Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

Greenville News:

Law enforcement officials and anti-violence activists are blasting a state proposal that would allow South Carolinians to carry guns — concealed or openly — without a permit or any training, saying it would endanger police and the general public.

“It would create opportunities for additional violence to occur,” said Greenville Police Chief Ken Miller.

Greenville County Sheriff Will Lewis said in an email that he supports a resolution by the South Carolina Sheriff’s Association endorsing training for anyone who wants to carry a concealed weapon and opposing changes in current law.

Supporters of the bill, meanwhile, are returning fire, claiming that so-called constitutional carry, or open carry, would cut down on crime.

“States that have put open carry into place have seen a reduction in crime,” said state Rep. Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville. “They’ve not seen an escalation in gun violence.”

[ … ]

Miller, the Greenville police chief, noted that the measure is opposed by both the S.C. Police Chiefs Association and the S.C. Sheriff’s Association.

He said the proposal could lead to more police confrontations with people carrying guns.

“So now everybody is authorized to carry a gun, and guns tend to draw out other guns,” Miller said. “It will create opportunities for police shootings or for police officers or deputies to get hurt more.”

When guns are right at hand, simple arguments can easily escalate, resulting in tragedy, Miller said.

As for Miller’s argument, he’s lying.  He doesn’t really believe that or he would take weapons away from his own officers because their interactions escalate and guns draw more guns.

No, here is why Miller and the other LEOs don’t want this.  As we’ve seen before, it’s all about the money.  They’ve even said so for us all to see.  Follow the money.  It’s money and control, but this is redundant.

It’s about brand new Dodge Chargers, fancy comms gear, new AR-15s, body armor, and jobs for people who would otherwise have to go find gainful employment in the real workplace.

Fortunately, the current Governor, Henry McMaster, supports constitutional carry.

S.C. Gov. Henry McMaster Friday endorsed a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit.

“Governor McMaster appreciates the House’s hard work on this bill, believes it is constitutional and will sign it if it reaches his desk,” said McMaster spokesman Brian Symmes.

Signing the pro-gun bill would appeal to gun advocates who vote in the 2018 Republican primary for the governor, when McMaster will be seeking a four-year term.

The proposal, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, calls for what often is referred to as “constitutional carry.” The bill would allow those who legally can own a firearm to carry it concealed without a government-issued permit.

It also allows for open carry, which means weapons holders could carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm to prohibited locations and while committing a crime.

The S.C. House passed the plan last week, despite objections from some representatives that that House Republicans pushed the proposal through without debate or public input.

With four weeks left in the regular legislative session, the bill still has to make its way through the S.C. Senate before it can go to McMaster’s desk.

However, Democrats in the Senate — where individual members have more power — still could block the bill.

It’s difficult to know if his support is temporary, knowing that he will get elected and then be able to jettison the very gun rights advocates who helped him get elected, or genuine and legitimate heartfelt support.  But at the moment these are his words.  Of course democrats can try to block this legislation, and republicans might use that as a stalling tactic.

Either way, if republicans and the governor really want this bill, they can get it, and we all know that.  We’re privy to their games.  The governor can refuse to sign anything else until this bill is brought to his desk, and the republicans can shut down debate just like the House did.

But be careful.  If this turns out to be yet another false flag event to appease gun owners like in the past, we will know.  And we never forget.  Just ask Larry Martin about that.  Remember that while the debate about whether this increases or reduces crime might be an interesting sidebar – I can tell you since I live in a “gold star” open carry state that LEOs will be embarrassed and humiliated by their opposition to this just like they were in Texas when they see the statistics – this isn’t about statistics.

This is about God-given rights.  Choose wisely, gentlemen.

Via Uncle, the NRA On British Gun Laws.

[Knives] are mostly out, especially by present-day U.S. standards. Almost anything foldable and over three inches is a no-no to have on your person, to say nothing of using them defensively …

[As for tactical batons] forget it: These are prohibited by name/type where we traveled, and as “law enforcement only” gear in many other locales …

OC spray is out too: “We found a relatively stupid substitute for sale in Britain, and if some clown is incoming with a bladed or striking weapon, you might have a trivially better chance at evading him. That is assuming, of course, that you can hit your target, and that he isn’t moving too fast for you to escape his momentum—a more injurious problem than many suppose, by the way. At least these dye your assailant for several days and aid apprehension. How this ameliorates a life-changing, closed-head injury, we don’t quite see.”

Basically, as British soldier Lee Rigby found out, the British are left defenseless against the onslaught of the Islamists or anyone else, and that’s the way the elitists in the U.K. want the commoners to be.  Defenseless.

And for that reason, you understand, my British readers, why eventually you will move from England or be swept up into the Islamist’s circle.  You will be converted or killed, your women will wear hijabs or be raped, and your sons will visit Mosques for prayer.

And it’s why we here in America aren’t subjects of the Queen.  Gun control was the catalyst for the American war of independence.  Never forget that.  If anyone forgets it, that scene may be repeated, i.e., where gun control becomes the catalyst for another war.

Someone named Bob Cesca wrote as idiotic an article at Salon as you will ever read.  That’s not what interests me.  What does interest me is the comment thread, in which Jason Koskey says this.

Because we empower them to take lives. They are one of the few professions entrusted with such an awesome responsibility.

It’s simply a matter of fact that guns are offensive. Yes, you may successful shoot someone before they shoot you. That’s still offence, not defence. Guns have no defensive properties.

He’s referring to LEOs here with regards to his comment.  We “empower them to take lives!”  Forget for a moment that if guns have no defensive properties (?), LEOs would have no business carrying them to begin with.

Or perhaps that presupposes the consequent, or begs the question.  Perhaps Jason believes that cops need guns not for self defense, but only in order to do society’s bidding to take lives.  Forget due process, forget equal protection.  LEOs take lives.  That’s their purpose according to Jason.

This is a stark reminder concerning what collectivists think, and how far they’ve gone down the road to statism and serfdom.  That in Tennessee versus Garner the Supreme Court said that LEOs can only use firearms in self defense (and not to fire on someone like an escaping prisoner) is irrelevant.  That the SCOTUS said that cops have weapons for the very same reason civilians have them, i.e., personal protection, doesn’t matter to Jason.

Cops are empowered to take lives according to Jason.  Pity the fool who turns to the state for his well being.  The state cares nothing for him or his life.

CATO:

California law generally bans the possession of a gun within a school zone. For many years, however, both retired peace officers and those with a license to carry concealed weapons were exempted from this ban. Then in 2015, a bill was proposed that would have eliminated both of these exceptions. But after extensive lobbying by interest groups aligned with federal workers and police officers, the bill was amended to remove only the exception for concealed-carry licensees.

Dr. Ulises Garcia is one such license holder, who obtained his license after receiving threats against himself from a former patient. After the change in the law, Garcia can no longer carry his weapon for protection when attending school events with his family. Garcia and a group of other plaintiffs have sued, arguing that the differing treatment afforded to retired peace officers and concealed-carry license holders violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the equal protection of the laws. The federal district court rejected their claims, and they have now appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cato has filed an amicus brief supporting Garcia and urging that the district court be reversed.

The guffaws normally get roared when one has the temerity to suggest that LEOs and gun owners get treated the same way.  I recall a discussion I had with retired California LEOs over reddit/r/guns where they couldn’t believe I didn’t support the idea of changes to laws to allow former or retired California LEOs to purchase their weapons – including AR-15s – for personal use once they no longer work for law enforcement.

Not only that, I don’t even support the notion of LEOs having those weapons at all even in the line of duty unless civilians can also have them.  What’s good for one is good for the other.  Wearing a blue costume and wearing a badge doesn’t bestow rights not already recognized in the constitution.

As for the fact that LEOs has sworn an oath, so have I.  I swore an oath to protect, defend and provide for my family when I said “I do.”

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

Oh swell.

“[T]he system uses ‘Cognitive Microwave Radar’ to detect any unwanted items, and ‘related hardware can be installed in hallways and doorways to covertly identify weapons and to alert security of an active threat entering the premises,’” the report elaborates. “If this test proves to be successful in their eyes, it could open the flood gates for companies looking to use this technology in their own locations.”

And not just companies. If it actually works, this could be installed in public places to flag down any and everyone carrying a gun. And that should raise all kinds of civil liberties concerns …

The answer to this problem for the Casinos is that I don’t believe in gambling so I don’t go to Casinos or other such places.  Nor do I like being around huge crowds anywhere.

But that doesn’t address the issue of public places where I might have to be, nor the possibility that the *.gov might want to use this when it’s none of their business who has a gun and who doesn’t.

Of course, this just dovetails nicely with the lust for knowing everything and everybody in a police state, yes?

So says an Army “vet.”  Her name is Lindsey Donovan.

I am a proud veteran of the Army. The seven Army Values are a part of my moral DNA. Loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity and personal courage are at the heart of who I am today.

These values serve as the backbone to every servicemember who has served or is still serving in our armed forces, and they deserve better than what our federal lawmakers have given them. Instead of protecting our most vulnerable veterans — men and women with severe mental illness — the House recently passed a bill that made it easier for them to get guns.

Our veteran population is facing a devastating suicide crisis. Every day, 20 veterans take their lives — not surprisingly, two-thirds of them use a gun. And the veteran suicide rate is more than 20% higher than for civilian Americans. Yet in the midst of this crisis, our elected officials voted to remove from the background check system nearly 170,000 records of veterans with severe mental illnesses. These veterans will now be able to purchase and possess firearms, even if they have been determined to be incapable of managing their own affairs.

[ … ]

Though I am a proud veteran, I am also the proud wife of a U.S. soldier. My husband has completed three combat tours in Iraq and a fourth in Afghanistan. Anyone who has been a witness to what multiple wars and deployments can do to soldiers and their families knows that war is hell. We send them over to do a mission and welcome them back expecting them to go on as usual. But it never works that way. Transitioning back to “normal” is sometimes too much to endure and for some, in the blink of an eye, it can seem like the only way out is through the barrel of a gun.

My own experience is what fuels me to speak out and urge our lawmakers to take a stand against this very dangerous bill. Shortly after my husband’s last deployment, a soldier who served in his unit died by suicide with a gun. It happened a few days after we saw that soldier. The shock I felt was indescribable. And the pain and sorrow I felt for those left behind, I hope to never feel again. To this day I still think about that individual. I don’t so much concentrate on the why, but the how. It was the gun, a deadly means to a tragic end.

The Army was literally able to change her DNA according to her.  Sorry, but show me your combat action ribbon sweetie and then I may listen.  You set this up as if you have been personally affected, and then we learn that your husband is alive and well, apparently the only one who has the combat experience (or so we may assume).

But then we learn about the real reason you’re writing this piece of claptrap.

As a gun owner, a veteran and a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, I know this is not a Second Amendment issue. This is an issue about common sense. This is an issue about moral courage and fortitude to stand up and fight to keep our most vulnerable veterans safe from gun violence. The House bill on veterans is the second attempt to roll back gun laws in Congress. Just last month, President Trump signed a law reversing a requirement that the Social Security Administration submit records of mentally impaired recipients to the gun background-check system.

Oh goodie.  Another organized mom demanding something.  Everytown.  Just great.  She’s a collectivist and that’s the origin of her commentary, not what she did or didn’t do in the Army.  She naturally assumes that prohibiting a veteran from truthfully completing a form 4473 means they don’t have access to guns if that’s what they want.  Or maybe she knows better and is lying.

Either way, she avoids the real help we can give to veterans, which is ensuring that the Veteran’s administration is funded and that we meet our contractual obligations to them for their medical care.  Because that costs money and effort, and commitment.  No, the easier thing for her is to prohibit gun ownership among men who want someone else to fill our their tax forms for them.

She’s disgusting.  Have nothing to do with such people.  And another note to veterans.  Say nothing to anyone, or you just might find yourself on some kind of list because of people like this.  See what you did there, Lindsey?  You inserted yourself in between a man and his medical care, just like all of the other collectivists.

Are you proud?

AL.com:

The battle over SB24 just keeps getting stranger. The legislation introduced by Senator Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) removes the requirement for Alabamians to obtain a license before carrying a concealed pistol. The Alabama Sheriffs Association doesn’t want to change a thing.

Plenty of Alabama’s legislators agree that law-abiding Alabamians shouldn’t be forced to secure a license and pay a fee to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Twelve states already allow individuals to carry concealed firearms without a permit, and a few of them might surprise you. Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all have less restrictive concealed carry laws than Alabama.

SB24 pits the NRA, which supports the measure, against the Alabama Sheriff’s Association opposing it. Testimony before the Alabama Senate Judiciary Committee led to a heated exchange between Alabama Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bobby Timmons and Jim Porter, former National President of the NRA.

A number of sheriffs have argued that the current law improves safety for law enforcement–a consideration that many legislators and Alabamians take seriously. Streamlining and reducing or eliminating the permit fees across the state makes sense as a potential compromise.

A recent internal email suggests that the Sheriffs Association isn’t necessarily negotiating in good faith. An email from Timmons called on sheriffs to contact their legislators “if you value your permit fund.” He specifically warned against a compromise that would clearly benefit Alabama’s gun owners. “The National Rifle Association WILL return next time the Legislature meets to bring back Jabo [Waggoner’s] ‘any county bill’ and will push for uniform — one cost — statewide permit fee…if any fee at all!”

If the Sheriffs Association’s opposition was primarily an officer safety issue, the big “push” email didn’t make it a direct focal point at all.

The email strongly suggests that money is the primary driver for the sheriff’s objection to SB24. Counties must adequately fund law enforcement, but pistol permits shouldn’t be the mechanism.

I told you so.  I denied that any of this has anything to do with “officer safety,” and said this.

It’s the revenue.  Don’t worry about slimming down and perhaps NOT buying those brand new Dodge Chargers and fancy comms gear.  Or perhaps laying off those unnecessary workers.  No, the pistol permit fee is a good way to raise money.

Other CLEOs have said the same thing as I’ve noted.

But opponents said it would have serious financial consequences for the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which administers firearms licenses issued under the Oklahoma Self Defense Act.

A fiscal analysis performed for the House indicates the measure would reduce OSBI’s revenue by at least $6 million and would lead to the loss of jobs and reduced operating expenses at the agency.

The reduction in revenue would be because firearms owners would no longer seek concealed carry licenses – which cost $100 for initial 5-year license and $200 for 10 years – if they could carry a gun openly without a license. There are now more than 238,300 Oklahomans with active licenses to carry handguns, according to state figures.

[ … ]

Perhaps it would be a good thing if the tax monies people allocated to your office were tied to the degree to which they see your services as good and needful, delivered in the right way.

Then Sheriff Blake Dorning, who must have been reading something, somewhere about this being all about the revenue, lied and said this.

“We hear it’s just a money thing,” Dorning said Wednesday.

“No, it’s not. It’s a life and death safety issue for our men and women because the equipment we’re able to provide them with drastically makes them more efficient and more able to address the situations that they come into every day.”

Dorning and other top department officials held a press conference Wednesday to follow up on the open letter the sheriff posted online over the weekend.

[ … ]

Jernigan said pistol permit fees are not an infringement on the Second Amendment, which provides for the right to bear arms. Jernigan it’s no different than paying a fee for a drivers license, marriage license, hunting license or car registration.

To which I responded this.

Thanks for self-identifying as a liar.  Driving a car is not mentioned in the constitution.  And if you really feel that the community wants the things you say you think you need, then why not make that case straight to the community and let them decide whether they want to fund them or not?

Oh, it’s because you have people who want to defend their lives over a barrel.  This is a forced tax of a targeted set of people for exercising what God and the founders consider an inalienable right.  You know it’s true.

In telling me it’s not all about the money, and then spending so much effort try to tell us what you need the money for, you’ve told us it’s all about the money.  So we’re back where we started, and you have no case.

And they still have no case.  They are saying one thing in public and entirely another thing to each other in private, and the proof is in the email.  I think that meets the definition of liar.

Bristol Herald Courier:

Because the controllers would rather innocent people be harmed or killed than allow means of self defense.  But here McAuliffe has said something important.  It’s fashionable right now for the gun controllers to parrot this notion that it’s a fiction, a myth, just outright falsehood, that guns actually help in self defense.

They will cite some questionable statistics taken from the inner cities of, say, Chicago, Atlanta or St. Louis, where blacks are killing blacks, to try to convince you or others that you shouldn’t have a gun.  But you’re not in inner city Chicago or Atlanta, and you are an otherwise peaceable man or woman.  So there argument doesn’t apply to you.

Speaking of which, there is this report from Tennessee.

A homeowner was transported to NorthCrest Medical Center Saturday morning with minor injuries after defending his residence from the armed suspects who invaded it.

According to Springfield Police, around 2 a.m., three men armed with guns entered a residence on the 800 block of Kings Drive and demanded money. Once inside, one of the homeowners fired one round at the suspects from a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, according to police. The suspects returned fire as they fled the residence and fired a shot back at the homeowner, striking him in the hand.

The suspects are described as three black men between 18 and 20 years of age wearing bandannas.

There are many reports just like this every day.  And Terry McAuliffe and his ilk are all liars in the superlative degree.

David Codrea:

“As the leader of the Nevada Association of Public Safety Officers – the largest statewide affiliation of law enforcement associations in Nevada, representing more than 1,500 law enforcement professionals – I am calling on Attorney General Laxalt to do his job,” NAPSO executive director Rick McCann tells Reno Gazette-Journal readers.  “As the state’s top cop, he can and should work with both Nevada’s Department of Public Safety and federal officials at the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) to find a path forward, ensuring that law enforcement in our state are protected when they risk their lives to protect ours.”

He’s referring to the Michael Bloomberg-led Question One “background check” initiative that passed in Nevada in November …

Recommending new laws or fabricating imaginary ones has nothing whatsoever to do with an AG’s job.  He just made that up.

Here’s something else he just made up: “Our job is basically to protect officers around the state.”  Who told him that is his job?  Where did he get this information?  What does protecting police officers have to do with being a police officer?  What does protecting police officers have to do with the oath he took upon his swearing into office?

I think you know the answers.