Five Gun Amendments To Watch

Comments Off on Five Gun Amendments To Watch

Reid has promised an open amendment process for gun control legislation, which the Senate is expected to start debating next week.
With the Senate voting comfortably Thursday to take up its most ambitious gun control legislation in nearly two decades, all eyes turn to the “open amendment process” that Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has promised.

Senators who advocate gun control will try to add much tougher provisions to curb firearms and ammunition. But pro-gun senators will attempt to gut the legislation (S 649) with amendments backed by the National Rifle Association.

“I’ve been around these things,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday. “The NRA will try to throw all kinds of amendments at us, and we’re going to have to work really hard to prevent them from being added to the bill.”

Here is an early list of five amendments to watch, including some that could turn what is now a sweeping gun control bill into one that significantly expands gun rights.

#1: Concealed Carry

Schumer issued an early warning Thursday on one particular amendment that he anticipates from his pro-gun counterparts: a plan to ensure that concealed carry handgun permits issued by one state are recognized by all others.

The proposal, known as “concealed carry reciprocity,” came within two votes of Senate passage as an amendment to defense authorization legislation in 2009. Schumer calls the proposal “pernicious.”

“If Wyoming has a concealed carry law, somebody could come from Wyoming to the big cities of New York or New Haven or Bridgeport and carry a concealed weapon, which is so against our way of life and the needs here in New York,” he said during an event with Connecticut’s two Democratic senators.

So far, no senator has pledged to offer the amendment in the current gun debate, but that is certain to change. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Thursday said he would “offer or support amendments to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans and Americans who have concealed carry permits.”

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., offered the amendment in 2009, when it attracted the support of all but two Republicans plus 20 Democrats, including Reid and 12 other Democrats who are still in the Senate.

#2: Mental-Health Records

A bipartisan and influential group of senators has signed on to a proposal that seeks to ensure that more records of those with mental-health problems are included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is used to determine whether people may buy guns.

The plan is co-sponsored by Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and conservative Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

Continue reading @ Rollcall

Advertisements

Stupidity on Steroids: Massachusetts man facing charges after killing unarmed bear in his yard

Comments Off on Stupidity on Steroids: Massachusetts man facing charges after killing unarmed bear in his yard

From Hotair:

Reason:

Richard Ahlstrand, of Auburn, Massachusetts, faces criminal charges after encountering a bear in his back yard and shooting the damned thing to avoid being mauled or eaten. Specifically, as noted at Reason 24/7, he’s charged with “illegally killing a bear, illegally baiting a bear, illegal possession of a firearm and failure to secure a firearm.” All of these charges, once translated from Massachusetts to American, seem to stack up to outrage that Ahlstrand didn’t make his yard completely inhospitable to animals that are rarely seen in the area, and then investigated a suspicious noise with a weapon in hand rather than cower under the bed. Worst of all, he actually defended himself when he encountered danger.

The baiting charge, as J.D. Tucille notes, comes from the fact that Ahlstrand had a large barrel of birdseed in his yard, even though it was not meant to bait a bear, and bears are rarely seen in the area.

The police account, with a hint of contempt for a 76-year-old having the temerity to defend himself:

Chief Sluckis said the bear is believed to have been attracted to a 50-gallon drum of birdseed Mr. Ahlstrand had in his backyard. He said Mr. Ahlstrand told police he heard a noise outside and felt in fear of his life.

“He went back inside, retrieved a shotgun and decided to shoot the bear,” Chief Sluckis said. “Obviously we believe if Mr. Ahlstrand was truly in fear for his life he would have stayed secured in his home and would have called the police.”

There’s that indomitable spirit of ’76 embodied. Hide in your house at all costs, people, “dial 911 and then curl into a fetal position whenever they hear a curious noise.”

Via CBS Boston, a 300-400-lb bear began chasing him before he went inside to get his gun.

The feds dropped charges filed against an Idaho man in 2011 for a similar “crime,” amidst public protest and urging by the governor of Idaho. Jeremy Hill’s children were playing in his yard when a grizzly bear showed up. Yelling to warn his children, but unable to confirm they were all out of the bear’s range, Hill grabbed his daughter’s shotgun to protect the family. He then immediately reported his “crime” to the state wildlife authorities. This is the government’s take on that:

Although hunting of grizzlies is generally prohibited under the Endangered Species Act, the law allows the animals to be killed if they are a threat to human life.

Federal prosecutors said in a statement that wildlife investigators were unable to pinpoint where the Hill children were when three grizzlies appeared about 40 yards from the family home. When the bears neared a pig pen, Hill fired the first of three rounds at the closest of the bruins, according to statements by the government and by Hill.

“By the time Mr. Hill fired the final shot, he was aware that all of his children and his wife were inside of their house,” according to the prosecutors’ statement.

Hill said he fired the third and fatal shot because he thought “it would be very dangerous to leave the bear wounded, possibly posing a threat to others.”

People Petition to Confiscate Guns From Tea Party Supporters and Repeal the 2nd Amendment

Comments Off on People Petition to Confiscate Guns From Tea Party Supporters and Repeal the 2nd Amendment

How Stupid can people be? Only idiots would go along with this.

STUDY: What Are the Most, Least Free States in the United States?

Comments Off on STUDY: What Are the Most, Least Free States in the United States?

A new study by a Libertarian think tank called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the 50 states in order of personal freedoms. There’s a chart on the website, that I couldn’t transfer here.

A new study by a Libertarian think tank called the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranks the 50 states in order of personal freedoms. So, how does your state stack up? Judge Andrew Napolitano reveals that the most free states are North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and New Hampshire. The least free are New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, and Rhode Island.

The study determined the rankings based on “the laws that the states impose that regulate personal, private behavior.”

According to Napolitano the results of the study are mixed. “The bad news is that there are states like New York, New York City, where the government thinks it can regulate private behavior. The good news is, as Ronald Reagan used to say, you can still vote with your feet. If you think the taxes are too high in New Jersey, you can move to Pennsylvania.”

Fox Insider

 

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Comments Off on Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit

Guess Obama is trying to create another housing crisis…..will it still be Bush’s fault? Probably.

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Officials are also encouraging lenders to use more subjective judgment in determining whether to offer a loan and are seeking to make it easier for people who owe more than their properties are worth to refinance at today’s low interest rates, among other steps.

Obama pledged in his State of the Union address to do more to make sure more Americans can enjoy the benefits of the housing recovery, but critics say encouraging banks to lend as broadly as the administration hopes will sow the seeds of another housing disaster and endanger taxpayer dollars.

“If that were to come to pass, that would open the floodgates to highly excessive risk and would send us right back on the same path we were just trying to recover from,” said Ed Pinto, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and former top executive at mortgage giant Fannie Mae.

Continue reading

Why Are We Training Russian Troops In The US?

Comments Off on Why Are We Training Russian Troops In The US?

Remember the story about the MRAP attempting to enter Tennessee with foreign speaking people wearing Homeland Security uniforms with an Eagle on it? They were turned around and told to go back into Kentucky were they came from. Now I ran across this.

UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

Comments Off on UN Arms Trade Treaty, Day Two: Focus Is Transfer, Registry of Firearms

As you read this…Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution. (It must also be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate)

Treaties: WHEN are they part of “the supreme Law of the Land”?

On the second day of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference, the delegations of several European nations seemed determined to prohibit the government of any nation from violating any regulations imposed as a part of the ATT.

Switzerland took the lead on this effort to revise Article 3 of the proposed gun control agreement. The Swiss delegation was joined by several cosponsors in attempting to re-write the current version of Article 3 so as to more rigorously regulate the transfer of weapons that could be used for attacks on civilians.

As readers will understand, such vague terms as “weapons that could be used for attacks on civilians” could easily be interpreted to include nearly every variety of firearm whose ownership is protected by the Second Amendment.

When confronted about this potential infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, U.S. officials at the conference are quick to point out that Secretary of State John Kerry has committed to refusing to ratify any agreement that constricts the sphere of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights.

As the negotiations on the revision of Article 3 wound down, the Canadian delegation was arguing for the status quo, insisting that the current version of the provision is likely as comprehensive as possible to still garner ratification by a majority of member states.

As the negotiations and presentations proceed, it becomes evident that many of the articles being drafted (or revised) contain provisions that would require the governments of member nations to track the transfer of weapons and ammunition within their sovereign borders.

One crucial step to implementing such tracking is the creation of a registry of gun owners. Without such a registry, it would be impossible to monitor weapon transfers effectively because governments can’t track weapons exchanges and transfers unless they know who has them to begin with.

Americans need to be aware that the trajectory toward the mandatory compilation of a gun owner registry is in the works here at the United Nations.

One can imagine the scenario if such an article makes it into the final version of the treaty, which is scheduled to be presented for ratification next Thursday.

Secretary Kerry and his fellow bureaucrats would insist that they tried valiantly to oppose the domestic tracking of gun transfers, but in the end, they decided to vote in favor of protecting the safety of citizens and preventing any further violence using guns, such as that witnessed in Newtown, Connecticut.

There is precedent for incremental disarmament that begins with a gun owner registry that in turn was deemed a reasonable reaction to an armed massacre of innocents.

In the United Kingdom, for example, in 1997 the government passed the Firearms Act in the wake of the murder of 16 students and a teacher at an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, the year before.

The perpetrator of the Dunblane massacre used two Browning Hi-Power 9 mm pistols and two Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolvers. As a result, the ban began with the creation of a mandatory registry of all pistol owners. Finally, the Firearms Act of 1997 imposed a nearly absolute ban on the private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom.

The previously compiled ownership registry was used by the Police Firearms Licensing Office to track down all those who had not complied with the mandatory surrender of handguns.

Once identified, all those gun owners who had previously refused to hand over their handguns were threatened with arrest for violation of the Firearms Act.

Americans familiar with this recent episode in British history could foresee a similar track being followed by our own federal agents.

First, there would be a registry imposed under the pretext of following international law as set out in the Arms Trade Treaty. On this point, is there any doubt that proponents of the registration of gun owners would feign frustration with the need for such a registry, but would nonetheless point to the so-called Supremacy Clause of Article VI as constitutional justification for the taking of names?

Finally, all Americans rebellious enough not to voluntarily drop off their handguns at the local police precinct (or Homeland Security Fusion Center) would receive notices in the mail informing them that they had broken the law, and that they would be granted a 30-day grace period to fall into line or face fines, imprisonment, or both.

Advocates of the Second Amendment should be aware that there are ample lessons in very recent history wherein high-profile mass murders were used as a pretext for the creation of a gun owner registry, which was in turn followed by confiscation. All, it should also be remembered, in the name of national security and the safety of all men, women, and children.

The disarmament of Britons is the latest, but it is not the only example of violence leading to registry, leading to seizure of privately owned weapons.

As The New American reported recently, riots and murders that tormented Germany following the end of World War I were used by government officials to justify the banning of “military type weapons.” Year by year, the list of proscribed firearms grew, and the methods of enforcement grew more severe. The disarmament progressed until civilians were completely robbed of all rights of gun ownership, leaving them powerless to resist the rise of the Third Reich.

There are many Americans who refuse to believe that disarmament is the goal of those who are pushing for stricter and stricter gun laws. They assume that decreasing liberty is a fair price to pay for increasing safety.

This is naïve. History reveals that failure to monitor and oppose every movement — even small, seemingly insignificant, incremental ones — toward gun owner registry will result in outright confiscation. And history’s ultimate and final lesson is that a disarmed society is a slave society, one powerless to oppose the brutal forced march toward tyranny.

The New American

Older Entries