Back to Basics

Vice President Joe Biden will try to restart the dormant gun control push next week with an event to tout the administration’s progress in combatting gun violence.

The June 18 White House event will mark the first time Biden or President Barack Obama has held a public event on gun control since the Senate rejected expanded background checks for gun purchases April 17. . . .

But Biden apparently couldn’t wait until the 18th.  Democrats are trying to divide the Republican party on the issue by blaming two Senators for forcing the other Republicans to vote against.

“On the gun issue, I don’t care what your position is — I called 17 senators out, 9 of whom were Republicans. … Not one of offered an explanation on the merits of why they couldn’t vote for the background check. But almost to a person, they said, ‘I don’t want to take on Ted Cruz. I don’t want to take on Rand Paul. They’ll be in my district.’

“I actually said, ‘Are you kidding? These are two freshman,’” Biden said, according to the pool report.  . . .

Meanwhile, Mayor Bloomberg is trying to put more pressure on the few Democrats who voted against the new regulations.

Bloomberg is contacting more than 2,000 Democratic New York donors telling them not to give money to Sens. Max Baucus, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor and Heidi Heitkamp after they joined Republicans to block a bill expanding background checks on gun sales, POLITICO’s Mike Allen reports in Playbook. . . .

Of course, Baucus isn’t running for re-election and Heitkamp isn’t up again for 5 more years.

It would be nice to get this data to look at.  To see what happens to the crime rate in these neighborhoods that are getting the guns.  It is interesting to me to see how Democrats say they support people being able to own guns and yet how they come out strongly against this program.  From Fox News:

. . . Strain’s northwest Houston community of Oak Forest is the first neighborhood in the country being trained and equipped by the Armed Citizen Project, a Houston nonprofit that is giving away free shotguns to single women and residents of neighborhoods with high crime rates.
While many cities have tried gun buy-backs and other tactics in the ongoing national debate on gun control, the nonprofit and its supporters say gun giveaways to responsible owners are actually a better way to deter crime. The organization, which plans to offer training classes in Dallas, San Antonio, and Tucson, Ariz., in the next few weeks, is working to expand its giveaways to 15 cities by the end of the year, including Chicago and New York.
But others in Houston, while expressing support for Second Amendment rights, question whether more guns will result in more gun-related deaths rather than less crime. . . .

Call it living in Upside-down Land or the realization of the Bible’s prediction of a time when bad will be called good and good, bad, but once again innocent schoolchildren have been persecuted for, well, just being children. This time the offender was Chase Lake Elementary School (CLES) in Edmonds, WA, where some kids were suspended for using Nerf guns on school grounds. And it’s an all-too-common story. A child will be punished for drawing a gun, shaping his fingers as one and saying “bang!” merely talking about guns or some other innocuous action. And recently there was a case of a five-year-old boy who brought a cap gun to school to show a friend and then was interrogated for two hours until he wet his pants. It’s all very bizarre and very twisted.

In the Edmonds case, the children were told that they could bring the toys to school, but I’m not interested in individual details but deeper matters. And make no mistake, something deeper is afoot here.

To introduce this, let’s start with another common thread in these cases: the reaction of the persecuted children’s parents. While they’re always upset about the relatively draconian punishment visited upon their kids, their comments often reflect those of Edmonds mother Stacey Leidholm, who addressed her son’s suspension and marred permanent record and said “I do understand that they definitely need consequences, but not that harsh of a consequence.”

Let’s stop right there. Why do they “need consequences”? This isn’t a matter of simply having to respect the rules even if you disagree with them, since “with toy or facsimile guns, discipline is handed out at the discretion of the principal [at CLES],” writes KomoNews.com. Moreover, consequences imply a transgression, but what’s wrong with playing with toy guns? It’s not as if these brightly colored toys could be mistaken for real guns, and playing with them is certainly less likely to cause injury than is playing baseball or most any other sport. So what danger is posed by the possession of toy guns on school grounds?

Before I get to that, a bit of history. Not that long ago it was common for boys to bring guns to school, as they might have target shooting afterwards; this was even the case in New York City in the 1940s and ‘50s, where kids would often ride the subways with their guns. And while this no longer occurred when I attended school in the Bronx in the ‘70s, no school official even batted an eye at our bringing toy guns to school. That was just what little boys did. Clearly, something has changed in society—and it isn’t the availability of guns or little boys’ desire to play with them.

The obvious answer here is that the last two decades’ school shootings and our civilization’s general moral decline have changed the equation. But while this would explain the desire to keep students with real firearms off school grounds, there is no logical reason to apply this to toy guns.

Some evidence that public schools are actually trying to indoctrinate students on the gun issue.  There seems to be no notion that there are also benefits as well as costs from guns.  From the San Jose Mercury:

An elementary school will hold a toy gun exchange Saturday, offering students a book and a chance to win a bicycle if they turn in their play weapons.

Strobridge Elementary Principal Charles Hill maintains that children who play with toy guns may not take real guns seriously.

“Playing with toys guns, saying ‘I’m going to shoot you,’ desensitizes them, so as they get older, it’s easier for them to use a real gun,” Hill said. . . .

Every child who brings a toy gun will get a raffle ticket to win one of four bicycles, Hill said. . . . .

Hill hopes the toy gun exchange idea catches on.

“If we want older kids to not think guns are cool, we need to start early,” he said.

The 1979 movie And Justice For All  is arguably the best cinematographic displays of insanity and corruption in our legal system that continues to hold relevance today. It remains a near perfect illustration of judicial absurdity combined with personal and professional hubris that is repeated over and over in the U.S. The faces and names might change, but it was, and still is, a clear indictment of our legal system and certain individuals who believe themselves to be above the law.

In the battle against citizen’s rights to bear arms, such individuals not only occupy seats of power in the federal government, but in various state governments as well. The issue of gun control has largely been most visible at the federal level over the last century. Due to the Constitutional issues beyond the scope of this article, it is arguable, however, that an individual’s rights to own firearms under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, independent of federal control, might well fall within the jurisdiction of each state. This is exactly what we are now witnessing. At present, there are approximately 1,300 bills pending at the state level to change firearm laws, according to the San Francisco based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. The majority of such legislation is decidedly against the law-abiding, gun-owning citizen. Virulently so.

States becoming “Ground Zero” for gun legislation

One popular scene from And Justice For All  played out almost verbatim during an April 30, 2013 meeting of the New Jersey State Law and Public Safety Committee when committee chairman New Jersey State Senator Donald Norcross shouted to one constituent, identified as New Jersey resident James Kaleda “You’re out of order!” Almost as if he was following the script written for Al Pacino, James Kaleda retorted “this meeting is out of order!” It was, perhaps, the most fitting assertion during an otherwise uneventful four-hour long session where it appeared that the passage of seven-(7) new restrictive state gun control measures was decided long before the hearings began.

Exactly what egregious offense did Mr. Kaleda commit that compelled Senator Norcross to shut off his microphone and have him physically escorted from the public meeting? Some might contend that it’s a bit difficult to tell, but it seemed that a simple utterance of the words “gun control” might have played a part. It appears that Senator Norcross, acting with the imprimatur of the federal government to disarm his law-abiding constituents, has also been emboldened to forcibly disallow discordant discussion despite its intellectual value. And there it is, ladies and gentlemen, a textbook example of the inextricable connection between our right to bear arms and our right to free speech.

While this might seem like a non sequitur at first blush, let me remind you that it was this gun control “lawmaking process” of the New Jersey Law and Public Safety Committee that was the stage setter for the “hot mic” comments captured at the conclusion of the New Jersey Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee just nine days later. It was during the latter meeting where the candid comments of three New Jersey State senators revealed their true intent of gun legislation: confiscation.

A federal court on Thursday halted an effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to ban all ammunition containing lead, much to the dismay of gun control groups hoping to use environmentalism to “make an end run around the Second Amendment” right of access to ammunition, according to officials from several organizations representing gun owners and manufacturers.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that it had dismissed a lawsuit brought by the anti-hunting Center for Biological Diversity and six other left-wing groups which demanded that President Barack Obama’s powerful EPA ban traditional ammunition containing lead components.

Federal Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed CBD’s lawsuit, finding that CBD’s current petition was nothing more than an attempt to seek reconsideration of their previous petition, which the EPA had denied. Judge Sullivan also indicated that he would defer to EPA’s determination that the agency was not congressionally authorized to regulate lead-based ammunition, according to the Institute for Legislative Action of the NRA.

Traditional ammunition represents 95 percent of the U.S. market and is the staple ammunition for target shooters, hunters and law enforcement, with more than 10 billion rounds sold annually, according to officials with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Last August, the NSSF had filed a motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit initiated by EPA attorneys at the behest of environmental and control activist groups.

But the federal court on Thursday agreed with NSSF and said that the EPA doesn’t possess the legal authority to regulate traditional firearms ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the American public from “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. The TSCA attempted to exert direct government control over which types of chemicals could and could not be used in actual use and production.

In fact, the EPA had already twice denied attempts by CBD to have the agency ban traditional ammunition, and the court had dismissed an earlier case brought by CBD seeking the same relief.

“No doubt the CBD and the other groups will continue their efforts and perhaps hunt for judges who share their ideology,” said former police firearms trainer Marvin Wolinsky.

“We’ll keep fighting to ensure that America’s wildlife are no longer needlessly killed by the millions by lead ammunition,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel with the CBD.

“Congress clearly gave the EPA authority to regulate the toxic lead in hunting ammunition, the same way we got lead out of gasoline, paint and kids’ toys. It was really disturbing today to see the country’s most important environmental agency on the same side as the NRA, opposing commonsense measures to protect people and wildlife from lead poisoning,” he said in a statement.

“We are gratified that the court has found this second frivolous lawsuit, which is essentially the same as the one dismissed last year, was equally without merit,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry.

“This was a waste of taxpayers’ dollars and EPA resources spent in having to defend a baseless lawsuit,” Keane added.

It appears the the socialist/communist democrats and their republican enablers like Arnold Schwarzenegger have screwed all California gun owners …

California Certifies Microstamping  brought to us by our new city attorney Mike Feuer and signed by Arnold. Implemented by Kamala Harris

Last Friday the California Dept. of Justice suddenly announced that the technology to microstamp firearms is now unencumbered by patents. As a result, a law passed in 2007 becomes effective immediately.

Every newly introduced model of semiautomatic handgun in the state now must have a microstamped firing pin that, theoretically, would accurately and reliably engrave a firearm’s identification information on each cartridge casing fired from the pistol. The law was signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in 2007 but never implemented because the technology was, and remains, patented. NSSF, NRA, Calguns and CRPA are exploring legal options to challenge the erroneous and politically motivated certification, which is in essence a gun ban since manufacturers cannot comply with the law due to the extra cost of at least $200 it will add to the price of each firearm. Even the patent holder has acknowledged his concept functions unreliably and requires further study, and should not be legislatively mandated at this time.

The flawed and unreliable nature of this technology has been noted in independent peer-reviewed studies, including one by the National Research Council and another in the professional journal of the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners. As a crime-solving tool, microstamping is suspect because it does not reliably and legibly imprint the information on the casing, and the shallow marks on the firing pin wear through normal usage. Also, microstamping can be easily circumvented by criminals by filing down the imprinted code using common household tools or swapped out for unmarked pins.

Even law enforcement is against this technology for the fear that some of their microstamped shell casings fired at a range might be picked up and salted at a crime scene. In fact all of us should worry.

AB711 Lead Ban

The California Assembly on Thursday, on a largely party-line 44-21 vote, passed legislation that would make California the first state to ban completely the use of traditional lead ammunition in hunting. Previously, traditional ammunition was banned only in California Condor range areas. The bill, AB711, sponsored by Democratic Assemblyman Anthony Rendon of Lakewood now goes to the state Senate.

AB711 could create a de facto ban on hunting, due to possible federal prohibition of alternative ammunition made of other materials, which is under consideration by the ATF. Even though the science used to justify the legislation is flawed, if the law passes the Senate and is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown, the ban would be phased in over two years and become fully effective in July 2016.

Locate your state senator here and tell them that you oppose this legislation. If enacted, the impact would be a substantial loss of business for retailers that sell ammunition and hunting-related accessories and equipment. There is some $500 million in tax revenue generated by sportsmen in California.

A group of influential pastors and ministers recently met with Vice President Joe Biden at the White House where the Vice President called on them to use their influence to help pass President Barack Obama’s new gun control measures. Of course, these measures include the outlawing of all semi-automatic rifles, outlawing high-capacity magazines, and establishing a government-mandated national gun registration policy, which is subtly identified as “Universal Background Checks.” These measures were recently defeated in the US Senate, so now the White House is calling on the clergy to help sell this gun grab to America’s churches.

Here is how Breitbart.com covers the story: “Vice President Joe Biden wants pastors, rabbis and nuns to tell their flocks that enacting gun control is the moral thing to do. But another vote may have to wait until Congress wraps up work on an immigration overhaul.

“Biden met for two-and-a-half hours Monday with more than a dozen leaders from various faith communities –Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh, to name a few. Both Biden and the faith leaders encouraged each other not to give up on what has been an arduous and thus far fruitless effort by Biden and President Barack Obama to pass new gun laws in the wake of December’s schoolhouse shooting in Connecticut.

“Around a large, circular table in a conference room on the White House grounds, Biden waxed optimistic about prospects for passing a bill, according to four participants who spoke to The Associated Press after the meeting. Biden’s chief of staff, Bruce Reed, joined the group, as did a handful of Obama aides who work on faith-based outreach. The meeting closed with a meditation and a prayer for action.”

The report continued saying, “Monday’s session reflects an attempt to broaden the coalition calling for new gun laws to include a wide array of religious groups–including evangelicals and conservative faith communities.”

The report concluded by saying, “A spokeswoman for Biden declined to comment on the meeting. But Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Assembly, said a diverse spectrum of denominations and religious orders were represented. She said they included evangelical leaders Richard Cizik and Franklin Graham, the son of evangelist Billy Graham, as well as Sister Marge Clark of Network, a Catholic group.”

See the report here:

Biden Asks Clergy To Make Moral Argument On Guns

There is nothing new about the White House attempting to use America’s pastors to promote gun control. Both the G.W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations have had the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conduct pastor training programs whereby pastors are instructed to use their influence to convince citizens to completely surrender any and all rights and liberties to the federal government in the event of a national emergency or crisis. Submission to tyrannical actions such as forced relocation and gun confiscation is taught in these training programs.

See this report:

Secret FEMA Plan To Use Pastors As Pacifiers In Preparation For Martial Law

And here is a local Louisiana television news report on the FEMA “Clergy Response Teams”:

FEMA Training Pastors For Emergency Response

Obviously, the Obama administration’s effort to enact more gun control has already enjoyed the support of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Richard Land (who is a member of the CFR) and evangelist Franklin Graham. It is noteworthy that Mr. Graham was in attendance at Vice President Biden’s private meeting.

Every American gun owner, regardless of the state in which you live, is presently or will be the target of gun confiscation. A state-by-state framework of confiscation is being erected in front of us all to strip us of our rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Proof of this nefarious intent of disarming citizens was serendipitously caught by a “hot” microphone at the conclusion of the May 9, 2013 meeting of the New Jersey State Legislature.

At the conclusion of the New Jersey Senate Budget & Appropriations Committee meeting last Thursday, an open microphone caught three state senators, identified by voice as Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, Assistant Majority Leader Sandra Cunningham, Senate Majority Whip Linda Greenstein, and at least one staff member talking candidly about their intent to confiscate all guns from the people they serve. It should be noted that Senator Loretta Weinberg is the chief proponent of the anti-gun legislation being moved through the New Jersey State Senate.

Although some of the candid conversation is a bit difficult to discern due to the ambient noise, their message is clear. “We need[ed] a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate,” stated one high ranking senate member. “They don’t care about the bad guys.  All they want to do is have their ‘little guns’ and do whatever they want with them,” added another in an obviously demeaning manner. Another conceded that gun owners do, in fact, want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but added that “they don’t have any regulations to do it.” Oh really?

For anyone doubting the bitter contempt these legislators hold for gun owners and pro-Constitutionalists, a YouTube video that captured the “open microphone moment” is available for review here.

During the second hour of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report that aired last night, we interviewed the highly credentialed Scott Bach, Esq., Executive Director of the Association of the New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs who explained the draconian laws being written and passed in the State of New Jersey. “Clearly, this is about nothing less than disarming the American public, and the current battleground is in New Jersey,”  stated Mr. Bach. “You might not be experiencing it in your state… yet, but you will. It’s just a matter of time.”

We must do everything we can to preserve, protect and defend our Second Amendment rights, or we will lose much more. Regardless of where you live, the fight is coming to you, if it has not yet arrived. We must be proactive, and yes, we can make our voices heard to counter the utter contempt of these lawmakers regardless of your state of residence – while we still have the chance. Let’s hold these opponents to our constitutional rights accountable for their words and actions.

The time is now, and the fight has been left to us. Make your views known and your voice heard by contacting the NJ Senate Majority Office by phone (609-847-3700) and/or fax (609-633-7254). Do it before it disappears as an option.

More information: Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs – A grassroots organization fighting to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

The 911 call was somewhat difficult to understand, but that isn’t the issue.  Whatever the reason, the point is that it took 75 minutes after the 911 call for the police to arrive.  My point isn’t to blame the police dispatcher or an immigrant who may not be able to speak without an accent, but to note the benefit of letting people own guns for self protection.  The 911 call was made after the attack and shooting had already occurred so the police response time at that point was irrelevant.

On Sunday night, four men tried to rob Pepe’s Grocery on Bernal Drive in West Dallas. One of them was carrying an assault rifle, but the manager of the closed store drew first, hitting his target with two shots from his .38. The would-be robbers fled, leaving a trail of blood behind.The manager, Joe Cho, called police and waited. And waited. And waited. And finally, 20 minutes after shooting an intruder, he locked up and went home. Officers arrived at the store some 75 minutes later.
“I’m at home safe, everything, I relax right now,” Cho told the Morning News‘ Scott Goldstein. “Then you call me about an hour something later, you want me to come back over here.” . . .

Who was to blame for the delay?

The Dallas Police Department was quick to shift the blame over to Cho. A spokesman said,  “The caller had a very heavy accent and was speaking very quickly…The call taker had a very difficult time understanding the information and did not hear the caller say ‘shot’ or ‘shoot.’” . . .

I could understand much of the call, and what I couldn’t understand the first time through I figured out after listening to it a couple more times.  If the dispatcher couldn’t understand whether the caller was saying “shot” or “shoot,” she should have asked him to stay on the phone longer.  In any case, these calls are recorded, and the dispatcher could have presumably listened to it again if necessary.