Back in September, the manager of the Firearms Store I teach classes at was interviewed by Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554780,00.html). In the article about ammunition sales, Jason stated that he wanted to stock up on ammunition for each of his firearms. I do not see an issue with that as I have done the same. Now, fast forward to late September. Jason receives a letter in the mail from an ANONYMOUS person. The letter was not signed and there was not return address, although the postmark was from New Jersey. This anonymous sender proceeds to lambaste Jason on how he "fears having his precious guns taken away" and that "he is threatened to have an intelligent, articulate African-American man as President". As well as "how us good ole boys are still fighting the Civil War which we surrended in 1845 (that person's words, not a typo)". It was signed by "One Gun a Month is Plenty".
OK, "One Gun a Month is Plenty", how did you go from "It always happens when the Democrats get in office. It happened with Clinton and Obama is even stronger for gun control. Ammunition will be the first step, so I'm stocking up while I can." to "I understand it is threatening to have an intelligent, articulate, African-American man as President".
The article did not mention race as a reason. It did not mention the Chosen One as the cause, only the effect. It said that it always happens when Democrats get in office, and, by default, the current President is a Democrat.
Someone is grasping at straws and making it into something it is not, a race issue.
Now, this person also proceeded to call Jason an "armed domestic terrorist that is more dangerous than al-Queda". I've know Jason for a few years. He is an intelligent, highly respected person who works hard, loves his family and makes it a point to work safely in the firearms industry.
Oh, and he is also in the military. He has made a committment to DEFEND THIS COUNTRY without being asked to do the job or thanked for it (which some people, probably like you "One Gun a Month", do not do enough of).
So, "One Gun a Month", I have no respect for you. You decide to hide behind the shield of anonymity, piss and moan about how bad people are and contribute to the problem, not the solution. I parallel Jason's views. Guess what?? I'm from the New England (remember us, we won the Civil War?).
Grow some balls and show yourself. If you can't put up, shut up!
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Does This Bother the Heck Out of You?
Do these images bother you?
OK, how about this image?
What do all of these images have in common? Well, depending on how you look at it, you may think there is no connection.
Ahhh, but there is. Each image represents a core value of our Constitution. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press and the Right to Bear Arms. Each of these is a cornerstone of our Bill of Rights.
The first three stir some, if little, debate. The last one can downright get ugly at times.
Well, I'm here to tell ya, that if we argued and debated as much about the other ones as we did the Second Amendment, this country would be a better place.
Recently, at several health care rallies, regular citizens carried their firearms in support of the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. They did so in States where "open carry" is LEGAL. Now, none of them were ever near the Chosen One. They were in designated Public Areas well outside the town hall meetings. Even the Secret Service said they were not worried.
But anti-gun proponents say they nut jobs by bringing a firearm. To me, that sounds nothing more than pure anti-Americanism if I've ever heard it. Imagine that, people are mad at me for exercising my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. I never see anyone yelling at me for reading the paper, or praying, or having an open debate or speech. If that is the case, no one was yelling about having a health care forum. Oh yes, they were yelling AT the forum about health care, but they were not yelling about the actual contstruct of having a forum. No one ever said, "you can go to the forum, but you cannot speak at all". That's what this country is built on. That would be completely un-American.
Oh, but wait, people are starting to call us nut jobs and Nazis and Brownshirts for talking out against health care. I do not hear that about anyone talking in favor of it. But I digress.
It's also a case of personal responsibility. People are running around screaming "He has a gun!!" Oh my God, the horror!! He could kill someone!!
Puhlleeeze, gimme a break. Nothing ever happened people!! These are responsible citizens carrying their firearms securely in a NON-THREATENING MANNER but for some reason people get the heebee jeebees.
Ahh, but something could happen. Yes, someone with NO personal responsibility could grab the gun. But of course, the gun owner would be blamed for having it, not the idiot who took it.
Personal responsibility is like my beloved 1968 Plymouth GTX.
A classic memory of my youth Out of reach for all but a few who choose to want to relive it again......
Friday, August 21, 2009
Sex, Lies and Videotape (or lack of it)
Ahh, the Liberal media. Ya gotta love them for the things they DON'T tell you.
Case in point: A person with an open-carry semi-automatic rifle (NOT an assault weapon) and an open-carry handgun was at a health care rally in Arizona where the Chosen One was speaking. In Arizona, open-carry is LEGAL. (I'll get into that in another post). The case was that MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer injected race into the story by saying that: "Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists".
OK, here's the rub
The video used by MSNBC was edited in way in which you can't see the whole picture. The truth is the man featured there with the weapons was African-American, not white. No one on air ever pointed that out.
And so goes the Liberal media
Case in point: A person with an open-carry semi-automatic rifle (NOT an assault weapon) and an open-carry handgun was at a health care rally in Arizona where the Chosen One was speaking. In Arizona, open-carry is LEGAL. (I'll get into that in another post). The case was that MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer injected race into the story by saying that: "Here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists".
OK, here's the rub
The video used by MSNBC was edited in way in which you can't see the whole picture. The truth is the man featured there with the weapons was African-American, not white. No one on air ever pointed that out.
And so goes the Liberal media
Thursday, August 13, 2009
My Bad....
In one of my posts, I identified Mr. Doug Pennington with the Violence Policy Center. This was reported to me by an ANONYMOUS post claiming to be from VPC. Mr. Pennington is the spokesperson for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. I ADMIT I made the mistake and have corrected the error. (On a side note, it is nice to see people actually reading this blog).
The anonymous post also stated that the Pa health club shooter was a CCW permittee. As I have stated, if it does turn out to be true (and I am unable to find any reference other than the above mentioned groups as a source), and it may, demonizing an entire group of Concealed Carry Permitees as a threat to society because of the actions of one or a few is downright absurd, even if they commit a non-firearm crime!
I will also point out that a VPC reference to a CCW permittee that STRANGLED his wife is included in a list of people is equally absurd since a firearm was not used in the crime. (ref: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf page 13).
I would also read the same document on page 31, concerning Texas CCW holders who have committed crimes. They list over 5,000 arrests of CCW permittees for various crimes. What they DO NOT say is if a firearm was involved or not. No reference in that passage. Further reading states that the same group of people were responsible for weapons related offenses at a higher rate but fail to mention what kind of weapon except to say a deadly weapon. Anything that can cause bodily harm is a deadly weapon, not just a firearm.
Ok, how about listing the NON-CCW permittees that do the same crime? I will admit that some background checks will not catch everything, but catching most is better than catching none, and people who commit the same crimes that do not have permits do not get background checks. Let's list that too and make it a little more balanced. And, how many of those people did or did not commit crimes BEFORE their background checks. At some point, people who decide to commit a crime have to start somewhere, regardless of whether they have a permit or not.
Hey, I've got another idea. List all the CCW holders who DO NOT COMMIT A CRIME!!
How about listing the names of people who use a CCW permitted firearm to SAVE a life. Better yet, save MORE THAN ONE LIFE! I'll bet those are much, much bigger lists.
All I am saying is that not everyone is an angel, permit or no permit. But demonize the person and the act, not that fact they have a permit and committed a crime. If you do, in the same breath, demonize those who commit crimes and DO NOT have a permit
The anonymous post also stated that the Pa health club shooter was a CCW permittee. As I have stated, if it does turn out to be true (and I am unable to find any reference other than the above mentioned groups as a source), and it may, demonizing an entire group of Concealed Carry Permitees as a threat to society because of the actions of one or a few is downright absurd, even if they commit a non-firearm crime!
I will also point out that a VPC reference to a CCW permittee that STRANGLED his wife is included in a list of people is equally absurd since a firearm was not used in the crime. (ref: http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf page 13).
I would also read the same document on page 31, concerning Texas CCW holders who have committed crimes. They list over 5,000 arrests of CCW permittees for various crimes. What they DO NOT say is if a firearm was involved or not. No reference in that passage. Further reading states that the same group of people were responsible for weapons related offenses at a higher rate but fail to mention what kind of weapon except to say a deadly weapon. Anything that can cause bodily harm is a deadly weapon, not just a firearm.
Ok, how about listing the NON-CCW permittees that do the same crime? I will admit that some background checks will not catch everything, but catching most is better than catching none, and people who commit the same crimes that do not have permits do not get background checks. Let's list that too and make it a little more balanced. And, how many of those people did or did not commit crimes BEFORE their background checks. At some point, people who decide to commit a crime have to start somewhere, regardless of whether they have a permit or not.
Hey, I've got another idea. List all the CCW holders who DO NOT COMMIT A CRIME!!
How about listing the names of people who use a CCW permitted firearm to SAVE a life. Better yet, save MORE THAN ONE LIFE! I'll bet those are much, much bigger lists.
All I am saying is that not everyone is an angel, permit or no permit. But demonize the person and the act, not that fact they have a permit and committed a crime. If you do, in the same breath, demonize those who commit crimes and DO NOT have a permit
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
OK, let's ban guns. We'll just use something else instead..
Just like England, which has banned private ownership of guns for the last 10 years. Notice the bold text at the end of the post
A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling
By Matthew Hickley at the UK Daily Mail
Blade Britain: Knives were used in 14,000 robberies last year
More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.
Last night a teenager in Lambeth, London, became the latest victim of the stabbing epidemic, dying in hospital after a frenzied attack.
Almost 130,000 attacks involved knives last year - equivalent to one every four minutes - according to the annual British Crime Survey.
This figure does not include the tens of thousands of assaults against under-16s. However, unlike the police records published yesterday, it does include crimes which are not reported to the authorities.
The police data revealed 22,000 serious knife assaults - including 231 attempted murders - were reported to the police last year.
There were also almost 14,000 reported robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.
As the Daily Mail revealed exclusively yesterday, the forces' data, which was gathered for the first time this year, starkly illustrated how knife crime has spread beyond the major cities into the shires.
The British Crime Survey figure of 130,000 knife attacks is substantially higher than the police's figure. This is thought to be because many victims never report being threatened with a knife - and even assaults needing hospital treatment go unrecorded.
The phenomenon of 'hidden' knife crime has led senior doctors to call for new rules making it compulsory for hospitals to record knife injuries.
The British Crime Survey, based on interviews with thousands of households across the UK, showed overall crime down 10 per cent to 10.1million offences.
Police figures, which typically capture only around half of all crime, showed a similar trend.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve pointed out that the police figures showed violent crime up nearly 80 per cent since Labour came to power. The BCS trends were more positive.
More...
STEPHEN POLLARD: Knife attacks: Damned lies and crime figures
He said: 'Our police have been tied up in so much red tape that they can only spend 14 per cent of their time on the beat fighting crime.
'Our porous borders have allowed too many weapons and quantities of hard drugs to simply flow into our country, fuelling violent crime.
'Labour have also failed to address family breakdown which does so much to set young people on to a path of crime.'
Ministers were keen to point out that the Survey showed a 9 per cent drop across all categories of crime last year.
They claimed the recent steady downward trend was the most impressive in modern times - including a 12 per cent fall in violent crime.
But Police Minister Tony McNulty acknowledged public concern over knife crime following a spate of horrific murders in recent months.
Firearms offences recorded by police rose 2 per cent last year to reach a total of 9,803, while murders were up 3 per cent to 784. And this is in a country that bans all private ownership of guns
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html#ixzz0O1jtkbLW
A knife attack every 4 minutes; 130,000 per year - but ministers still insist crime rates are falling
By Matthew Hickley at the UK Daily Mail
Blade Britain: Knives were used in 14,000 robberies last year
More than 350 people are the victim of knife assaults every day in England and Wales, the latest crime figures have revealed.
Last night a teenager in Lambeth, London, became the latest victim of the stabbing epidemic, dying in hospital after a frenzied attack.
Almost 130,000 attacks involved knives last year - equivalent to one every four minutes - according to the annual British Crime Survey.
This figure does not include the tens of thousands of assaults against under-16s. However, unlike the police records published yesterday, it does include crimes which are not reported to the authorities.
The police data revealed 22,000 serious knife assaults - including 231 attempted murders - were reported to the police last year.
There were also almost 14,000 reported robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.
As the Daily Mail revealed exclusively yesterday, the forces' data, which was gathered for the first time this year, starkly illustrated how knife crime has spread beyond the major cities into the shires.
The British Crime Survey figure of 130,000 knife attacks is substantially higher than the police's figure. This is thought to be because many victims never report being threatened with a knife - and even assaults needing hospital treatment go unrecorded.
The phenomenon of 'hidden' knife crime has led senior doctors to call for new rules making it compulsory for hospitals to record knife injuries.
The British Crime Survey, based on interviews with thousands of households across the UK, showed overall crime down 10 per cent to 10.1million offences.
Police figures, which typically capture only around half of all crime, showed a similar trend.
Shadow Home Secretary Dominic Grieve pointed out that the police figures showed violent crime up nearly 80 per cent since Labour came to power. The BCS trends were more positive.
More...
STEPHEN POLLARD: Knife attacks: Damned lies and crime figures
He said: 'Our police have been tied up in so much red tape that they can only spend 14 per cent of their time on the beat fighting crime.
'Our porous borders have allowed too many weapons and quantities of hard drugs to simply flow into our country, fuelling violent crime.
'Labour have also failed to address family breakdown which does so much to set young people on to a path of crime.'
Ministers were keen to point out that the Survey showed a 9 per cent drop across all categories of crime last year.
They claimed the recent steady downward trend was the most impressive in modern times - including a 12 per cent fall in violent crime.
But Police Minister Tony McNulty acknowledged public concern over knife crime following a spate of horrific murders in recent months.
Firearms offences recorded by police rose 2 per cent last year to reach a total of 9,803, while murders were up 3 per cent to 784. And this is in a country that bans all private ownership of guns
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036154/A-knife-attack-4-minutes-130-000-year--ministers-insist-crime-rates-falling.html#ixzz0O1jtkbLW
Concealed Carry Permittees are BAD, BAD People
And that's what the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence would like you to believe. Yup, people with Concealed Carry Permits are the source of a lot of the violence with guns. Last week, I had a chance to participate in the local radio show down here in New Orleans. WWL was doing an early morning story about more people "packing heat" and why the number has increased. To their defense they did allow callers and guests to give both sides of the story. I called in and gave my reasons: I carry because I take it upon myself to protect myself and my family, I cannot rely on the police to be there within seconds. I also told the host that I was a Concealed Carry Instructor and most of my students take the class for the same reason. I also explained what is entailed in the class (mandated by the State of Louisiana I might add): SAFETY, SAFETY, SAFETY, how to handle a firearm, Deadly Force (how to identify it and when you can and cannot use it), Civil Liability, Louisiana State Laws and where you can AND cannot carry your firearm and, again, SAFETY SAFETY SAFETY. I concluded with saying that some people have a legitimate fear that the Chosen One, who has a POOR record on firearms ownership and gun rights, will try to restrict our rights or take them away. Remember, those who do not read history tend to repeat it. After I was done, the host interviewed Mr. Doug Pennington from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a very anti-Second Amendment and anti- gun rights group. He was discussing the recent shooting in Pennsylvania and how Mr. Sodini had a Concealed Carry permit. Since this show was only 10 hours after the shooting and Pennsylvania records cannot be obtained THAT fast, I took this with a big grain of salt. If it does turn out to be true, and it may, demonizing an entire group of Concealed Carry Permitees as a threat to society because of the actions of one or a few is downright absurd!
What does this all mean?
Pure Bullshit. Just another case of inventing statistics and a "make it up as you go" policy of misleading people with lies. Instill fear and we will come to the rescue!
(Sorry, that's also about health care and that's another show)
Now, are ALL people with Concealed Carry Permits law-abiding. No. BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, the statistics PROVE that the number of CCW violators (as in permit is revoked, denied or suspended) is VERY VERY LOW. How low? Read on..
How about the concealed carry users that PREVENT violence? Such as..
the armed citizen who shot a convenience store robber in Virginia - or - A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience as a soldier to stop an alleged bank robber - or - the incident in early August in Topeka, KS in which a legally-armed store clerk fended off two robbers. They never go on about those people because it clashes with their agenda and defeats their purpose.
Since I was unable to get back on the show due to time restrictions, I emailed the host at WWL with the following rebuttals to Mr. Pennington:
1) - Less than .05% of CCW holders in Louisiana since 1996 are denied / rejected / revoked. Source : http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chAnnualReport07-08.pdf on page 3. There were 1407 permites denied / suspended / revoked out of 27,422 permits.
AND, in 2008 the Department did not have any documented accidents or deaths
involving concealed handgun permittees.
Are we all angels? No, but we're better educated and have a lower rate of using a firearm in the "heat of the moment" BECAUSE we're trained. That average holds true for just about all the other states with Concealed Carry Laws. Some states, such as Florida, are even LOWER. (Florida is about .01%)
2) - Although Louisiana is a "shall-issue" state, ALL Permit applications in Louisiana go through a NCIC criminal and medical background check by the State Police, average turnaround for a permit, IF approved, is 8 weeks. Local police do not have the time and the laws are open to interpretation from one locale to another (as I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts). Mr. Pennington from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence stated that "shall issue" states need background checks done by local law enforcement. As far as I am concerned, Louisiana State Police is as about as local to Louisiana as one can get.
3) I DO RECOMMEND training for all firearm owners, not just concealed carry holders
4) Mr. Pennington was concerned about criminals with concealed carry permits. The thugs with guns are not concealed carry holders and MOST are multiple offenders turned back on the streets by our revolving door criminal justice system. That's why I carry for protection because these thugs are NOT in jail where they belong. Convict them, put them in jail and the violence will go down. I have yet to hear of a criminal getting a CCW permit since he / she would fail a background check. Oh, and it is also a crime for a criminal to attempt to obtain a CCW. So I'm kinda thinking that they'll just skip this step and illegally carry a gun concealed anyways.
5) As far as cities with high crime rates compared to the number of CCW holders, Washington D.C. has a very high firearm crime rate and does NOT allow concealed carry and is still very restrictive even on private, law-abiding ownership.
6) Mr. Pennington refers to our classes as a "minimum". I ask that he sit in on one of our classes and see what we cover. Extensive training on safety, how to handle a firearm, the use of deadly force (when you can and cannot use it), where you can and cannot carry and the firearms laws in the state. My class is about 10 hours long, longer than what the state mandates
All I can say to Mr. Pennington is get your information right and stop lying to the public to scare them. We're pretty smart and we know what we're doing
Shame on you!
What does this all mean?
Pure Bullshit. Just another case of inventing statistics and a "make it up as you go" policy of misleading people with lies. Instill fear and we will come to the rescue!
(Sorry, that's also about health care and that's another show)
Now, are ALL people with Concealed Carry Permits law-abiding. No. BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, the statistics PROVE that the number of CCW violators (as in permit is revoked, denied or suspended) is VERY VERY LOW. How low? Read on..
How about the concealed carry users that PREVENT violence? Such as..
the armed citizen who shot a convenience store robber in Virginia - or - A 39-year-old Ypsilanti man used his concealed weapon and his experience as a soldier to stop an alleged bank robber - or - the incident in early August in Topeka, KS in which a legally-armed store clerk fended off two robbers. They never go on about those people because it clashes with their agenda and defeats their purpose.
Since I was unable to get back on the show due to time restrictions, I emailed the host at WWL with the following rebuttals to Mr. Pennington:
1) - Less than .05% of CCW holders in Louisiana since 1996 are denied / rejected / revoked. Source : http://www.lsp.org/pdf/chAnnualReport07-08.pdf on page 3. There were 1407 permites denied / suspended / revoked out of 27,422 permits.
AND, in 2008 the Department did not have any documented accidents or deaths
involving concealed handgun permittees.
Are we all angels? No, but we're better educated and have a lower rate of using a firearm in the "heat of the moment" BECAUSE we're trained. That average holds true for just about all the other states with Concealed Carry Laws. Some states, such as Florida, are even LOWER. (Florida is about .01%)
2) - Although Louisiana is a "shall-issue" state, ALL Permit applications in Louisiana go through a NCIC criminal and medical background check by the State Police, average turnaround for a permit, IF approved, is 8 weeks. Local police do not have the time and the laws are open to interpretation from one locale to another (as I experienced when I lived in Massachusetts). Mr. Pennington from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence stated that "shall issue" states need background checks done by local law enforcement. As far as I am concerned, Louisiana State Police is as about as local to Louisiana as one can get.
3) I DO RECOMMEND training for all firearm owners, not just concealed carry holders
4) Mr. Pennington was concerned about criminals with concealed carry permits. The thugs with guns are not concealed carry holders and MOST are multiple offenders turned back on the streets by our revolving door criminal justice system. That's why I carry for protection because these thugs are NOT in jail where they belong. Convict them, put them in jail and the violence will go down. I have yet to hear of a criminal getting a CCW permit since he / she would fail a background check. Oh, and it is also a crime for a criminal to attempt to obtain a CCW. So I'm kinda thinking that they'll just skip this step and illegally carry a gun concealed anyways.
5) As far as cities with high crime rates compared to the number of CCW holders, Washington D.C. has a very high firearm crime rate and does NOT allow concealed carry and is still very restrictive even on private, law-abiding ownership.
6) Mr. Pennington refers to our classes as a "minimum". I ask that he sit in on one of our classes and see what we cover. Extensive training on safety, how to handle a firearm, the use of deadly force (when you can and cannot use it), where you can and cannot carry and the firearms laws in the state. My class is about 10 hours long, longer than what the state mandates
All I can say to Mr. Pennington is get your information right and stop lying to the public to scare them. We're pretty smart and we know what we're doing
Shame on you!
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
US-Wide Concealed Carry?
OK, so the National Concealed Carry legislation did not go through (also known as the Vitter-Thune Legislation). The law would have allowed any state with a concealed carry law to recognize the permitee of any other state with a concealed carry law, and provide that the permittee follow the laws of the state they are in. Seems rational, right?
The liberals came through with another rousing rendition of "people losing their tempers and blood in the streets". But is this loss really as big as they say? Let's take a look.
1) This law does not really create something new, it only expands what is current. Let's take a look at Louisiana. Right now, if you have a Louisiana CCW permit, you are allowed to carry concealed in THIRTY ONE other states. You HAVE to abide by the laws of that state (and I pound this in to the heads of my students every week). The new law, if it had passed, would have kept the same rules. So, when Chuck Schumer complains that people with concealed carry permits would be roaming the streets of New York City, he was WRONG. New York City law does not allow Concealed Carry, not even New York STATE concealed carry! Glad I don't live there! He also complained that criminals would get permits and carry guns across state lines. Last I looked, criminals don't apply for permits because - a) They would get rejected and arrested b) They're CRIMINALS, hello, no permit needed for them, they just break the law anyways!! (Remember New Yorkers, you voted for him - Sorry). I guess he forgot to mention that.
2) A majority of Senators (58) voted in favor of it. The Democrats, since they control the Senate, can "do what they want 'cause we won" insisted on a 60 vote majority through procedural wrangling. This is what they used to ram through the auto bailouts and the TARP - and see what that got us?? Just wait for Obama care! A MAJORITY of Senators favored it. But majority rule is not a Democratic tenet when it is not in their favor.
3) Liberals screamed back in the 90s that when concealed carry permits were issued, there would be blood on the streets. There are currently 48 states that allow concealed carry (that is currently 5 MILLION PEOPLE). Just about every state has a strict background and medical check to get one. Their screams have rung hollow, the mass killings and blood in the streets has not flowed. Some studies, like the ones from The Violence Policy Center (a radical anti-gun group), make big errors in their findings against the so-called "concealed carry crazies". They include arrests (but not convictions) and sometimes report that people have concealed carry permits when they do not. Anyone that uses a handgun, even for self-defense, may end up getting arrested. Law enforcement arrives and can't be sure what happened. But more often than not, they are not convicted because they were justified in using force. When that fact is pointed out to the Violence Policy Center, it is typically ignored
4) The average failure rate for a concealed carry holder (denied, revoked or suspended), US-wide, is about .01 to .05 percent. The most common reason? Had a concealed carry firearm but forgot the permit at home, a MUCH lower rate than auto drivers who forget their license at home (Maybe we should ban cars??).
5) The Concealed Carry Laws have been so SUCCESSFUL that NONE of the states are even thinking about repealing or scaling them back. The reciprocity laws in Louisiana have expanded to 31 states in the last 4 years. 5 states were added, including Nevada which was NOT allowed previously
The liberals came through with another rousing rendition of "people losing their tempers and blood in the streets". But is this loss really as big as they say? Let's take a look.
1) This law does not really create something new, it only expands what is current. Let's take a look at Louisiana. Right now, if you have a Louisiana CCW permit, you are allowed to carry concealed in THIRTY ONE other states. You HAVE to abide by the laws of that state (and I pound this in to the heads of my students every week). The new law, if it had passed, would have kept the same rules. So, when Chuck Schumer complains that people with concealed carry permits would be roaming the streets of New York City, he was WRONG. New York City law does not allow Concealed Carry, not even New York STATE concealed carry! Glad I don't live there! He also complained that criminals would get permits and carry guns across state lines. Last I looked, criminals don't apply for permits because - a) They would get rejected and arrested b) They're CRIMINALS, hello, no permit needed for them, they just break the law anyways!! (Remember New Yorkers, you voted for him - Sorry). I guess he forgot to mention that.
2) A majority of Senators (58) voted in favor of it. The Democrats, since they control the Senate, can "do what they want 'cause we won" insisted on a 60 vote majority through procedural wrangling. This is what they used to ram through the auto bailouts and the TARP - and see what that got us?? Just wait for Obama care! A MAJORITY of Senators favored it. But majority rule is not a Democratic tenet when it is not in their favor.
3) Liberals screamed back in the 90s that when concealed carry permits were issued, there would be blood on the streets. There are currently 48 states that allow concealed carry (that is currently 5 MILLION PEOPLE). Just about every state has a strict background and medical check to get one. Their screams have rung hollow, the mass killings and blood in the streets has not flowed. Some studies, like the ones from The Violence Policy Center (a radical anti-gun group), make big errors in their findings against the so-called "concealed carry crazies". They include arrests (but not convictions) and sometimes report that people have concealed carry permits when they do not. Anyone that uses a handgun, even for self-defense, may end up getting arrested. Law enforcement arrives and can't be sure what happened. But more often than not, they are not convicted because they were justified in using force. When that fact is pointed out to the Violence Policy Center, it is typically ignored
4) The average failure rate for a concealed carry holder (denied, revoked or suspended), US-wide, is about .01 to .05 percent. The most common reason? Had a concealed carry firearm but forgot the permit at home, a MUCH lower rate than auto drivers who forget their license at home (Maybe we should ban cars??).
5) The Concealed Carry Laws have been so SUCCESSFUL that NONE of the states are even thinking about repealing or scaling them back. The reciprocity laws in Louisiana have expanded to 31 states in the last 4 years. 5 states were added, including Nevada which was NOT allowed previously
Monday, July 20, 2009
Postscript to Gov. Jindal
He got this one right. It is illegal to USE a firearm in the commission of a crime within 1000' of a parade. Rep Ernst decided (and obviously intended) to not allow anyone within 1000' of parade to carry a firearm. The only exemption was owner's property. Cars were not even exempted (and in Louisiana a car is an extension of your home) nor were Concealed Carry Permit holders exempted (and bear in mind it is illegal even for a concealed-carry holder to go to a parade with a firearm). If this law passed, I would have been breaking the law, say, If I was in my car 1200' from the parade and walked to my house 900' from the parade. So this was an obvious ploy by Rep. Ernst to prevent anyone from having a firearm within 1000' of a parade. More so, it is an outright ban and as far as I am concerned, a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. Thanks to Gov. Jindal, this was averted. Morseo, he DID sign a bill that provides harsher penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime within 1000' of a pre-Lenten (Mardi Gras) parade (like, hard labor for a long time and a huge-ass fine!!)
Gov. Jindal votes for Freedom in Louisiana
From the Times-Picayune and NRA Website - On Friday, July 10, House Bill 523 was vetoed by Governor Bobby Jindal (R). HB 523, introduced by State Representative Gregory Ernst (R-94), posed an unacceptable risk to those who lawfully carry a concealed firearm.
NRA’s main concern was that the bill could be interpreted to create an outright prohibition on the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration, except as specifically authorized in the bill. While certain persons would have been exempt from this prohibition, holders of a valid statewide concealed carry permit would not have been among them. Someone who was otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm pursuant to a statewide permit could have been exposed to criminal liability merely for wandering within 1,000 feet of a parade, whether or not the person caused any harm, broke any other law, or even knew the parade was occurring.
The actions of the sponsor himself indicated that his intent was to ban outright the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration. The bill had at one point included an explicit exemption for statewide permit holders, which resulted in Representative Ernst’s threat to pull the legislation unless this exception was removed. Representative Ernst also refused an NRA request to amend the bill to clarify that a person would only be available for the bill’s penalties if the person knew he or she was within 1,000 of a parade or demonstration at the time of the violation.
Given the above-mentioned factors and the very harsh penalties imposed by the bill, NRA believed HB 523 posed an imminent and serious risk for those who lawfully carry firearms in Louisiana. A conviction under the amended statute, even for an inadvertent violation, would have carried felony penalties and the collateral consequence of a lifetime loss of the right to possess a firearm. These penalties are far too grave to risk the very real chance that a court could have interpreted the statute to create an outright prohibition on the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration, even for those with a valid Louisiana concealed carry permit
This is what Gov. Jindal wrote in his veot message to the Louisiana House (From www.legis.state.la.us) -
Under current law, it is illegal to carry a firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence within a parade zone. The purpose of this qualifying language is to require that the illegal use of
a firearm is the primary element of the offense, not the mere possession of a firearm. House Bill
No. 523 removes this important provision and criminalizes certain acts of mere possession. The
National Rifle Association and others have requested veto of this bill in part because it does not
exempt firearm carriers with a valid permit under R.S. 40:1379.3 or unintentional violators. In
addition, I have signed House Bill No. 44, which creates the crime of reckless or criminally
negligent discharge of a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain public events, including parades.
For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill No. 523 and hereby return it to the House of
Representatives.
NRA’s main concern was that the bill could be interpreted to create an outright prohibition on the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration, except as specifically authorized in the bill. While certain persons would have been exempt from this prohibition, holders of a valid statewide concealed carry permit would not have been among them. Someone who was otherwise lawfully carrying a firearm pursuant to a statewide permit could have been exposed to criminal liability merely for wandering within 1,000 feet of a parade, whether or not the person caused any harm, broke any other law, or even knew the parade was occurring.
The actions of the sponsor himself indicated that his intent was to ban outright the carrying of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration. The bill had at one point included an explicit exemption for statewide permit holders, which resulted in Representative Ernst’s threat to pull the legislation unless this exception was removed. Representative Ernst also refused an NRA request to amend the bill to clarify that a person would only be available for the bill’s penalties if the person knew he or she was within 1,000 of a parade or demonstration at the time of the violation.
Given the above-mentioned factors and the very harsh penalties imposed by the bill, NRA believed HB 523 posed an imminent and serious risk for those who lawfully carry firearms in Louisiana. A conviction under the amended statute, even for an inadvertent violation, would have carried felony penalties and the collateral consequence of a lifetime loss of the right to possess a firearm. These penalties are far too grave to risk the very real chance that a court could have interpreted the statute to create an outright prohibition on the possession of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a permitted parade or demonstration, even for those with a valid Louisiana concealed carry permit
This is what Gov. Jindal wrote in his veot message to the Louisiana House (From www.legis.state.la.us) -
Under current law, it is illegal to carry a firearm used in the commission of a crime of violence within a parade zone. The purpose of this qualifying language is to require that the illegal use of
a firearm is the primary element of the offense, not the mere possession of a firearm. House Bill
No. 523 removes this important provision and criminalizes certain acts of mere possession. The
National Rifle Association and others have requested veto of this bill in part because it does not
exempt firearm carriers with a valid permit under R.S. 40:1379.3 or unintentional violators. In
addition, I have signed House Bill No. 44, which creates the crime of reckless or criminally
negligent discharge of a firearm within 1,000 feet of certain public events, including parades.
For these reasons, I have vetoed House Bill No. 523 and hereby return it to the House of
Representatives.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Let the Games begin..
I was trying to sit down and figure out what to write this time around and I remembered something that someone once told me. 90 percent of the statistics are right 50 percent of the time. (What they REALLY said was that ther are three kinds of people. Those that can count and those that can't). I'm putting our current administration in the second category. For those of you who respect the office and not the man, I will refer to the Chosen One from here on out as POTUS. In order to further an anti-gun agenda, they (POTUS and his henchmen) now whip up these "claims" that the Mexican drug cartels are gettng their guns from good, honest American citizens. Yup, right here in the Good 'Ol US of A. 90 percent of the guns they captured come from here. OK, which one of you went down to 'Bazookas R Us' and popped down some cool green for an M47 Dragon? Now let's look at these cooked numbers. POTUS and his team have said that "90% of the recovered firearms in Mexico come from the US". Well, he's 50% right. Reality is that 90% of the TRACED firearms come from the US. In 2007-2008 Mexico gave us 11,000 firearms to trace and only 6,000 were actually traced to the US. However, Mexico RECOVERED 29,000 guns. So, only about 17% were actually traced to the US. And since most of those are automatic weapons (remember, the average US citizen CANNOT BUY automatic weapons), most have come from the Mexican military or police, black market, Asia, Russia and other Central American sources. (Source: ATF Special Agent William Newell)
So if POTUS bans are guns, what happens in Mexico? Not a damn thing. In fact it will probably get worse and spill more over our border. I'm more worried about what will happen here.
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants…”
So if POTUS bans are guns, what happens in Mexico? Not a damn thing. In fact it will probably get worse and spill more over our border. I'm more worried about what will happen here.
Benjamin Franklin: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Nov 11 1755, from the Pennsylvania Assembly's reply to the Governor of Pennsylvania.)
Thomas Jefferson: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants…”
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sorry your family member has been shot. Can I use your pain and suffering to push more restrictive gun laws?
That's what New Orleans representative Jaun LaFonta (he doesn't represent me!) wants to do. Use the tragedy of a shooting and people's pain and suffering to push his agenda.
While I will agree there should be stiff penalties for crimes committed with a firearm and we should prosecute with the current laws we already have, his law is way too vague and would turn an other wise law abiding citizen into an instant criminal.
From www.abc26.com and also seen on WDSU:
Parade Gun law
March 12, 2009
A New Orleans lawmaker is calling for stiffer penalties for those who illegally possess a firearm at a gathering of 50 or more people.
This is in response to the recent Mardi Gras day shootings.
State Representative Juan LaFonta said those caught with an illegal gun could spend five years in jail without the benefit of probation and parole.
I must comment on the following concerning the shooting on Mardi Gras Day:
1) LRS 40:1379.3 N (9) States that No Permittee is entitled to carry a concealed handgun a parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a government entity. This law has been on the books since the CCW was introduced in the 90s. Blatantly making a crime to be around 50 people for which no permit is issued is way too restrictive and can in no way be controlled or enforced.
2) The 2 thugs that were captured, one was a felon in the possession of a handgun, the other was under house arrest with an ankle bracelet (why wasn't he home? - again, another law the criminal didn't care about). Both were also under the age of 21 and they WERE CAPTURED relatively quickly by NOPD and charged with 7 COUNTS OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER
3)Congratulations, the law-abiding people follow the law, criminals don't (That's why they are called criminals). They didn't care about breaking at least four firearm FELONIES, who says they follow this law??!!
4) That a tragedy is used to further any firearms agenda. This really ticked me off. Sort of like, "Well 7 are hurt, let's use their suffering to push more laws"
5) Define "a gathering of 50 or more people". Within what? 5 feet, 10 feet, a mile? What if I'm at a family reunion with 50 people. What if I'm in a restaurant or store with 10 people and 40 more walk in? What if I'm in a mall parking lot. I can't tell if there 50 people around or not. Am I supposed to go look and count? What if I have a valid concealed carry permit for the state - I see this law as way too vague, open to wide interpretation and restrictive. Also define "illegal gun". If I have a valid CCW or otherwise did not steal the gun, is it legal and therefore exempt?
6) Rep Lafonta spoke about this today and says he has the backing of the state. What, so soon? Did he he get a poll completed in less than one day? As a resident of the state, he certainly does NOT have my backing
While I will agree there should be stiff penalties for crimes committed with a firearm and we should prosecute with the current laws we already have, his law is way too vague and would turn an other wise law abiding citizen into an instant criminal.
From www.abc26.com and also seen on WDSU:
Parade Gun law
March 12, 2009
A New Orleans lawmaker is calling for stiffer penalties for those who illegally possess a firearm at a gathering of 50 or more people.
This is in response to the recent Mardi Gras day shootings.
State Representative Juan LaFonta said those caught with an illegal gun could spend five years in jail without the benefit of probation and parole.
I must comment on the following concerning the shooting on Mardi Gras Day:
1) LRS 40:1379.3 N (9) States that No Permittee is entitled to carry a concealed handgun a parade or demonstration for which a permit is issued by a government entity. This law has been on the books since the CCW was introduced in the 90s. Blatantly making a crime to be around 50 people for which no permit is issued is way too restrictive and can in no way be controlled or enforced.
2) The 2 thugs that were captured, one was a felon in the possession of a handgun, the other was under house arrest with an ankle bracelet (why wasn't he home? - again, another law the criminal didn't care about). Both were also under the age of 21 and they WERE CAPTURED relatively quickly by NOPD and charged with 7 COUNTS OF ATTEMPTED FIRST DEGREE MURDER
3)Congratulations, the law-abiding people follow the law, criminals don't (That's why they are called criminals). They didn't care about breaking at least four firearm FELONIES, who says they follow this law??!!
4) That a tragedy is used to further any firearms agenda. This really ticked me off. Sort of like, "Well 7 are hurt, let's use their suffering to push more laws"
5) Define "a gathering of 50 or more people". Within what? 5 feet, 10 feet, a mile? What if I'm at a family reunion with 50 people. What if I'm in a restaurant or store with 10 people and 40 more walk in? What if I'm in a mall parking lot. I can't tell if there 50 people around or not. Am I supposed to go look and count? What if I have a valid concealed carry permit for the state - I see this law as way too vague, open to wide interpretation and restrictive. Also define "illegal gun". If I have a valid CCW or otherwise did not steal the gun, is it legal and therefore exempt?
6) Rep Lafonta spoke about this today and says he has the backing of the state. What, so soon? Did he he get a poll completed in less than one day? As a resident of the state, he certainly does NOT have my backing
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Why do I own and carry a firearm?
We've all heard the question. Mine is simple. I carry to exercise my Constitutional Right and to protect myself, my loved ones and other innocents. We've all heard the answers as well. I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy; When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away as well as others. They may seem to some to be an act of "bravado", but it rings true!! The Supreme Court has said "that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection." (7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES) So, it's up to me and only me to provide for me and mine. I will not be a lamb to the slaughter! You will only have seconds to face down the threat. Unless you live across the street from the police, they will NOT get there in time. Now, I will beg off if I can. I will not run into a fight I have no business being in. I will be a good witness. BUT, if I or my family is cornered with no way out, I will stand my ground.
Do you own a firearm or not. If so, is it for personal protection?
Let's hear your reason!
Do you own a firearm or not. If so, is it for personal protection?
Let's hear your reason!
Inaugural Rant about the Second Amendment
Greetings and welcome to my Blog. I decided to create this blog to Defend the Constitution. I am a Concealed Carry Firearms Instructor who sees the real threat against our Second Amendment rights every day. I look at it this way. It's not just about guns, it's about our Constitution. If they take away the Second Amendment by nickel-and-diming it to death, the other ones, especially the Bill of Rights, are not far behind. If you value your Constitution, speak up!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)