Wednesday, June 28, 2017

National Rifle Association

by -
judge

In D.C. Comic’s fictional “Bizarro World,” all things are done opposite of here on Earth. According to the “Bizarro Code,” inhabitants of the cube-shaped planet “hate beauty,” “love ugliness” and consider it illegal to “make anything perfect.” Ironically, here on planet Earth, many liberals – and a disturbing number of judges – subscribe to a similar Bizarro Code when considering matters involving the Second Amendment. To these Earth-bound Bizarro Code adherents, it should be — and in some cases is — illegal to legally exercise the fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed right to possess a firearm.

While the Supreme Court, and a number of other courts across the country, have made progress in recent years in rolling-back some of the more onerous restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, the trend is by no means uniform; especially regarding concealed carry.

For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in January that mere lawful possession of a firearm poses a danger to society. Specifically – and incredibly – that court opined that there is an inherent risk in “a person who is armed even when the firearm is legally possessed.” While some may laud this ruling as a move to protect police officers facing armed suspects, its potential scope is far broader and more problematic.

The opinion opens the door for the search of any concealed carry permit holder, regardless of whether the individual ran a stop sign, was selling cocaine, or just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In effect, this federal court of appeals decision means that simply exercising one’s Second Amendment right to possess a firearm negates that person’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

As Slate Editor Mark Joseph Stern noted recently, the real-world consequences of the Fourth Circuit’s “logic” did not take long to play-out in another federal Circuit — the 11th (which includes Alabama, Florida and Georgia). In March, that Circuit threw out a lawsuit against a Florida police officer who fatally shot an apartment resident who happened to be holding a lawful firearm when he answered the door late at night after the officer unexpectedly banged on the door.

The gun owner’s only “crime” was legally having a firearm in his hand, inside his home, when answering an unexpected loud knock on his door late at night.

This is far from the only example of such Second Amendment perfidy by judges in recent years. In 2015, Corey Jones, who possessed a lawful concealed carry permit, was leaving a band gig at 3:00 AM when his car broke down in an undesirable part of town. When a white van with tinted windows pulled in front of him and a man wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a baseball cap exited, Jones apparently grabbed his firearm.  This move to lawfully protect himself was answered without warning by the plain-clothed law enforcement officer driving the van, shooting Jones dead.

These incidents hit close to home for all responsible gun owners; especially those who carry firearms for self-defense. These and many other such incidents illustrate not uncommon situations in which law-abiding individuals find themselves, and when having a firearm for self-defense is most needed. Yet, despite some progress on gun rights, a worsening problem within states and local jurisdictions due to wrong-headed court rulings, or simply bad police training, are placing gun owners directly in danger by criminalizing the very act of possessing a firearm.

The problem is made worse by the prevalence of data-sharing with so-called “Fusion Centers.” These largely unregulated centers take vast quantities of personal information on citizens that has been collected from both public and confidential sources, and disseminate it to law enforcement agencies at all levels across the country. Thanks to this growing, government-based “Dark Net,” firearms owners can look forward to more harassment; such as Maryland transportation police who stand accused of using concealed permit data that they apparently can access at the touch of a computer screen in their vehicles, to stop out-of-state drivers.

Rolling back this tide of anti-Second Amendment court decisions requires continued and aggressive efforts by the National Rifle Association (which is holding its annual convention in Atlanta this week) and other Second Amendment-focused civil liberties organizations.  They – and we — need to support the appointment and election of judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, state legislators,  and members of Congress who live in and understand the real world and our real Bill of Rights; and who are not beholden to some Bizarro World Constitution in which “shall not be infringed” means “shall be infringed.”

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 -
NRA

On Friday Trump spoke to a forum put on buy the political wing of the National Rifle Association, and won over the powerful group.

In his speech to gun enthusiasts, Donald Trump made it clear that he is pro 2nd Amendment and Hillary was not.

In one of his most poignant speeches yet, Donald took the opportunity to speak to the group of NRA supporters about guns and attack Hillary at the same time.

Trump started off by saying he’s beating Hillary in all the polls , but then went on to discuss why guns are important to him. He spoke of the Paris attacks and how 130 people died because nobody was able to shoot back.

Of course he mentioned the fact that Obama and Hillary don’t want to call terrorists Muslim Extremists.

Trump talked about Gun Free Zones and said he would get rid of them. He called Hillary the most anti-gun person to run for president ever and said she wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

The crowd of NRA fans ate it up, and at the end of the day he walked out with the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. This is probably the single largest endorsement he could get from any group in America.

Here is the entire speech.

What did you think of his speech and the endorsement of the NRA? Let us know in the comments below.

by -
nra

Closing out his eight-year reign, President Obama is starting his final year with a bold move this coming Thursday.

On Monday, the White House announced a town hall hosted by CNN in non-other than Fairfax, Virginia – home to the headquarters of the National Rifle Association.

The townhall will also take place during the first board meeting of the NRA for 2016.

Rumors have circulated for weeks that Obama would use executive powers to enact gun control during his final year.

The first action leaked that would require casual gun sellers to register with the ATF.

Other actions are rumored to include ammunition control, supply manipulation and prohibiting the personal manufacturing of so-called “Ghost Guns.”

Obama’s townhall on Thursday will serve as the stepping off point for a year long campaign to limit the 2nd Amendment and remove firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens.

CNN, serving as the event’s host in conjunction with George Mason University, will place Anderson Cooper as the moderator and allow questions from the audience.

Note that audience members of presidential events must be vetted for “security” 24 to 48 hours in advance.

White House officials say that Thursday’s event will focus on closing the so-called “gun show loophole” and will correspond with Obama’s executive action to require sellers to go through an bureaucratic quagmire of forms and inspections to become licensed with the ATF. The move would also require any sales made by casual “dealers” to include background checks of buyers.

TRENDING STORIES

North Korea

The twenty-two year old student passed away on Monday, in Ohio; only five days after he had returned from North Korea, after being detained...