Thread: 50 of Bloomberg’s Mayors Quit After Gun Confiscation Plan Leaked

NRA surprisingly credited with crafting new anti-gun laws

Published time: April 22, 2014 20:39 Get short URL


The National Rifle Association of America logo








​The tides may be turning within the National Rifle Association: according to a new report, America’s largest gun-lobbying group has helped advance three bills recently that limit firearm ownership, and more could soon be added to that list.


On Tuesday this week, reporters Laura Bassett and Christina Wilkie wrote for the Huffington Post that the NRA has all but abandoned earlier efforts by the group to halt state legislation that attempt to impose restrictions on legally owning guns. Instead, the HuffPost reporters wrote, the organization’s lobbyists have worked directly with lawmakers in order to craft rules agreeable by both sides that force gun owners with domestic violence records to surrender their weapons.


After nearly a decade, Bassett and Wilkie wrote, the NRA has only recently “changed its tune” in February the group helped advance a bill in Washington state that aims to guns out of the hands of alleged domestic abusers. Similar bills have already recently been advanced or approved in the states of Louisiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota, the journalists added, and the NRA is unexpectedly the one that deserves credit.


For practically ten years before that, the NRA took seemingly every action possible to keep HB 1840 from being signed into law in Washington. Initially, the bill was written so that anyone alleged to be a domestic abuser would have to hand over their weapons after being served with a protective order, but the NRA — largely known for staunchly opposing attempts to infringe on the right to own firearms — has opposed that language since it was first considered by local lawmakers.
That changed this year, however, when the bill was passed unanimously by the Washington legislature. The reason why, HuffPost claimed, is that “the gun lobby made a backroom deal with lawmakers, agreeing to drop its public opposition to it in exchange for a few minor changes.”


Those changes, Bassett and Wilkie wrote, include altering a provision that will now, if signed into law, allow alleged abuser to surrender their guns to friends and family instead of the state. And although it might only be a minor edit, it could be monumental news for anti-violence advocates who for ages have fought, albeit unsuccessfully, against lobbyists from the NRA who have tried to all but abolish anything that may interfere with the Second Amendment to the United States’ Constitution’s right to bear arms.


The Minnesota bill is expected to meet the approval of lawmakers there next, HuffPost reported, and the lawmakers who are sponsoring these anti-domestic violence bills say the NRA is becoming instrumental in helping their fight.


"The NRA has been really good to work with on this particular issue," Minnesota State Rep. Dan Schoen (D) told the website. "It pains me to say, but they have been."


Center for American Progress senior policy fellow Arkadi Gerney added to the HuffPost report that the NRA’s recent about face is welcome, but likely a calculated retreat.


“The NRA knows that their message -- which is more guns everywhere and generally doing nothing to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people -- doesn't resonate very well with most women in the United States,” Gerney said.


But be that as it may, having the NRA work side by side with lawmakers is something that has yet to be seen even on a small scale when it comes to the federal level. Despite the fact that mass shootings continue to occur in the US on a routine basis, efforts to pass national new gun restrictions — even those touted by President Barack Obama and the White House — have been blocked by members of Congress.

http://rt.com/usa/154116-nra-huffpost-domestic-abuse/

---

The Cruelty of Gun-Free Zones
Even law enforcement recognizes that gun-free zones leave shooting victims defenseless.

Recently, President Obama vowed to “help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook.”

But before he continues pushing his typical gun-control agenda, he should consider what law enforcement in Europe and the United States advise. It might surprise him.

In November 2013, Interpol’s secretary general, Ron Noble, noted there are two ways to protect people from such mass shootings:

“One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves [should be] so secure that in order to get into the soft target, you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

Noble sees a real problem: “How do you protect soft targets? That’s really the challenge. You can’t have armed police forces everywhere.”

“It makes citizens question their views on gun control,” he noted.

“You have to ask yourself, ‘Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past, with an evolving threat of terrorism?’”

His comments were made right after the terrorist attack at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya, where 68 people were killed. Kenya bans both open and concealed carrying of firearms by civilians. Yet, obviously, those bans didn’t stop the terrorists.

The vast majority of mass shootings in the U.S. have been extensively planned beforehand -- often many months or even years in advance, allowing them to find unprotected targets and obtain weapons.

Take Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School killer, who spent over two years studying everything about previous mass public shootings: the weapons used, the number of people killed, and even how much media coverage each shooting received.

Police described the 7-by-4 foot spreadsheet as sickeningly thorough, even likening his careful study to a doctoral dissertation.

James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado killer, was another careful planner. He started buying items two and a half months in advance.

He visited neighboring theaters, and bought his ticket almost two weeks before his attack. To help prepare, he photographed the layout of the theater where he’d commit his heinous crimes.

Ironically, President Obama mentioned movie theaters and malls in his speech.

Holmes appears to have carefully selected the theater he did: Seven theaters within a 20-minute drive of his apartment were showing the premier of The Dark Knight Returns.

He chose the only one posting signs banning concealed guns -- not the theater closest to his apartment or the one prominently advertising the largest auditoriums in Colorado.

Not only are these killers deterred from attacking where victims are able to defend themselves, but if an attack occurs, it is quickly stopped before many people are harmed.

The significance of letting citizens defend themselves was demonstrated just days before the Newtown attack at the Clackamas Town Center Mall in Portland, Oregon.

At the crowded mall, a likely mass shooting was stopped after two people were killed. It ended because one brave person, Nick Meli, a concealed-permit holder, stopped the shooter simply by pointing his gun at him.

Unfortunately, as is all too typical, the news media all but completely ignored the story.

The mall in Columbia, Maryland, where a shooter killed two people before killing himself, also banned guns.

With all the discussions about the weapon used and how the killer obtained it, the simplest fact for the media to obtain is whether the attack occurred in a gun-free zone, but it almost never gets mentioned in the hard-news accounts.

The gun-control debate would be dramatically different if the media mentioned this even once in a while.

Finally, consider the advice from PoliceOne, whose 450,000 members make it the largest private organization of active and retired law-enforcement officers in the U.S.

It surveyed its members last March and asked, “What would help most in preventing large-scale shootings in public?”

Their No. 1 answer: “More permissive concealed carry policies for civilians.” (It was followed by “More aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons.”)

Yet the media does understand the dangers of gun-free zones -- at least when it comes to their own safety.

Shortly after the Journal News of Westchester County, New York, got national attention in December, 2012 for publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners, documentarian and activist James O’Keefe secretly filmed editors of the paper deciding not to put signs in front of their homes saying that their houses were “gun-free.”

One of the editors, after saying he hated guns, worried out loud that such a sign would make his home a target of criminals.

When Europe-based Interpol is finally considering the notion of letting victims defend themselves, the debate is changing.

So-called gun-free zones shouldn’t be the place where victims are sitting ducks.

— John Lott is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010, 3 rd edition).

---

The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens' organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights' mailing address is P.O. Box 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org/

Not produced or e-mailed at taxpayer expense.



Gun free zones means your a sitting duck wake up America confiscation is the plan for total control over you...If gun control was so great why do they have armed guards!!!!

Is “stronger than Jefferson’s” good enough for a nullification bill?


Even though the Missouri 2nd Amendment Preservation Act (HB1439) is stronger than Thomas Jefferson’s original nullification resolution in 1798, a debate over whether to make it even stronger or not is likely to kill the strongest nullification bill in modern times.

HB1439 has passed both chambers, but with different language. The general concept is that the state would consider all federal gun control measures to be null and void – and would ban the state from enforcing or assisting in their enforcement. This would, as Judge Andrew Napolitano has said, make those federal acts “nearly impossible to enforce.”

The Senate handler of the bill, Sen. Nieves, wants to keep a clause which would make any federal agent who violates the right to keep and bear arms in Missouri forever ineligible to hold a law enforcement position within the state.

This is a good addition to the bill – because it closes a loophole whereby federal agencies deputize local law enforcement to carry out the federal act. They could then say that the law no longer applied to them while deputized, and continue to help the federal government violate the 2nd Amendment.

Law enforcement organizations and leadership from all around the state are strongly opposed to this as they don’t want anything to hinder their ability to “work with their federal partners.” In other words, they want the status quo.

The House handler, Rep. Funderburk, wants to remove this provision, as he has said he’s promised to do so, and is standing his ground.
The bill will be vetoed either way, and Funderburk also believes that an override is not going to happen with that clause included. This might be the case, and it might not be. We don’t really know.

We believe the bill would be stronger with the inclusion of this language. But, if insisting on it being included results in the bill being killed before Friday’s deadline, it’s a foolish strategy.

That would mean nothing is gained and the status quo would continue. But as founding father John Dickinson, the “Penman of the Revolution,” taught us, small things grow great by concord. (read more here)

In other words, one step forward in one state leads to another small step in another state. And more steps in other states. But until someone takes that first step, the effort goes nowhere.

Also, keep in mind that HB1439 – with or without this ineligibility clause – is possibly the strongest nullification bill in modern times. It’s certainly stronger than Jefferson’s own Kentucky resolution of 1798, which many believe established the principle of nullification in the first place.
Here are a few key provisions:

1. It takes language directly from Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798, holding that acts outside of the constitution are null. “whenever the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

2. It takes more language from Jefferson, holding the position that the states have a duty to determine constitutionality. “If the government, created by compact among the states, was the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers granted to it by the states through the Constitution, the federal government’s discretion, and not the Constitution, would necessarily become the measure of those powers.”

With these important items set forth as a bedrock foundation, the following is also included:

3. Makes law that all federal gun control – past, present and future – is null and void. “All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, whether past, present, or future, which infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution shall be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, shall be specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.”

4. Establishes a way to make them null and void in practice. “No person, including any public officer or employee of this state or any political subdivision of this state, shall have authority to enforce or attempt to enforce any federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, regulations, statutes, or ordinances, infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.”

Keep in mind that Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798 – which has stood as a baseline for nullification for over two centuries – was not even a law, as HB1439 is.

Jefferson’s resolution was that – a resolution, which is not legally binding. It was important as it established a framework; a statement of intent. The process was to pass a resolution, call on other states for support, and then take further action to give life to those principles in law – in a future session.

Missouri’s 2nd Amendment Preservation Act moves past the resolution stage and right to binding law. That makes it – even in a weak form (which it is not) – a stronger nullification bill than the original nullification resolution authored by Thomas Jefferson.
So the question that people quibbling over this need to ask is this:

If it’s stronger than what Thomas Jefferson himself started with, is it possible that it’s not good enough?
The answer is simple: No. Way.

ACTION ITEM:
SB613 is a companion 2nd Amendment Preservation Act which already passed the senate. It is sitting on the House 3rd Read calendar. It can be taken up and passed with one vote of the House.

It can also be amended to look just like HB1439, with the Senate amendments. The ineligibility clause can be softened a little — make it 10 years instead of lifetime ineligibility. This could be a good middle ground between the lifetime that Sen. Nieves wants and zero that Rep. Funderburk wants.

Then the bill would go to a final Conference Committee — a public one — so both sides can agree and pass it before Friday.

Call your state rep and senator and urge this action – with a moderate middle ground.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services17

The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not! | Tenth Amendment Center Blog


The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/is-stronger-than-jeffersons-good-enough-for-a-nullification-bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+tacdailydigest+%28Tenth+Amendment+Center +Daily+Digest%29#.U3jIDC9qP5Y

Communist Chinese Government Wants to Help Obama Take Away American Guns

Christians Have a Responsibility to Bear Arms to Protect the Church from Her Enemies

Tim Brown May 23, 2014

In recalling recent Islamic terrorist activities in Syria, Malaysia and the Middle East, Freedom Outpost contributor Theodore Shoebat expounded on the biblical reason for Christians to remain armed: to protect the Church from her enemies.


Published on May 22, 2014
Every Christian Must Bear Arms To Protect The Church

He said that these modern occurrences remind him of the obligation of the Church to carry arms. He was not speaking in terms of stirring up strife or revolution, but rather he spoke of the use of arms defensively against all those who would seek to do her harm.

"Even Jesus spoke of this when He said, 'Sell your purse and buy a sword,'" Shoebat said. "Of course, there are many interpretations of it, but the physical and temporal application of using a sword to defend one's self can be applied with this verse."

Shoebat claims that the two swords in the passage represent the physical sword for self-defense, while the other sword represents the spiritual sword, or the Word of God. I'm not necessarily buying into the interpretation, but the reality is that as Christians we are to use both. We use the Word of God in defining law, in pointing out sin, in instructing in righteousness and pointing the way of salvation through the One, true and living God. We also use modern swords (arms of all different types) to defend ourselves, our loved ones, the Church and our neighbors, as well as secure a free state, as Shoebat points out.

Many object to the use of arms by Christians, even going so far as to say that if someone were in your home and had killed your children and was raping your wife that you should merely pray for them. Yes! So-called pastors have even spewed this non-sense. My question to them is "Is that showing love for them?" The answer is no. It is actually showing cowardice, which I might add, the apostle John says that cowards will find themselves in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:.

Theodore also goes on to point out that the state can use the sword to protect the Church. We also know from Romans 13, that the state wields the sword for the punishment of evil doers (For more on that topic, I highly recommend my good friend pastor Gordan Runyan's excellent work Resistance to Tyrants).

While Shoebat pointed out that in an ideal world, there is such thing as a Christian State (a government that rules under the authority of God righteously), he recognizes that in large part, many governments, including our own, seem to have "sold their souls to the devil."

There are numerous examples of those who defended the people of God (the Church) throughout the Old Testament. Before I continue, let me just say that no, the Old Testament is not done away with even though the Messiah has come. It has been fulfilled, but not destroyed. It is still, as the apostle Paul said, "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:16)

One of the examples Theodore chose to use as an example comes from 1 Samuel 22. King Saul, who was to be the protector of the Church, has now become its persecutor, slaying the priests of the LORD. One of the priests, Abiathar, escapes to David and tells him what has taken place. David says that he knew this would happen, but then goes on to tell Abiathar, "Abide thou with me, fear not: for he that seeketh my life seeketh thy life: but with me thou shalt be in safeguard." In other words, David is not going to let anyone harm or kill Abiathar without a fight. What did they fight with in those days? That's right, swords.

This isn't the first time that David had shown his might in defending the people of God against their enemies. If you recall, he also took a sling and some stones, went out against the greatest enemy of Israel, Goliath the Philistine, charged him and slew him and cut off his head with the giant's own sword! What's interesting is how David spoke of killing a lion and a bear to defend the sheep of his pasture. Jesus also spoke of going after lost sheep and bringing them safely home. To fail to defend the people of God, is to demonstrate a lack of love for them. In fact, it is to demonstrate hate and cowardice.

Jesus would later speak of laying down His life for the sheep. Christ was, and still is, a defender of His sheep and He often employees the means of His people in the defense of His people.

Christians should be those that use the sword of the Word of God to defend the Church against false doctrines and false teachers, but we should also be unafraid and unashamed to use the physical arms we possess to defend the people of God as well. May God grant us courage and strength to demonstrate love for His Church in such a way that we defend Her from the various attacks of Her enemies for His glory.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/05/ch...mYD0eGU1M1w.99

The Real Purpose Of The 2nd Amendment



By: Matt Winkeljohn - http://www.resistthetyranny.com/



A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Since 1934, when the National Firearms Act (NFA) was written in to law, the government and the rest of America has been battling over the people’s right to bear arms.
This battle has reached somewhat of a head over the last five to six years.
Between the Brady Campaign, the president and government sponsored organizations like Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, gun owners have had to be on the constant defensive to keep their right to own and carry firearms of their choosing.
The gun grabbers or anti-gunners like to twist the wording of the 2nd Amendment to fit their needs. Words they don’t understand, like, “militia.”

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (178 at 169)

The word “militia,” as our founders intended it to mean, is every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45. This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54. With women now being equals to men, this means that every able-bodied person in the United States has the natural born right to keep and bear arms.
The people who would like to pick and choose what arms that the people are “allowed” to own are very misinformed also.
There has been a seemingly never ending push to make it illegal to own “assault rifles.” However, these “assault rifles” are the exact weapon that our founders had in mind as the types of weapons the people have the right to own. Thomas Jefferson was very clear that the people should have arms to successfully defend against a tyrannical government.

“The most important reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, if necessary, at last resort to protect themselves from tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

Finally, the coup d’état to the the ant-gunners argument.
Our founders were so set on the people having the right to keep, own and bear arms, that they made the last line in the 2nd Amendment so clear, that it would take a complete tyrant to not abide by it.

“shall not be infringed”

Those four letters say it all. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be regulated, taken or infringed in any other way.

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

It is very clear why we have the 2nd Amendment. We the people have the natural right to keep and bear arms of our choosing and no government or organization has the legal standing to infringe on our right to keep, own and bear arms.
The question now is… Why does the government and government sponsored organization want to completely disarm the people?
Our founders knew the government would turn on its own people.

http://www.resistthetyranny.com/the-...2nd-amendment/