|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
May 2007 - Posts
-
|
It's an unbelievable story. A Chicago priest calls for a gun store
owner to be "snuffed out", and the local media assembled ignore the
comment.
It all happened in Riverside, Illinois, where Jesse Jackson and about a
thousand of his followers showed up outside a gun store. That's where
Jackson proceeded to rant and rave about the gun dealer and how he's
sold "the majority of guns connected with recent shooting deaths" in
Chicago. But in typical Jacksonian fashion, the reverend later admitted
he doesn't actually have any statistics on the store.
Now if that was the only thing that happened, it would be bad enough.
But Jackson wasn't the one who made the most outrageous statement over
the weekend. It was one of his supporters, Reverend Michael Pfleger
who actually called for the owner of Chuck's Gun Shop to be
"snuffed out". Later, he said that he and other gun control supporters
would also "snuff out" legislators who don't promote gun control.
Where's Jesse Jackson's outrage against this priest who calls for the
"snuffing out" of legislators and gun store owners? Isn't Jackson
supposedly working to stop violence? If so, you'd think he'd be
apologizing for the violent threats made just a few feet from where he
was sitting on Saturday. But Jackson isn't distancing himself from Rev.
Pfleger. Instead, he's just pretending the threats were never made.
If Jackson was really interested in helping stop criminal violence, he
might talk about the futility of Chicago's 25 year ban on handguns, and
how it's time for the good people of Chicago to be able to protect and
defend themselves.
The fact that he's once again going after the inanimate object, and
ignoring the threats made by one of his supporters, shows that Jackson
is still more interested in making headlines than in making our
communities safer.
|
-
|
If you're an Oregon resident, you may already know about what's going on in several counties around the state. But the national media's been strangely silent about an amazing turn of events in Oregon that's having an enormous impact on the number of people applying for, and receiving, their Right-to-Carry licenses.
Oregonians recently voted on a number of public safety levies, and many of them failed. The result is that several county sheriffs' patrols are going to be either severely reduced or ended altogether. In other words, you're on your own.
Oh sure, the state police will be responding to "life threatening" events. But if you call 911 because you hear a noise outside your home, you're on your own. And if that noise turns out to be a criminal getting ready to strike, you'd better hope you can redial fast to let the police know your situation has changed. And then, of course, both you and the criminal better wait for the state police to arrive.
Because of these extraordinary events, some sheriffs are making sure residents in their counties are prepared. Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, for example, has been holding a series of public meetings around the county to teach the residents the laws regarding self-defense. He's also been encouraging residents to get their concealed-carry license. Applications are through the roof, and are expected to increase even more before the county patrols end on May 31.
It's nice to see a law enforcement leader working to help make sure the community is as safe as it can be, even if he's not giving the “politically correct” advice you'd get if the media were in charge.
|
-
|
Sometimes the most powerful arguments against gun control don't come from people like me. They come from people like you.
Take this letter to the editor that recently appeared in the Washington Post. Written by a convenience store clerk in Alaska, it lays out why the Second Amendment is important to her.
She writes:
"I work the graveyard shift at a convenience store in Alaska, where I have been robbed seven times. I have also been sexually assaulted twice. I was unarmed. Therefore, I think more in terms of guns in the hands of people who desperately need them."
In response to Washington, D.C., Assistant Police Chief Winston Robinson Jr., who was arguing in favor of keeping D.C.'s gun ban, this woman wrote:
"I'm glad Mr. Robinson is permitted to carry a gun anywhere he goes. However, he wasn't there, nor was any other police officer, when I was raped. He wasn't there when one robber (carrying a knife, actually) came tearing around the counter at me, and I knew with religious certainty I was going to die. The only ones who were ever there were the robber or rapist and me.
So unless and until the courts can take the weapon out of their hands, don't take the gun out of mine."
Pretty powerful stuff. I don't think any D.C. politicians had the guts to reply to that.
|
-
|
Japan already has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. In fact, Japan's firearms laws state, "No-one shall possess a fire-arm or fire-arms." And according to Dave Kopel, an expert on international gun-control laws, there are few exceptions. If you're a Japanese resident, you can't legally own a handgun or a rifle, only a shotgun.
But despite these laws, violent crime is increasing in Japan.
Amazingly enough, people are calling for MORE gun control in Japan. I don't know what kind of laws they'd propose, considering legal gun ownership is so rare in that country. But it shows you that no matter where you go, no matter what the current laws are, there are always going to be people who would rather pass another meaningless law than deal with the problem of violent criminals in society.
That's why we fight here at home. Because we know that no law is ever enough for the anti-gun crowd. No matter which culture, they are always going to be pushing for one more law that will affect only the law abiding, not the criminal.
It didn't work in England, it didn't work in D.C., and it's not working in Japan.
|
-
|
A recent crime spree in Detroit came to a screeching halt the other day after two armed robbers met one Right-to-Carry holder.
The pair first robbed a 16-year-old at a pay phone, and then tried to carjack a couple in their own driveway. Failing that, they approached a man at a carwash and tried to rob him and take his car.
But police say the 53-year-old victim is also licensed to carry concealed, and when he saw Charles Parker point a gun at him, he defended himself. Parker was shot and killed, and Parker's accomplice, armed with a baseball bat, fled the scene.
Police eventually took four others into custody in connection with the string of robberies. The authorities also interviewed the Right-to-Carry permit holder, and at the end of the interview returned his firearm and released him.
Hopefully the criminals in Detroit are paying attention: Not everyone in your town is a defenseless victim.
|
-
|
Jane Congema is lucky to be alive today. The 44-year-old Jersey City woman was on her way home from a local convenience store the other morning when she was savagely attacked by three young men. The assault left her with a broken jaw and a fractured eye socket, among other injuries. Even worse, there were apparently other individuals in the area who did nothing to help this woman, but instead cheered on the assault.
Jane has already had one surgery, and will have to have at least one more to help repair her eye socket. And police haven’t made any arrests in the case.
Practically speaking, in places like New Jersey, it's nearly impossible for someone like Jane to get her Right-to-Carry license, because New Jersey is a "may-issue" state when it comes to concealed carry.
So we'll never know if a change in the law may have allowed Jane to prevent this attack. But I do know that the current laws never gave her a chance.
|
-
|
Every day across this country, people are changing their minds about the merits of gun control. It may be that they went to a gun range for the first time, or maybe they heard an argument that convinced them that they've been wrong.
Of course, it's not always a benign event that leads to a change of heart. Take Ohio State Representative Michael DeBose, for example. Twice he voted against Right to Carry, but he recently told the Cleveland Plain-Dealer that both he and his wife will be getting their RTC licenses.
What happened to Rep. DeBose? He was the victim of an attempted armed robbery, just steps from his own front door. As he stared at a young man with a gun, DeBose realized that he never wanted to be defenseless again.
I'm glad Rep. DeBose survived his encounter with criminals, and I'm pleased that he now understands that he is ultimately responsible for his own safety.
I only wish it didn't take a life-threatening event for some politicians to realize how wrong it is to deny Second Amendment rights to lawful citizens.
|
-
|
A lot of people know the University of Nevada-Las Vegas because of their sports teams, the Runnin' Rebels. I have a feeling that the University may soon be known for the statement of one of its regents, too.
Stavros Anthony is a member of Nevada's higher education board of regents. He's also a captain in the Las Vegas police department. And he's now urging the university to investigate arming teachers who undergo training to become reserve police officers.
Anthony said, "They'd take a written test, a psychological exam, a polygraph and a background check. Then they would go through the same police academy that the police officers go through, which is about four or five months. Then, once they graduate, they're considered city reserve police officers and have to go through the renewal training, just like police officers, for as long as they want to keep their certification. It's a pretty stringent program."
Stringent or not, not everyone's in favor of this proposal. The Brady Campaign, for instance, says, "Our schools should be sanctuaries, not armed camps." No offense, but Paul Helmke's background is that of a mayor. Captain Anthony's resume includes a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, a stint at the FBI Academy, and 25 years' experience as a cop. If he's proposing training teachers as reserve police officers, I think it would be outright stupidity to reject his idea out of hand.
|
-
It sounds like a bad Jeff Foxworthy routine: "You Might Be A Domestic Terrorist If ..."
But this is no joke.
Do you believe gun control is a way to remove our ability to protect ourselves? Do you believe the Bill of Rights protects God-given rights, as opposed to granting rights from the government? Do you believe U.S. sovereignty is threatened by the actions and actors at the United Nations?
Congratulations. You might be a domestic terrorist.
This checklist doesn't come from the mind of Hillary Clinton or Dianne Feinstein. It comes from the State of Pennsylvania's Terrorism Awareness and Prevention website. A similar webpage was recently found on an official website of the state of Alabama, but it was taken down after bloggers picked up the story.
It goes without saying that holding any or all of the opinions I just mentioned doesn't make you a terrorist. But according to some, these beliefs may indicate you're a terrorist. In fact, it might be enough to make you a "suspected terrorist." And, under legislation proposed by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, that's enough to deny your Second Amendment rights.
Bloggers like SayUncle, Target Rich Environment and others have done a great job of bringing to light these checklists. Now it's up to the rest of us to make sure people understand what's at stake.
|
-
|
There's an exodus taking place in Illinois, where hundreds of manufacturing jobs may be leaving the state because anti-gun politicians are too stupid or stubborn to take a real look at firearms and freedom.
Manufacturers like Les Baer Custom, ArmaLite and Springfield Armory are fed up with the endless waves of gun-control legislation proposed by upstate gun-control advocates, and they say they may soon leave for greener pastures. Already, Les Baer Custom has made plans to move to Iowa, and other companies say they may soon be leaving as well.
The straw that's breaking the backs of gun manufacturers is a series of gun-control bills being pushed by Chicago-area politicians. A ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, a sweeping semi-automatic firearm ban, and a ban on .50-caliber rifles are just a few of the proposals. Given that situation, why in the world would these manufacturers stick around?
Do the gun-control advocates in Chicago understand that? I doubt it. And even if they do understand the impact, I don't think they really care. This "feel-good" legislation won't mean a darn thing to a criminal, but it could mean the end of the line for an entire industry in the state, not to mention the thousands impacted by the loss of those jobs.
The legislature has a chance to do the right thing in Illinois. If they don't, the consequences will be seen almost immediately, as other states around the nation reap the benefits of Illinois' anti-gun attitudes.
|
-
|
When reports started coming in that guns were being confiscated in Greensburg, Kansas, the NRA went to work. To date, it appears that no law-abiding gun owners have had their firearms taken from them. Instead, we've learned that law enforcement and search-and-rescue teams were picking up any firearms they found in the rubble as they searched for survivors of the devastating tornado that leveled the town.
But unlike New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where confiscated guns disappeared for months or longer, authorities in Kansas are already working to reunite gun owners with their firearms. As crews moved through the devastation, they tagged every firearm they found with its location, and then took the firearm to a central storage facility. Unlike in New Orleans, where the city continues to make virtually no effort to return guns to their rightful owners, authorities in Greensburg have already reunited about 200 of the 349 firearms they picked up with their proper owners.
That's the way it should work. And that's why we continue to pursue our lawsuit against the city of New Orleans, Mayor Ray Nagin and the former police chief, Eddie Compass. Those in charge in New Orleans still don't get it, but we're going to make them understand.
You don't decide the Second Amendment doesn't exist, you don't deprive Americans of their right to keep and bear arms, and you better not think you can get away with it if you try.
|
-
|
Have you heard about this chimpanzee in Austria? It's in danger of being homeless after the animal sanctuary that takes care of the animal went bankrupt. So animal rights activists want the chimp declared a "person" ... because under Austrian law, people can't donate money to a chimp, only to a "person."
Look, these animal rights nuts don't really care about the chimp; it'll be taken care of. All these extremists care about is exploiting the chimp's situation to win the legal precedent that an animal has the same rights as a person.
The attorney leading the fight for the chimp's rights says that if he wins, the chimp will be able to own property.
Don't laugh. This is a real fight, with very real legal consequences. What other kinds of human rights would this monkey be entitled to? If a decision like this were handed down in the United States, you could kiss hunting goodbye. You'd have to say farewell to your favorite steak, your leather boots, your fur-lined gloves and everything else with animal parts.
And it would bring medical research that benefits humans to a screeching stop.
Once again, these radicals are misusing animals for their own political gain. If they manage to get a judge to see it their way, our court system will be filled with animal rights extremists arguing against everything from hunting to hamburgers.
It's really simple. People are people, animals are animals, and arguing over the definition of a "person" doesn't change that fact. If they want to help this chimp in Austria, they should try to change the law... not Mother Nature.
|
-
|
Yesterday I talked about some of the myths surrounding the NRA's position on legislation introduced by New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg that would empower the attorney general to deny Second Amendment rights to individuals at will, without due process of law.
Today I want to talk about the NRA's position on mental health records and the National Instant Check System, or NICS.
I've seen some talk by gun owners that the NRA supports this, or wants that, and I want to be crystal clear.
The NRA has always supported including the records of individuals adjudicated mentally defective in the National Instant Background Check System. But we don't support adding people who have not been adjudicated mentally defective to the system.
Let's say that as a child, you went to a therapist because your parents got divorced. You shouldn't have your rights stripped from you. If you take an anti-depressant to stop smoking or for depression, you shouldn't have your rights stripped from you.
There is a process the courts use to adjudicate mental defectives, and it doesn't involve having your rights taken away because you had an eating disorder, or because you lost a spouse two years ago, or because you took Ritalin in the third grade.
The NICS system should include the records of those who've been adjudicated mentally defective, and should exclude those who are not adjudicated mentally defective.
We believe in making NICS work as Congress intended, but that doesn't mean expanding to include the personal records of the millions who seek and get coping help as they should.
That's our position, whether the media reports it or not.
|
-
|
Over the past week or so, the NRA's take on a couple of proposals in Congress has received a lot of attention from the media. The only problem is, with the mainstream media's reporting, they've also put out some bad information. It's time to set the record straight, and over the next two days, I'm going to do just that.
Today I want to talk about this proposal by Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey that would allow the attorney general to deny anybody on a "watch list" the ability to purchase a firearm, get a Right-to-Carry license or get a federal firearms license.
The NRA opposes this bill, but the media has been gleefully painting it as "The NRA supports the right of suspected terrorists to buy guns." The NRA supports the Constitution, plain and simple.
Imagine the implications of denying someone their constitutional rights just because someone, somewhere, suspects them of potential wrongdoing. You're suspected of voter fraud, so we're denying you the right to vote. You're suspected of perjury, so we're denying you your First Amendment freedom of the press. You haven't been charged, you haven't been arrested, you haven't been indicted, you haven't been convicted. Someone just thinks you're suspicious. Is that enough to take away your rights?
That's not how the Constitution works. If someone is that much of a threat, they shouldn't be on the street to begin with. They should be facing charges in our criminal justice system.
Then there are the practical reasons to oppose this bill. No one knows who puts you on the "watch list," or why, or how you get off. The Lautenberg bill provides an appeals process, but to appeal, you'll have to rely on heavily redacted information that the government provides you. Through mistakes, bureaucratic red tape or political motivation, it's certain that innocent people are going to be caught up in a nightmare of having their rights denied them. And believe me, politics will come into play.
The NRA's not soft on terrorism. We're strong on the Constitution. Our principles require that we oppose any legislation that would deny Americans the right to keep and bear arms just because someone, somewhere, has put their name on a "watch list."
|
-
|
The New York Times says "There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias," but that over the past twenty years, a group of liberal legal scholars has reversed that consensus.
What the Times doesn't tell you is that it's not just some random group of law professors. The names Tribe, Amar and Levinson are the biggest names in constitutional law scholarship.
Of course, the anti-gunners want you to believe that they're the exception instead of the norm. In the Times article, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign says, "The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia." That's a bunch of baloney.
According to Second Amendment scholar Don Kates, 120 law review articles on the Second Amendment have been published since 1980. The overwhelming majority reflect the opinion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Most of the articles advocating a “collective rights” view have been financed by anti-gun groups like the Joyce Foundation.
The truth is that most serious legal scholars now recognize the individual right to keep and bear arms. With scholarship on our side, the court battles won't be a slam-dunk for the gun-banners, and that scares them to death.
But this is more than an intellectual exercise. When D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said, "It's truly a life-or-death question," she was right. But Singer is on the wrong side, believing that bringing the Second Amendment back to D.C. would cause homicides to rise.
Singer said, "We all remember when D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country, and we won't go back there." What she doesn't tell you is that D.C.'s gun ban was in full effect when it had the highest murder rate in the land. The Second Amendment didn't cause D.C.'s crime problem, and it won't fix it, either.
But it will give the residents of D.C. the ability to protect themselves in their home against the thugs out on the street. How on earth could anybody, liberal or conservative, be opposed to that? Most legal scholars aren't.
|
-
|
The other day Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made a puzzling comment.
Speaking in Oklahoma City, he shut down any discussion of professors or adult students with Right-to-Carry licenses on college campuses. But he also said, "We can't guarantee complete security. We need to see what we can do as a government, on the federal level, on the state level, to ensure the safety of our students."
I agree that we need to look at steps the government can take to protect our kids, but let's be honest here. I mean, my gosh, Mr. Gonzales agrees there's no guarantee of complete security.
If that's the case (and we all know it is), then why shouldn't we also be having a discussion about trained adults legally carrying concealed firearms for their own protection and the protection of others? Texas Governor Rick Perry's willing to have that discussion. Why isn't the nation's attorney general?
You might recall that Texas Governor Rick Perry recently said that he's come to the conclusion that trained and licensed Right-to-Carry holders shouldn't be barred from carrying anywhere in the state of Texas. Oh sure, there are folks who disagree with the governor.
But at least both sides are engaged in a discussion... which is more than can be said for the attorney general.
|
-
|
Some people may think Rosemarie O'Keeffe is an easy target. She's the 75-year-old owner of a liquor store in Lawton, Oklahoma, and she definitely fits the bill of a "little old lady."
But you can't judge a book by its cover, and a couple of bad guys in southwest Oklahoma learned that the hard way.
Rosemarie says she saw the two men approaching the door to her store and immediately knew she was about to be robbed. Both men were wearing hooded sweatshirts, and had wrapped gauze around their faces to cover their features.
To quote Rosemarie: "I said, 'Oh my God, he's going to rob me. What do I do?' I get up. I grab my gun, and I point it at the door. He came in, and I said, 'Get out or I'll shoot.'"
That's all it took for these two punks to turn and run. Rosemarie is safe, and her store is still open for business.
Rosemarie was taught to shoot by her two sons, and their decision to instruct their mom on firearms and firearm safety may have saved her life. Since we're celebrating Mother's Day this weekend, why not take stock and figure out what you can do to make sure the mother in your life can protect herself from the bad guys, too?
Cause they won't hear about Rosemarie from anyone but us.
|
-
I'm confused why Attorney General Alberto Gonzales recently endorsed a proposal by New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg. This proposal would deny the right to purchase a firearm, get a Right-to-Carry license or become a federally licensed firearms dealer if the person was on a "terrorism watch list."
The problem is, no one knows how you get on the list, no one knows how you get off the list, and no one knows WHY you're on the list. It's entirely up to the discretion of the Department of Justice.
A few years ago the Department of Justice issued its opinion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. But now the Department of Justice is saying it wants to arbitrarily take away that constitutional right without a trial, without an arrest, without charges, just because someone somewhere said, "Because I say so."
Why is the media silent on this? How can Gonzales' Justice Department declare that the Second Amendment is an individual right on one hand, but be willing to arbitrarily strip Americans of the right to own firearms, eliminate all due process, and throw the Constitution of the United States out the window?
|
-
|
In a couple of weeks, ABC newsman Sam Donaldson will put on his tuxedo, and emcee the Brady Campaign's swanky $250-bucks-a-head D.C. fundraiser.
Donaldson's appearance means ABC learned nothing from what happened to CBS. Back in 2005, Mike Wallace of "CBS News" hosted a Brady Campaign fundraiser, bashing the NRA and gun owners.
NRANews got the footage and exposed Wallace's moonlighting to his higher-ups at CBS. Under pressure, they finally admitted that their guidelines prohibit reporters from covering an issue if they've become identified with one side or the other. As we demanded, CBS then barred Wallace from doing any more stories on firearms and firearm freedoms.
But here we are, two years later, and instead of Wallace and CBS, it's Donaldson and ABC.
What will ABC do about Donaldson's anti-gun advocacy? Will they tell him he can no longer report on Second Amendment issues? Or will they just ignore his appearance and hope nobody notices?
Sam Donaldson has no business covering or commenting on the gun issue. On ABC's "This Week" he recently made the incredibly stupid statement that gun owners have firearms to "shoot the paperboy and the relative coming home late at night."
Statements like that, combined with his fundraising for gun-control groups like the Brady Campaign, mean Donaldson has forfeited his ability to report fairly on our issue.
It's probably too late for Donaldson to do the right thing, but it's not too late for "ABC News." The ball's in their court. Let's see if they drop it.
|
-
|
The Brady Campaign is continuing their shameful exploitation of the murders at Virginia Tech with a new e-mail alert. In a recent fundraising letter, Sarah Brady wrote about how she's "charged up" after a recent media appearance, and how "excited" she is that people have been calling Congress to push for more gun control. And then she asks for a $32 contribution-one dollar for every victim at Virginia Tech.
I think it's disgusting. Within hours of the shootings at Virginia Tech, the Bradys had posted a "Donate Now" button on their website, and as I write this it's still there. Now they're even more desperately using this tragedy to shill for dollars.
It's unfortunate that the Brady Campaign lacks the decency to refrain from politicizing and profiteering on tragedy within hours of every high-profile event.
Don't expect the media to tell you about the Brady Campaign's callous disregard for the victims and their families. They won't ask any tough questions of the group. In fact, Sam Donaldson of "ABC News" is going to emcee a Brady Campaign fundraiser in Washington, D.C., in a couple of weeks, taking over for former CBS newsman Mike Wallace. I'll have more on that story soon.
For now, suffice it to say that when the media is raising money for the Brady Campaign, they're not going to criticize the group's fundraising tactics. That's up to ordinary Americans like you and me, who are disgusted by those who advance an agenda and make a buck on the back of tragedy.
|
-
I ran across a fascinating post on a blog called Grappling With Guns. The author wrote:
"I am a Democrat. I am also a gun owner and possessor of a concealed handgun permit in my state of residence. I am also a college professor. I am not (yet) a member of the NRA, but based on much of the current debate about gun control, I may join."
I hope he does. But more importantly, this college professor "gets it." When a criminal breaks the law, the criminal is responsible, not his tool or implement of choice
The professor wrote of a horrific murder in Iowa in the mid-80's in which a troubled young man took the lives of two young children by breaking into a home, pouring diesel fuel throughout the house, then lighting it on fire. While most of the family inside escaped, two brothers didn't make it out of the house.
This college professor, who was a classmate of one of the slain children, wrote, "I propose that we focus on behavior rather than tools of the crime, with a focus on reducing and stopping all attacks ... I don't think we should take away the right to own tools of self defense."
If you choose not to exercise your right to keep and bear arms, that's your decision. But the fact that some want to deny others that choice is why we're fighting in statehouses and capitals across this country.
It's nice to see we might soon have another member who "gets it."
|
-
|
The New York Times praises it as anti-terrorism legislation, but what they're not telling you is that Senator Frank Lautenberg's bill would strip away the fundamental American right of due process... not to mention the Second Amendment.
I'll be very clear-Frank Lautenberg's proposal is un-American. There's no other way to put it.
His legislation would give the Justice Department the full power to put anyone they "suspect" of being involved in terrorism on a secret watch list and deny them the right to purchase a firearm.
Don't get me wrong. I do NOT want terrorists to be able to buy a firearm, and neither do the millions of members of the NRA. I don't even want terrorists walking around on our streets.
But the Lautenberg bill isn't about terrorists-it's about "suspects." And a secret government list.
Lautenberg is the New Jersey senator who's voted for virtually every gun ban, ammunition ban, and registration scheme that's ever been proposed. He ought to just admit the very real impact of his legislation: It would give the Justice Department the authority to put the name of every law abiding American citizen who owns a firearm on a permanent, secret government list.
In one sweeping legislative act, our Second Amendment freedom could be gutted.
Not to mention the basic right of due process. If they declare you a "suspect," your rights are gone. With no rights at all-just because some government bureaucrat calls you a "suspect" -the attorney general can deny you a firearm, a Right-to-Carry permit or an FFL license.
Just imagine if that attorney general were Janet Reno, or Dianne Feinstein, or Chuck Schumer! American gun owners chosen by whim or at random would have no rights at all!
I agree that we need to be tough on terrorists. But if someone is suspected of terrorist activity-don't just put him on a list. Investigate, arrest and prosecute them. Kick them out of our country.
But we cannot tear up our rights under the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We gain nothing by destroying the precious freedoms that separate us from the rest of the world.
|
-
|
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun scheme is beginning to backfire on him. Because rank-and-file cops are challenging his crusade to overturn the Tiahrt Amendment.
They know the truth: All ATF gun trace data is available to all local, state, federal, and even international law enforcement officials. The Tiahrt Amendment simply prevents political opportunists from getting their hands on it.
In the past, anti-gun mayors and their gun-control supporters tried to exploit ATF gun trace data for their own political benefit, mainly to sue gun manufacturers and retailers. That's why Congress passed the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts access to ATF gun trace data to law enforcement officers actively engaged in a criminal investigation.
But it has to be renewed every year, so Bloomberg sees his opening. He's claiming that the Tiahrt Amendment treats criminals better than cops, and he's using politically appointed police bureaucrats to shill for him.
But rank-and-file cops know the truth, and they're fighting back. Chuck Canterbury, president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, the FOP, said:
"Officers in the field who are actually working illegal gun cases know that releasing sensitive information about pending cases can jeopardize the integrity of an investigation or even place the lives of undercover officers in danger. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police has always supported language protecting firearms trace data, now known as the Tiahrt Amendment."
Bloomberg, you say Congress is putting criminals ahead of cops? I say you're putting your politics ahead of the cops on the street. You can make your politically appointed police chiefs say anything you want. But America believes the cops who put their lives on the line every day, like the FOP. And they're siding with the ATF, the Department of Justice and the NRA.
All you other mayors in Bloomberg's baloney coalition: Maybe you enjoy his swanky cocktail parties, but don't let him play politics with the safety of our law enforcement officers. Dump his coalition, and on your way out, tell Bloomberg you won't turn your back on those sworn to serve and protect your community.
Rank-and-file police have spoken. Are you listening?
|
|
|
|