Obama & Congressional Democrats Aiming to Stifle Gun Rights?

It is starting to look that way to me. We have an attorney General, Eric Holder, who doesn't believe in individual gun rights. His interpretation of the Second Amendment is completely different from how most legal scholars see it. Will he pursue an agenda aimed at taking away basic rights?

I already knew that Obama was anti-Gun, but I didn't realize until recently just how anti-Gun he really is. Now I understand why people have been swamping the gun shops, trying to get their purchases made, before their rights are challenged.

Obama doesn't believe in Concealed Carry Laws and he would like to see a Federal Ban on the practice. Although at least 40 of the 50 States have full Concealed Carry Rights for citizens who have been vetted and properly trained and who pay the required fees. Another 8 States offer partial Concealed Carry Rights (usually based on need...and with even more scrutiny and restrictions for applicants). Only two States have a ban on Concealed Carry... not surprising that Illinois is one of those 2 States. Wisconsin is the other.



Obama ignores the fact that there have been no serious problems with the Concealed Carry programs in States that allow full CCW rights. Despite information challenging their position they continue to try to erode the Second Amendment. Recently another Chicago politician, Bobby Rush (him again) quietly introduced Federal legislation (bill HR 45) known as the "Blair Holt Bill" that would stifle my right as a citizen to protect myself. Why are these Chicago politicians so obsessed with this? It's strange, considering the fact that Chicago's own Gun ban has done little to reduce gun crime. That's because the vast majority of street criminals don't buy guns through legitimate channels. Therefore, these gun bans only hurt law abiding citizens....preventing them from protecting themselves from the thugs who have been enabled and encouraged by folks like Bobby Rush.

Chicago has seen violent gun crime rise in recent years .... under the gun ban. Just last month, there was a major shooting outside of a Chicago high school... wounding at least 5. Even the Chicago police Department had to deploy much heavier weapons just last year because they were so outgunned. Chicago is like Mexico right now.... Damn near lawless. St. Louis is the same... with a much higher murder rate than Chicago... in fact, St. Louis has one of the highest Murder rates in the nation. Running gun battles in broad daylight between gangs or between gunmen and police are not all that uncommon in the City. But officials here understand that preventing law abiding citizens from protecting themselves is not the answer and is beyond foolish.

I have never understood the logic of the anti-Gun politicians. I really don't think they understand this issue... they just don't have the criminal justice expertise to understand street crime. They have this false notion that blocking legitimate gun purchases and preventing law abiding citizens from even having guns in the home will somehow prevent thugs, burglars, gang members, rapists, robbers, and career criminals from accessing guns on the street level -- The Black Market. These politicians don't understand that there are two parallel gun markets... blocking one gun market, does not effect the other whatsoever, especially in large urban areas. If you take away the legitimate gun market.... it doesn't impact the criminal at all... Why? Because he is getting his gun on the street anyway. He's not going to a gun shop... submitting to background checks and so forth. Gun bans and restrictions only prevent law abiding folks from having the option... their Second Amendment Right... to protect themselves and their families. This is the main fallacy in the anti-gun argument.

We recently saw the same nonsense in Washington DC... with its ban on handguns. The city saw gun violence skyrocket in recent years, with the handgun ban in place. Again, showing that such laws are idiotic. Luckily the U.S. Supreme Court agreed and decided (for once) to support the Constitution. And why was the DC law so idiotic? Because most of the gun violence was taking place on the street... between thugs, gang bangers, drug dealers, muggers assaulting innocents, home invaders, burglars, etc. Meanwhile, the citizens of DC (like in Chicago) were left vulnerable to all this nonsense by their own crooked politicians. (By the way... the politicians enjoy armed body guards and police protection...while their citizens are left to fend for themselves unarmed... interesting). These politicians are cowards... the worst kind. These political cowards in DC and Chicago should be forced to live in these crime ridden neighborhoods for 6 months with no protection. Then they might see just how irrational their logic is on this issue.

Sure... the citizens of DC could have shotguns in the home.... but the guns had to be disassembled... put away...packaged with no ammo...etc. Basically these guns would be of no use to you in an emergency. The corrupt politicians who run these cities want you to rely on 911 for protection... LOL. A complete joke. The response time that you can typically expect (the time between when your call is answered by an operator and the time an officer arrives) is anywhere from 6-10 minutes... and that's if you are lucky enough to get a 911 operator with a brain. It takes them about 1-2 minutes just to process your call. Yeah... good luck with that. The above time frame is an eternity if someone is breaking into your home (home invasion) to kill you, rape you, to kill and rob you, kidnap you...to force you to withdraw your money from an ATM, kill you and dump your body somewhere before taking your vehicle. To put it plainly... 911 is inadequate. There are just not enough well trained operators...and not enough police on the streets to get to you before harm is done (at least not every time). Therefore, you have the right to have that 10 minute insurance policy.

The aim of the Bobby Rush legislation seems to be along the lines of the DC policies that were designed to stifle your rights. It is designed to create so much red tape paying fees, taxes, filling out paperwork (much of which is already done)... that people will be discouraged and deterred from exercising their rights under the Constitution. It's a play at incrementally taking away rights. 10 years down the road... they may take another incremental step... until finally the Second Amendment is effectively eliminated.

I am hoping that the proposed legislation dies in Committee. The bottom line is, the Legislation appears to be unconstitutional...since it creates additional barriers. This has usually been a States rights issue. For these restrictions to be made permanent, it seems to me that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Most States would revolt against this.

If Obama and his Chicago cronies make a serious push to take away my fundamental rights... I will treat him worse than George W. Bush. It's interesting that he says little about the source of the gun violence (that it comes mostly from his gangs and street thugs...not from law abiding Americans). Yet he wants to punish the law abiding citizen and make them even more vulnerable than they already are to the madness in the streets.


Keep away from my Second Amendment Rights Mr. Obama.

______________________


Clayton Cramer's Gun Defense Blog

More on Chicago Gun Violence

The Story Behind the "Blair Holt" bill.

Is Great Britains Gun Ban Making Country Safer?

Not necessarily, according to recent reports showing that violent crime is still a big problem in the UK. Criminals are simply finding other ways to create bloodshed and terrorize the citizenry- knives. This is a perfect example of why gun bans don't work.

The UK is often used by the anti-gun crowd as an example of a modern, peaceful, safe utopia because of its very strict gun laws. The British Bobbies (police) aren't even allowed to carry firearms, although some special units are allowed to have them, and they are carried in some of the police vehicles, accessible only in emergencies and with a supervisors permission (as if that's going to help an unarmed officer who is about to be shot by a suspect- "excuse me Mr. Gunmen, could you please hold that position while I check with my Supervisor to get permission to obtain a gun, so that I can kill you"?). But the revelation about knife attacks shows that the UK is nowhere near the utopia that the anti-gun folks would have you believe.

What the reports show is that the gun laws in the UK have only created a nation full of sitting ducks, vulnerable to violent thugs (the same environment that thug sympathizers and anti-gun advocates want to create here in the U.S.). The laws have done little to prevent violent crime. People can't even feel safe in their own homes.

More On Gun Rights and the 2nd Amendment

You can either be a victim or remain vulnerable. (Actual 911 tape of a Colorado home invasion in progress).

Or

You can be empowered



Anti-Gun advocates support the idea of remaining vulnerable and being a victim....with no legal right to defend yourself or the lives of loved ones in your own home.

************************************

Home Invasions On The Rise

From the NY Times

March 30, 2008
Cracking Down on Home Invasion
By JOE WOJTAS

THE killings of three members of a Cheshire, Conn., family during a home invasion in July has spurred a flurry of legislative proposals in the region to crack down on a crime that officials say has become more prevalent in recent years.

Many law enforcement officials, be they from small towns like Cheshire or urban areas like Jersey City, say they need stiffer penalties to combat the brutal nature of residential break-ins.

“People who go into homes are no longer satisfied with taking stuff and moving on. There’s an element of violence now that’s disturbing,” said J. Darren Stewart, the police chief in Stonington, Conn., where an older couple were assaulted and robbed of $500 and some prayer cards in a home invasion last month. “People want to feel safe where they put their heads down at night and spend time with their families.”

While the F.B.I. does not report annual statistics on home invasions, its Uniform Crime Reports show that across the country, robberies in homes rose 29 percent between 2000 and 2004, 9.7 percent in 2005 and another 8 percent in 2006, the last year for which figures were available.

In the Cheshire case, after the beating of Dr. William Petit Jr., 50, and the killing of his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and their daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, Connecticut lawmakers approved a bill that made home invasion a crime punishable by 10 to 25 years in prison and attached a minimum five-year sentence for nighttime burglaries. Governor M. Jodi Rell signed it into law in January.

The two men accused in the invasion are awaiting trial.

The killings also spurred Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol of Brooklyn to introduce a bill in New York’s current legislative session that would establish three degrees of felony home invasion. They would be punishable by up to 7, 15 and 25 years in prison, depending on the level of violence. The bill is pending.

And while New Jersey is not trying to establish a specific home invasion law, a bill before the State Senate would upgrade burglary to a second-degree offense for anyone entering a building “adapted for overnight accommodations,” regardless of whether someone was home. Those convicted of the crime would face a term of up to 10 years and have to serve 85 percent of it, the same as a burglar who assaults or threatens someone or is armed.

In addition, some members of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police have expressed interest in establishing a separate home invasion law, according to Roman Martyniuk, the organization’s spokesman.

In New York, Assemblyman Lentol, a former Kings County prosecutor, said home invasion “is a crime that really cries out for special attention.” He added: “The law would show the abhorrence we feel for this crime and how it should be handled. We also hope it acts as a deterrent.”

Connecticut’s law had been recommended by a task force on criminal justice reforms set up by Governor Rell after the Cheshire killings. “The tough new home invasion law is the centerpiece — the linchpin — of our criminal justice reform efforts,” Mrs. Rell said. “People have a right to feel safe in their homes — their sanctuaries — and this new law should give them the peace of mind that these crimes will not be tolerated in Connecticut.”

But while Connecticut lawmakers hailed the new law, some in law enforcement were taking a wait-and-see approach.

“It definitely is a step in the right direction, and like all new laws, it’s well intentioned,” said Lt. Jay Markella, the Cheshire Police Department’s spokesman. “But let’s see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly there’s really no gain.”

Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed.

While she supported the home invasion law, State Representative Diana S. Urban of North Stonington, Conn., wants to track it to make sure it is working. Ms. Urban, who heads a legislative subcommittee that examines whether specific programs actually work and should be funded, said she was concerned that those convicted would be freed 10 years later with no rehabilitation. Those convicted of home invasion would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.

“Do we then not expect them to do it again?” she said. “Let’s make sure this law makes people in the state of Connecticut safer.”

Earlier this month, the legislature’s Judiciary Committee killed a tougher three-strikes-and-you’re-out bill that would have allowed prosecutors to seek a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for someone convicted of three violent crimes. Relatives of the Petit family testified in favor of the bill, which was supported by the governor and other Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature. But opponents said the bill would have little effect on sentencing.

Republicans vowed to continue pushing for a mandatory minimum sentencing bill for violent repeat offenders. The police said that while laws can punish criminals after they commit home invasion, people can take some simple steps to decrease the likelihood of becoming victims, including always locking their doors, windows and cars.

“We go to a lot of burglaries where there’s no sign of forced entry, and people tell us, ‘I don’t lock my doors,’ ”Lieutenant Markella said. He also said people needed to return to a time when they knew their neighbors and their habits and checked if they noticed something unusual.

Representative Urban said, “If anything positive can come out of these home invasions, it will be that communities begin to take care of each other like we used to.”

The police also suggested that residents install motion sensors that activate outside lights, have a safe place to hide with a phone and have a dog that barks. They urged people to call them if they saw something suspicious. “That’s what we’re here for,” Lieutenant Markella said.

He said he was not in favor of people having handguns for protection because if the weapons were properly secured in a safe, unloaded and locked, it would take too long to get them during a break-in. He also said a burglar could turn the gun on a victim.

While not everyone can afford a home alarm system, Police Chief Stewart, of Stonington, said a low-cost option would be to keep car keys next to the bed and press the car alarm button if someone broke in. Lieutenant Markella said neighbors might investigate or at least call the police because the alarm was bothering them.

“You can’t prevent anyone from ever gaining access to your home, but you can make it harder for them,” he said. “You have to keep yourself from being made a victim.”

************************************



One of my favorite bloggers, The Field Negro, is still talking loud and saying nothing (as James Brown would put it) on this issue.

Some of the main arguments of anti-gun advocates like the Field Negro and others are:

1. Legit, responsible gun ownership will lead to more innocent children harming themselves with guns.

2. Allowing law abiding citizens (those with no criminal past, who have guns properly registered, and use safety precautions, have obtained guns legally, have gone through safety training etc) to keep handguns in the home will lead to more crime.

3. They believe that law abiding, legit gun owners are responsible for the majority of the murders, carjackings, robberies and shooting assaults that are taking place in inner-cities like Philadelphia, D.C., Chicago, L.A., New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, etc.

4. Gun use is seldom successful in defending homes, homeowners and their families. But I am always hearing of cases of suspects being shot as they try to do home invasions/burglaries. I guess I am just imagining things.

5. And for Black anti-gun advocates, there is this myth that gun ownership (legit, legal and responsible ownership) is for Whites only.

6. They believe that gun bans will magically take guns out of the hands of criminals (who obtain their guns on the street).

Obviously this is all flawed logic on the part of the anti-gun crowd.... but these are some of their main arguments.

My response to the safety portion of their argument:

Most of the reports that I see of children getting guns and harming themselves tend to occur in homes of irresponsible gun owners who didn't have trigger locks.... and the guns tend to belong to criminals/felons who should not have had the gun in the first place...but they decided to keep it illegally. It's usually men who are on probation or who have priors...and they hide their guns in the homes/apartments of their girlfriends (where kids are present)...so police and probation authorities won't find them.

In other words... most of these incidents occur among the criminal element... that part of the population that we have been talking about who will have guns no matter what... a part of society who cannot be expected to be responsible with firearms and have no right to posses them.

We have had several of these
incidents occur in the St. Louis area over the past few years (kids getting hurt in the home). I can't recall any that took place in the homes of responsible, legit gun owners. All of the incidents involved felons in possession of a gun (against the law), houses that were involved in illegal activity...drug houses, meth labs, etc..., involve guns that are not registered or have been stolen or used in a previous crime, guns with serial numbers removed, or have involved other folks who should not have had weapons and who left them out in the open without the safety locks.
Very few of the incidents you describe actually take place in the homes of responsible gun owners.

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they are unable or unwilling to recognize the difference... they blend these two worlds together (legit responsible gun owners with the criminal element). It's an unfair and unworkable comparison. These are two completely different worlds.

I support gun control that would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Although the bad guys will still find a way to get their guns (via the street).

************************************
To understand the perspective of The Field Negro a little better, please refer to a November 2007 commentary from his blog, regarding a violent home invasion in California, where a man's family was brutalized by three thugs. During the incident, the home owner was able to shoot two of the suspects. Now most people would support the home owner for defending his family. But not The Field Negro... The Field Negro sympathized with the surviving thug and condemned the home owner...who more than likely saved the life of his son. So this is what we are dealing with in this 2nd Amendment debate... extreme far left liberals, like The Field Negro, who tend to be soft on crime and criminals. He, and others, have a reputation for coming down on the side of thugs, rather than innocent citizens who have a right to live in peace and security within their own homes.... the Constitution protects that right too.

Video & slideshow of Gun Owners (legal ones). They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and backgrounds.

Slideshow


Behind the Scenes Video for the Book "Armed America".


Links:

Home Invasion Twarted in Chicago

Woman robbed in Sacramento

Armed America.org Portraits of Americans and their Guns.

Black Man With A Gun

Why Americans Need The Right To Bear Arms

Gun Ban Supporters: Eve Carson Should Not Have Had The Right To Defend Herself Against Home Invading Thugs.

Here's another example of why Americans should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes....

The star student from UNC, Eve Carson, was not carjacked as originally reported.

Gun ban supporters like D.C. Mayor Fenty, Chicago Mayor Daley, and L.A. Police Chief Bratton, don't believe that Eve Carson should have been allowed to defend herself in her own home.

Extreme Left Liberal Blogger The Field Negro, another gun ban supporter, also doesn't believe that Eve Carson should have even had the right to defend herself. In fact, The Field Negro tends to be an advocate for criminal thugs. He is a strong believer in going light on the kind of thugs who killed Eve Carson. And he lives in one of the most crime ridden cities in the Country, Killadelphia Pennsylvania. I will never understand why people like the Field Negro are so pro-criminal/pro-thug.

Here is a recent post from the Field Negro about the recent Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. Gun ban:

So now it's official, here in A-merry-ca we have a right to bear arms. Johnny get your gun, you never know when our government might turn against us, or god forbid, we might get outnumbered by those brown people.

In another close decision (5-4) the supremes basically told cities like D.C. and Philadelphia to get over their high murder rates and get their citizens in check. Guns don't kill people, people do. Yeah, but don't they need something to kill each other with? Sorry, I didn't exactly see where it said in the Second Amendment that we have a right to posses a firearm. I thought the Second Amendment was a limitation on the Federal government. Why not give states and local governments the right to regulate the possession of firearms in a way that they think is best for their communities? Hey I am with Justice Stevens on this one: "the supremes have basically enshrined the common law right of self defense", which is kind of scary.

Here in A-mery-ca we love our Second Amendment don't we? God apple pies and guns, that's the A-merry-can way. So what if every now and then one of us goes on a fucking rampage and decides to take out a bunch of our fellow citizens. Hey, we just have to do a better job at punishing these people, and making sure that they realize that if they use a fire arm to commit a despicable act, they are going to be punished. Oh, but wait, the latest crack pot, like so many before him, shot himself. Oh well, I guess he took care of that little punishment problem for us.
I keep hoping A-merry-cans will wake up, but sadly, I know we won't. I mean if someone can execute a schoolhouse full of little Amish children and it doesn't get a rise out of the sick fucks at the NRA, I don't know what will. I mean a bunch of niggers killing each other in the inner cities is fine. We all know those Negroes don't have anything better to do than take drugs and kill each other. But what about those good citizens [*wink wink*] in places like Kentucky and Virginia? Do they deserve to die? I don't know, call me crazy, but I bet if there were less guns there would be less killings.

Here in Killadelphia we are used to it. We have plenty guns on the streets . Our bangers and straw buyers love the NRA and their policies. Mo money mo money mo money. So a few hundred people die every year, what's a little murder among friends?

So congrats to you folks over at the NRA, I am sure you are feeling good about this latest victory. Let's just hope that if god forbid, one of you ever find yourselves staring down the barrel of a 380 in a shaking crack addict's hand, you will have a fast draw and good aim.

You will need both, or you will end up like the thousands of victims that you have forgotten.

And my response:

Field,

You neo-liberals are driving me crazy with this stuff. Some of the most violent cities in the Country have gun bans, or severe restrictions on them. The bans have done nothing to stop the carnage...because...guess what... the criminals don't give a damn what kind of ban you put in place. They don't typically buy their guns through legitimate means... they aren't walking into Joe Blows gun shop, showing ID, and filling out paperwork, lol. They are getting their weapons on the streets. So who is most impacted by these restrictive gun laws? Law abiding citizens by in large.

These silly laws leave innocent law abiding citizens even more vulnerable to your thug buddies.

Another thing... you wrote this post in a racial context...as if there are no Black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Liberals, Independents, moderates, people of various religions & backgrounds who are pro gun. White folks aren't the only ones who enjoy their Constitutional Rights.

I wish your friends Mayor Fenty, Mayor Daley, and Chief Bratton would shut it up.

The Mayor of Philly could announce a ban tomorrow on all guns within the city limits...and your thug buddies would continue their reign of terror and carnage. The only difference would be that the law abiding citizens would be left more vulnerable....they wouldn't even be safe in their own homes.

Every man/woman has the right to protect themselves and their families within their own homes. Every man/woman/child has a right to feel safe in their own home.

Now on the flip side... I do support gun control... I believe in thorough background checks (including mental health), waiting periods, limits on quantity of guns & ammo, magazine limitations, bans on fully automatic rifles, limits on CCW, requirements for locking guns away in homes with children, requirements for safety training, etc. But the government should not tell a law abiding citizen who has been background checked and has gone through safety training that they can't have a gun. Meanwhile, the criminals are running wild.

How would you react if a couple of your thug friends from the streets of Philly decided to invade your home because they saw Mrs. Field one day and followed her to find her address so that they could come back later. They decide to get armed one evening and break in to do her harm... or to rob your house. How would you deal with that? Would you sit around quietly to observe all this or would you want to do something? Based on this idea of vulnerability, which you advocate, I am left believing that you would be o.k. with allowing it to happen.

Maybe you are one of those who thinks Philly's Finest will save you.

Good luck with that.

*******************************

As you can see, the logic of the handgun ban advocates just doesn't make sense and doesn't jive with reality. They are under the false impression that making legal guns available to law abiding citizens will somehow increase crime. That is completely illogical on its face. The law abiding citizens are not the ones who are committing dozens of murders in cities like Philly, D.C., L.A., Chicago and others. The criminals are committing the vast majority of murders.

In cities/Counties where gun ownership is legal but regulated for law abiding citizens, there is no rash of murders committed by legitimate gun owners. Even in States that allow law abiding citizens to CCW...the sky didn't fall after this right was granted. These gun ban advocates cannot provide any data showing that law abiding citizens who legally own guns, are terrorizing American cities with crime sprees. These people are never able to provide such data, because data showing this does not exist, and they know it. Their aim is to scare people into supporting their position by perpetuating misinformation...and myths.

They are also under the impression that making guns available to law abiding citizens equals some sort of gun free-for-all, with no regulation whatsoever... this is another lie that they seem to want to perpetuate. Most Americans favor some sort of reasonable gun control like the restrictions mentioned above.

Supreme Court Loves the 2nd amendment

I find it interesting that the Supreme Court has given a big thumbs up to the 2nd amendment and a thumbs down to the 4th.

Amendment II

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.

-----
Today the Supreme Court trashed a 32 year old DC law which banned handguns. The NYT described the law this way - Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.

I can and will go through this decision. But, it seems to me that we need to make the 2nd amendment clear. We need to amend it. As a matter of fact, walking through East St. Louis today is very different than back in 1789. This amendment needs to reflect today's reality. You should be able to own a gun if you aren't a felon or mentality disturbed.

As a trauma surgeon, I see almost everything bad that can happen with a gun. I've seen accidental shootings which is left 10 year old boys paralyzed. I've seen the anguish of the parents as they are wondering how the kids got into the guns. Unfortunately, by the time I see them, the anguish and the sorrow simply don't matter. The bottom line, we need to be more responsible with our firearms but, since we aren't, we must have the ability to make laws that keep us safe.

Therefore, Constitutional Amendments are needed. We must be able to ban assault weapons. We need to be able to ban fully automatic weapons (machine guns). We need to be able to control handguns. Safety locks are not unreasonable. Frequent gun registration is not an unnecessary burden. We should be able to ban armor piercing bullets.

I have no desire to ban all weapons. I have no desire to ban all handguns. Please don't e-mail me with statistics. The statistics have been massaged by both sides so much that you can prove almost anything if you look at the right statistic. I'm sure there are some advocates for guns who can show me a statistic in which having a gun makes you smarter, more attractive and more successful in life. I'm sure someone on the other side of the argument can show me statistics that banning weapons allows you to own two hybrids and increases the whale population.

Reasonable people should be able to sit down and come up with reasonable laws. Keep the zealots from both sides in the closet.