arms control treaty that will only affect law-abiding American citizens.
Gun Ownership As A Cost Of Health Care Reform
October 23, 2009
The National Institute Of Health (NIH) recently began studying the relationship between gun ownership and health issues.
At one time, this sort of research was done by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) until Congress cut funding for the program, after it was found that the flawed research done by the CDC was shown to be biased against gun ownership.
Since it has been ten years since the CDC lost it’s funding for this program, why is there suddenly renewed interest in this type of research?
Some of us, (myself included) see this as yet another backdoor ploy by the “gun grabbers” in Congress and the Obama administration for yet another attack on the Second Amendment.
They will tout the implementation of stricter gun control laws as a means of reducing health care costs, due to the reduction in violent crime that would be the result of additional restrictions on firearms ownership.
They will attempt to make their case by presenting statistics showing that gun violence causes health care resources to be spent in ways that could be better utilized in other areas.
Of course, many of the American public will fall for this gibberish, not realizing that it is simply another ploy by the Obama administration to drum up support for an increasingly unpopular health care reform bill, while having the added bonus of being an assault on Second Amendment rights as well.
However, anyone who, rather than simply believe what they are told, would take the time to study the relationship between gun ownership and it’s resulting effect on health care costs would find quite a different answer than what they would assume to be the case.
Anyone holding the opinion that less gun ownership would result in less violent crime and therefore less of a strain on health care resources would learn that just the opposite is the case.
There is a direct correlation between an increase in firearms ownership and a decrease in violent crime.
Several countries that have enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the world have seen their rates of violent crime increase.
Great Britain, after enacting laws banning the private ownership of handguns, saw their rates of violent crimes more than double.
Australia, after banning the private ownership of nearly all types of firearms, has seen their rates of violent crimes increasing by an average of nearly thirty percent per year.
Turning closer to home, the story is much the same here in the United States.
A study done by the Institute For Legislative Action, a division of the National Rifle Association shows that a 2008 study, using statistics from research done by the BATFE, the FBI and other agencies shows that increases in gun ownership lead to reductions in violent crime.
For those of you who feel that a report from the NRA is bound to be biased towards gun ownership, take a look at this synopsis of a study done by Harvard University explaing how, when it comes to restrictions on firearms ownership leading to less violent crime, and therfore reduced health care costs, the Harvard study comes to the conclusion that Gun Control Is Counterproductive.
Along with a link to the original Harvard University study, this report also mentions the overturning of the ban on firearms ownership in our nation’s capitol, Washington D.C., an area that, in spite of some of the strictest gun control laws in America, also had one of the highest rates of violent crime.
Yet everyone promoting health care reform will claim the fewer firearms will result in less violent crime, and thus treatment funds will be saved.
When all of the evidence is to the contrary.
Oh well, when has lying ever bothered anyone in the Obama administration?
To them, it comes as naturally as breathing.
Real Experts Speak Out Regarding Gun Control
October 18, 2009
For years, we have been subjected to numerous opinions on the issue of gun control.
On one side of the issue are those who believe that the “Right To Keep And Bear Arms” is an inherent American right granted to them by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
On the other side are those who feel that the Second Amendment only applies to an organized militia.
Which side is correct?
In the hope of bring some clarity to the issue of gun control, we decided to find out the feelings of some real experts:
(And pay particular attention to the thoughs of the final person we quote.)
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
“Arms in the hands of private citizens may be used at individual discrestuion in private self-defense.”
John Adams
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
Cesare Beccaria
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
Mohandas Gandhi
“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
The Dalai Lama
“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
George Orwell
“There’s no question that weapons in the hands of the public have prevented acts of terror or stopped them.”
Israeli Police Inspector General Shlomo Aharonisky
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson
Our final quote for today comes from the last person you might expect.
His brother spent decades as a legislator fighting for ever-harsher restrictions on the Second Amendment.
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ ‘the security of the nation,’ and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
John Fitzgerald Kennedy
News And Views 6-23-2009
June 23, 2009
We strive to bring you all of the news you need, in the hopes of stalling the liberal agenda for America.
We search the Internet for some of the top stories by the best conservative writers.
In addition to our own commentaries, here you will find various viewpoints on a multitude of subjects, all in one place.
Project Vote Sues Whistleblower, ObamACORN Bully Tactics Exposed.
Wee The People: Port-A-Potty Named For Pelosi
Iran:The Bloody Revolution Marches On.
Democrats Fleeing Obama Healthcare Plan.
Terrorist Attacks In America: A Nightmare Waiting To Happen
June 16, 2009
A while back, we wrote an article outlining how terrorist cells are running training camps in the USA.
That prompted one of our readers to inform us that he had written an article expressing his thoughts on this subject.
We looked it over, and it is an informative, well-written piece that we feel should be shared.
We urge all of you to read it, and consider the grave implications carefully.
Here’s the link: Nightmare Waiting To Happen.
Gun Buyback Programs Actually Benefit Criminals
June 4, 2009
To those of you who allow your ideology regarding gun control to overrule your common sense, the scenario I am about to present will seem a bit farfetched.
Those of you capable of rational thought will feel otherwise.
Allow us to consider a typical gun buyback program in an U.S. town or city:
The news media will make announcements that the local police department will be handing out gift cards to dining establishments, retail shops, whatever, for any firearm a citizen turns into the police, no questions asked.
Usually, the rationale behind these programs is explained as being a way of reducing the number of guns that could be stolen and used in a crime, and/or as a means of preventing accidental shooting deaths.
The question remains, do programs such as these really accomplish their purpose?
Let’s think about in in depth.
First, let’s tackle the reduction in accidental deaths claim.
I’ll allow that not having access to a firearm may reduce the possibilty of injury or death due to an accidental shooting.
However, if you were to deeply research statistics from the National Center For Disease Control, a U.S. government agency that tracks just about everything medical as related to life and death in the United States, you would find that accidental deaths due to the misuse of a firearm rank last as a cause.
On average, each year twenty times more accidental deaths occur in the U.S. as a result of someone falling off of something.
Seems to me like a stepladder buyback program would save more lives.
Now, as to the claim that such programs lessen the possibility of stolen guns being used in a crime, take a look at the following excerpt taken from the interview of an ATF agent appearing on the PBS series Frontline:
“Ask a cop on the beat how criminals get guns and you’re likely to hear this hard boiled response: “They steal them” But this street wisdom is wrong, according to one frustrated Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agent who is tired of battling this popular misconception.
An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners’ homes and cars.
”Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,” Wachtel said.
Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.”
So, you have an agent of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms disputing the popular left-wing claim that most guns used in the commisson of a crime were stolen from a private residence.
That still leaves a criminal many more, and possibly much easier ways to obtain a firearm.
I think the above is sufficent proof that gun buyback programs fail miserably as either a means of preventing accidental deaths or as a crime reduction method.
However, all of this still leaves my assertion that gun buyback programs are actually a boon to the criminal elements of society.
Well, for one thing, planning and running the programs, performing the actual buyback itself, the paperwork involved, and the disposal of the firearms surely takes up an inordinate amount of law enforcement time and resources.
Time and resources that would be put to better use investigating crimes and arresting criminals.
Another advantage to the criminal element is that the number of law abiding citizens owning firearms is reduced.
Thus reducing the number of people who would have an effective means of self-defense avialable in the event of a burgulary,robbery, or home invasion.
A multitude of interviews of prison inmates have shown the inmates making the statement that they are highly unlikely to attempt a criminal act against a homeowner they believe to be armed.
And before any of you gun control zealots who may be reading this try and tell me that these potential victims could simply call the police, what happens between the time you discover someone attempting to break into your home and the time the police arrive?
The average response time to a 911 call for police assistance is eight minutes.
That response time could prove to be the longest eight minutes of your life.
Providing you are still alive when all is said and done.
However, the average response time for a .357 Magnum is 1,235 feet per second.
Finally, I wonder if the people behind the idea of these gun buyback programs have ever considered the possibility that they may be creating a pool of potential victims.
Because if I were an individual of a criminal frame of mind, I, perhaps along with some fellow lawbreakers, would simply monitor the area where the program was taking place, and then follow home the people who turned in their firearms.
Now I know that not only don’t these folks have a firearm in the house that they may be able to use against me, I also know where these people unable to defend themselves live.
Not only am I now free to steal from them whatever I want, along with perhaps taking the time to commit murder while I am at it, or perhaps rape any female who happens to be at home, I can now treat myself to dinner afterwards with the gift card the police so kindly provided.
Myth:Gun Control Reduces Crime
May 27, 2009
Salvaterra and I were sitting in the office the other day, discussing how occasionally you can explain something to someone who is just plain stupid, but that it is damn-near impossible with someone who either completely lacks common sense, or someone who is so blinded by a particular ideology that they simply choose to ignore any factual information that undermines their premise.
There is perhaps no better proof of that statement than regarding the issue of gun control.
Time and time again select members of Congress, the mainstream media, and various other individuals that suffer from the delusion that if only America had stricter gun laws, we would have less crime.
This has to be some sort of mental disease.
There is an overwhelming amount of data that proves that not only do restrictions on firearms ownership fail to lower crime rates, in the vast majority of situations the exact opposite is the case!
I think that it is long past the time when those of us who believe in the Second Amendment stand up and (theoretically) bitch-slap these gun grabbers who claim that less guns equals less crime, when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. and demand that they explain their position when everything points out that they are simply misguided fools.
Watch the video to learn more:
Recent Comments