Sunday, June 25, 2017

Gun Laws

by -

Thursday, the Republican-led House of Representatives voted to repeal one of Obama’s gun regulations.

The House ended the regulation that requires the Social Security Administration to reveal mental illness information to the national gun background check system.

Obama put the regulation into place in the finals days of his administration and now Trump has rolled it back.

Now those that the Social Security Administration incapable of managing their own disability benefits due to mental illness can now get a gun. On the surface it sounds like it is logical, but the devil is in the details.

Obama’s regulation did not allow for any due process. If you were on the list that blocked you from getting a gun, then there was no way to get off. The regulation also received criticism for being too broad and limiting people that should not be eliminated.

In a rare moment in history, the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union both agree that the rule cast too large of a net to be legal. Both groups opposed the regulation.

Even though the rule had opposition from all sides, there is no doubt social media and the liberal media will fan the “Trump” hate with jokes about him “finally being able to buy a gun.” Or worse, just plain hysteria without facts.

We are living in an interesting time and there are a lot of people spending their days hating Trump. Trump gives them a lot of ammo, but this gun regulation by Obama limited the Constitutional rights of many Americans. Trump is standing up for the Constitution. That is all we can hope for.

What do you think about Trump changing Obama’s gun regulation? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
gun laws

After any major shooting in America, you will hear the liberals come out and demand new gun laws and they call for a ban on assault weapons, but their plan won’t work.

At least banning assault rifles and making it extremely hard to get handguns should stop violence right?

In Chicago, a city with some of the strictest gun laws in America, there have been 2,395 shooting victims since the start of the New Year. In comparison, there were 2,988 all of last year.

Chicago has a ban on assault rifles, it has a violence tax, strict rules for buying handguns and they even control the number of gun stores and their locations, but none of that stopped the city from having it’s deadliest month in over a decade.

In July there were 65 killed by gun violence, the most since July of 2006.

Those are just the July records, but in June, there were close to 72 people killed, so at least the July numbers were a little better. If that is what you can call it.

So far this year there have been close to 400 homicides in Chicago in seven months, and 490 all of last year. Unfortunately, Chicago looks like it will almost double the number from last year by 2017.

Liberals try so hard to end gun violence by taking away the guns, instead of taking away the desire to kill. Most of the deaths in Chicago are black on black crimes that are happening in the most impoverished parts of the city.

If one was to look at the situation without biased, then controlling guns isn’t the answer to stopping violence, but it is getting people out of poverty and giving them something to live for.

What are your thoughts on the unbelievable homicide rate in a city with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation? Let us know in the comments below.

by -

A man in Hawaii has filed a lawsuit against the Honolulu Police Department for discriminating against non-U.S. citizens with respect to gun rights.

The United Kingdom citizen, Andrew Namiki Roberts, is a legal permanent resident of the United States. When navigating the stringent gun laws of Hawaii, he ran into a bit of trouble.

First, he acquired a permit just to purchase and own rifles and shotguns. Then, he took a firearm safety course, which is required before one can be issued a permit to obtain a handgun. But when he went to get the permit, after jumping through every legal hoop, he was told that his background documentation was not complete. He would have to get a letter from the British consulate on his behalf. When his background check was denied, it also invalidated his previous permit to have rifles and shotguns and the one he had purchased from a Hawaii sports shop was seized.

Hawaii’s firearm permit allows a person to purchase a firearm, use it for hunting, or transport said firearm to specific locations like gunsmiths or shooting ranges. Hawaii law also requires firearms to be registered at a statewide level. The county police departments are in charge of handling the permits and registrations, like the DMV for guns. Last year, a ruling was made by a federal judge in Honolulu that said only granting permits to U.S. citizens was unconstitutional.

The department is hoping to circumvent the ruling by requiring those with green cards to obtain extra clearance. Roberts’ lawsuit is calling the extra documentation required “unfair” and discriminatory against permanent resident aliens. Another issue that the lawsuit takes with the arrangement is that there is no written requirement for the documentation.

Hawaii law states that an inquiry will be made into permit applicants if they are not U.S. citizens, through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and the Immigration Enforcement databases. Roberts’ is arguing that if he has already passed all the requirements to be a permanent resident, the extra requirements are unfair. The lawsuit states that, “Mr. Roberts has the constitutional right to keep and possess firearms in his home for the purpose of self-defense,”.

What do you think? Should he have to become a citizen to own firearms? Or is the permanent residency investigation enough?

by -
Bloomberg Ant-Gun Group

On Monday, Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group, Everytown for Gun Safety, published a report stating the success of background checks.

The group contradicted itself by praising the system while also saying that the number of denied requests fell by half between 2002 and 2013 and made the assumption that those who are denied a firearms purchase at a licensed dealer went on to pursue a purchase from “unlicensed sellers.”

Former NYC mayor Bloomberg pledged $50 million to Everytown for Gun Safety, which means the group is able to hire researchers and statisticians to produce credible reports.

The group cited an earlier report of an investigation of the users of Everytown for Gun Safety claimed that one in 30 people on the site had a criminal record or domestic violence history.

The group claims it searched the site’s “want to buy” section and matched contact information to criminal records.

However, a quick search of shows very few requests to purchase an actual firearm on the site. Posts include requests for parts, gun smithing, hunting leases, etc.

The claims by Bloomberg’s group are suspect given and clearly statistically unreliable as 30 requests to purchase a firearm could not be found within a 60 day period.

Ten “want to buy” requests were posted from November 1 2014, to January 12, 2015. Of those, four were from dealers and all of the others were looking for specific, collectable firearms with the exception of one barter – a dentist in Washington State looking to trade services for a firearms and outdoor/hunting gear.

Private firearms transactions between parties are legal in most states.

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island require background checks for all transactions while Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania require checks on handgun purchases.

Even while private transactions are legal in most states, many gun owners and collectors prefer to conduct official transfers during a transaction for liability reasons.

A review of listings from (a leading private firearms auction site), shows that all listings state up front that transfers will be conducted through FFL’s (Federal Firearms License Holders).

by -
Maryland Gun Laws

In Dante’s Inferno, the gates of Hell are inscribed with the Latin phrase, “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.” Translated into English, the iconic phrase reads, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” Today, however, this phrase would be quite apt on all signs announcing the crossover into the state of Maryland, with one little tweak: “Abandon all hope, gun owners who enter here.”

One year ago last week, Florida-resident John Filippidis and his family were traveling through Maryland when his vehicle was pulled over by a Maryland Transportation Authority police officer. Filippidis, a concealed carry permit holder in his home state, was unsure of the reason for the stop, but as he quickly discovered, little about what would happen next had to do with his driving. According to Filippidis, as reported by the Tampa Tribune, the MDTA officer tailed his vehicle for 10 minutes before eventually signaling for him to pull over. After taking his license and registration for a check, the officer returned with demands that Filippidis exit the vehicle, assume the position, and tell him where his firearm was located. Meanwhile, his family was separated in the back of police cruisers while officers ransacked his car looking for his personal firearm that he had thought ahead of time to leave at home, in case of this very situation.

An internal review of the incident by the MDTA determined the stop to have followed protocol, and the search of Filippidis’ car to be “reasonable” based on nothing more than the “conflicting” statements made by his shaken wife about the location of the gun, as well as the officer’s belief that he smelled the odor of marijuana in the car. Not surprisingly, the exhaustive search of the vehicle turned-up neither firearm, nor marijuana or related paraphernalia. Instead, Filippidis was let go, after hours of harassment, with merely a warning for speeding.

As the Washington Times notes in its recent coverage of this incident, there are a growing number of stories from Maryland in which out-of-state concealed carry permit holders have been subjected to the same harassment as Filippidis; raising suspicion that the state with a long-standing reputation for being hostile to gun rights, is using the Second Amendment as a basis to harass otherwise law-abiding citizens for purposes that have little, if anything, to do with actual law enforcement. Rather, this outrageous behavior is yet another example of police departments motivated by a need for greater control, and more power to justify their existence.

As I noted last month about the death of Eric Garner, government at all levels has become so big and so costly, that revenues are never deemed sufficient to meet those perceived “needs.” This is a major reason why police departments such as the MDTA are driven to find ever more creative – and liberty-stifling – ways to justify their existence; such as outlawing the selling of a cigarette by one person to another, or arresting people for traveling with a legally owned firearm that, when crossing the border, suddenly did not adhere to Maryland’s anti-firearm policy.

The proliferation of police departments we see in recent years — not only every geographic entity has to have one, but every state school and many state government departments and transportation authorities — increases this pressure to prove they are “real” cops and thus enlarge their budgets; and what better scalps to tack on the wall in Maryland than those of gun owners.

Since the 2008 landmark Supreme Court decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which for the first time in modern case law defined the Second Amendment as an individual right, opponents of constitutional gun rights have faced a number of setbacks in courts and local legislatures. To compensate for these setbacks, gun-grabbers have sought to push their agendas through means such as legislative chicanery or outright deception in public relations campaigns.

Regulations and state-sanctioned intimidation to curb speech rights are said to have a “chilling effect” on speech rights. What we appear to be witnessing in Maryland, and no doubt in other anti-gun states across the nation, is a deliberate attempt to “chill” Second Amendment rights as well; by making the legal exercise of one’s natural right to keep and bear arms so confusing and legally treacherous that many citizens choose not to do so. Yet, rather than surrender this precious right to the bullies in government who twist and contort their authority in pursuit of a political agenda, we should take the fight to the courts and the voting booth. At the very least, out-of-state travelers can refuse to give Maryland revenue by avoiding the state altogether.


Guarding Republicans

Over the weekend, the New York Times was slammed for running a piece where the news outlet apparently tried to cover up the motives...