Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category

The Metrocrat wing of the DFL is the dominant wing of the party at the moment. Typically, Metrocrats love gun control and hate mining. Consider this post my argument that Rick Nolan’s views align best with the Metrocrats, not with the Iron Range. This website exposes Rick Nolan as the anti-Second Amendment activist that he is. Check this out:

Rick Nolan On the Record

The NRA is “very toxic in the effect they’re having on the American public.” Rick Nolan, MSNBC, 2013
“…I am concerned over the easy accessibility of small handguns… I will vote to prohibit the sale or manufacture of such weapons.” Rick Nolan, Constituent Letter, 1977
“I think we should outlaw assault rifles.” Rick Nolan, DFL Primary Debate, 2012
“I don’t need an assault weapon to shoot a duck, and I think they ought to be banned…” Rick Nolan, Face the Nation, 2013
“…I think we need to put a ban on the amount of shells you can carry in a magazine.” Rick Nolan, Face the Nation, 2013

I transcribed Stuart Mills ad (titled 2nd Amemdment) for this article. Here’s the key part of that ad:

Around election time, Rick will put on his hunter’s orange and grab a rifle but in Washington, he’s repeatedly voted to take away your rights.

Rick Nolan’s views on guns are compatible with Michael Paymar’s or Dianne Feinstein’s. They aren’t a fit with Eighth District voters. This video shows Nolan’s true colors:

That’s pretty emphatic. Nolan isn’t in step with his pro-Second Amendment district. Based on this information from the Nolan for Congress Issues page, Nolan’s anti-mining views don’t fit with his district, either:

The Environment

The environment, our air, lakes, rivers and forests, are crucial to our 8th district economy. The degradation of our air and water, along with global warming, threaten the very survival of our species here on mother earth. We must protect the environment in order to preserve our way of life and our tourism industry.

In environmental activists’ minds, there’s only one way to degrade a the “air and water” in a lightly populated area like the Range. That’s through mining. Apparently, Nolan’s views on mining are more compatible with Al Franken’s views than with Tommie Rukavina’s view.

Based on how little he agrees with the Eighth District, it isn’t difficult seeing him in the fight of his political life. I wouldn’t be surprised if Mills defeats Nolan this November.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

In special recall elections yesterday, Coloradans swept 2 Democrats out of office for supporting restrictive gun control laws:

Two Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, including the president of the state Senate, were recalled Tuesday in elections brought about by their support for tougher gun control laws.

According to unofficial results, voters in Colorado Springs favored recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body’s president, by 51 percent to 49 percent. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated in her recall election, 56 percent to 44 percent.

Defeating incumbents is a tough thing, which means Republicans did a great job of appealing to voters. Then they did a great job of getting these people to the polls. Mitch Berg notes that gun control advocates’ money didn’t win the day:

Even better? The avalanche of liberal money didn’t do the job (emphasis added)!:

While both sides campaigned vigorously, knocking on doors, holding rallies and driving voters to the polls, gun-control advocates far outspent their opponents. A range of philanthropists, liberal political groups, unions and activists raised a total of $3 million to defend Mr. Morse and Ms. Giron. Mr. Bloomberg personally gave $350,000.

Money won’t defeat tons of true believers. People still believe in the right to keep and bear arms. They still believe in the right to defend themselves and their families.

Nedless to say, Democrats were licking their wounds after these stinging defeats:

Colorado’s Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was “disappointed by the outcome of the recall elections” before calling on state residents to “refocus again on what unites Coloradans, creating jobs, educating our children, creating a healthier state, and on finding ways to keep Colorado moving forward.”

In other words, they want to put this defeat in the rear view mirror ASAP. They’d rather change the subject than defend their position on gun control. Meanwhile, Republicans were jubilant:

The Colorado Republican Party called the vote results “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation” in a statement released late Tuesday.

It’s natural for people to gloat following a big victory like this. The Colorado GOP is right that tons of Democrats are out of touch with people on gun control and other issues. It’s proof that Democrats who listen to their special interest fanatic base will get defeated.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

The federal government is attempting to reduce gun violence by taxing law-abiding citizens through this legislation:


‘There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to the specified percent of the price for which so sold:

‘(1) Articles taxable at 20 percent:
‘(A) Pistols.
‘(B) Revolvers.
‘(C) Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
‘(D) Any lower frame or receiver for a firearm, whether for a semiautomatic pistol, rifle, or shotgun that is designed to accommodate interchangeable upper receivers.

‘(2) Articles taxable at 50 percent: Shells and cartridges.’.

(b) Exemption for United States- Subsection (b) of section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
‘(b) Sales to United States- No firearms, pistols, revolvers, lower frame or receiver for a firearm, shells, and cartridges purchased with funds appropriated for any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States shall be subject to any tax imposed on the sale or transfer of such articles.’

First, this bill won’t get a hearing in the House of Representatives. It’s going nowhere fast. Second, even if such a bill would pass, it wouldn’t reduce gun violence. Violent criminals commit violent crimes. The feds imposing a huge sales tax on guns and ammo won’t stop gun violence because violent criminals don’t buy guns and ammunition from retailers. They buy those things on the black market.

The only impact this legislation would have is on law-abiding citizens. It’ll dramatically drive up the cost of guns and ammunition for law-abiding citizens, making it more difficult for people to defend themselves. This is as nutty as Seattle starting a campaign to announce which stores are gun-free:

MAYOR MCGINN: Over 50 businesses in Seattle have declared themselves as gun-free zones and they would prefer that people not come in with guns. And if they do come in with guns, they will be asked to leave.
GRETA: Mayor, before I got into TV, I was a criminal defense attorney and if my clients heard that there was a store that was part of a gun-free zone, it would be open season on that store. And I know that part of the program is that they put stickers in the windows.

This is just the opening to the interview. Watch the entire thing to see just how naive this mayor is. Frankly, it’s breathtaking.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This NRO article is both maddening and frightening:

Perhaps a suddenly firearm-friendly President Obama can put in a good word for Jared Marcum. In April, Marcum, an eighth-grader at Logan Middle School in Logan, W. Va., was arrested when he refused to take off his NRA t-shirt. The New York Daily News reports:

The clothing kerfuffle began when Marcum wore a shirt bearing the NRA’s logo and a hunting rifle. As he stood in line in the cafeteria, a teacher ordered him to either change shirts or turn it inside out.

Marcum declined and was sent to the office, where an officer was dispatched after he again refused to comply with the school’s request.

Cops arrested him and charged him with disrupting the educational process and obstructing an officer.

The teacher who told Marcum he shouldn’t wear the t-shirt apparently doesn’t care about the First Amendment. It’s pretty clear that the teacher doesn’t like the Second Amendment, either. With that in mind, perhaps this teacher should learn from people smarter than him. I’d submit that this young lady could teach this teacher a ton about the Constitution:

First, the school didn’t have the right to tell the student he couldn’t wear that t-shirt. The First Amendment trumps everything else. That should be case closed.

Second, this teacher should be disciplined for teaching a student through his actions that the Constitution should be ignored. After that, this student should put the fear of God into this teacher and the school district for violating this student’s constitutional rights.

Spring brings new hope to just about everyone. Everyone but gun control advocates, it seems. Based on this article, it sounds like gun control advocates are having a miserable spring:

Rural Democrats’ opposition to changing Minnesota’s gun laws casts doubt on what legislation, if any, will pass this year to tackle gun violence.

A group of at least eight Democrats from outstate Minnesota are standing firm against virtually any expansion of the state’s background check system. Together with Republicans, who need just six votes from across the aisle to block a bill, those Democrats hold the keys to shape, or sink, any gun legislation.

Bills to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines in Minnesota were quickly dropped, and an effort to impose universal background checks for gun sales was whittled down in the House to a bill that would close the so-called gun show loophole.

Advocates and lawmakers backing gun control measures acknowledge the possibility that even that bill won’t pass. Senate legislation for universal background checks is in limbo as top Democrats there wait to see what happens in the House.

The St. Paul Democrat who led an unsuccessful push to impose universal background checks on gun sales hopes a bill will hit the House floor for debate in the next two weeks. House Speaker Paul Thissen wouldn’t guarantee they’ll take up a gun bill this session, but said he wants to have the debate.

When the Newtown tragedy happened, gun control advocates stepped forward, saying that this was the best chance they’d ever get to pass sweeping gun control legislation. That’s true. If they couldn’t pass sweeping gun control legislation after that, they’d never pass sweeping gun control legislation.

Now that this coalition of rural DFL legislators and GOP legislators has formed, the gun control advocates are staring at another humiliating defeat. This is a major defeat for Speaker Thissen, Rep. Hausman and Rep. Paymar, especially Speaker Thissen. His inability to keep his caucus together on this issue indicates his agenda isn’t Minnesota’s agenda. Rather, it says that the metro DFL’s agenda is significantly different than the rest of the state.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Gabby Giffords’ NYTimes op-ed is disheartening because it’s based mostly on emotional blackmail. Here’s a perfect example of her emotional blackmail:

SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

Thankfully, Charles Krauthammer’s reply puts things in proper perspective :

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: The question is: Would it have had any effect on Newtown? If you’re going to make all these emotional appeals — he’s saying you’re betraying the families — you’ve got to show how if this had been law it would’ve stopped Newtown. It would not have. It’s irrelevant.

I wouldn’t have objected, I might’ve gone the way of McCain or Toomey on this, but it’s a kind of emotional blackmail as a way of saying, ‘You have to do it for the children.’ Not if there’s no logic in this. And that I think is what’s wrong with the demagoguery that we’ve heard out of the president on this issue. (Special Report, April 17, 2013)

The Manchin-Toomey Amendment wouldn’t have prevented the tragic shootings in Newtown, CT or Aurora, CO. The Manchin-Toomey Amendment was the last part of President Obama’s sweeping gun control legislation still left standing.

The rest of the Obama-Feinstein bill went up in flames because people noticed that the Obama-Feinstein bill wouldn’t have prevented these shootings. For once, the American people insisted on genuine solutions to real problems. They rejected the Democrats’ surely-we-must-do-something legislating style.

The American people said that we don’t have to do something if it isn’t a solution. Doing something for the sake of doing something is mostly about people feeling guilty.

Here’s more from Ms. Giffords’ diatribe:

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.

Expanded background checks wouldn’t have prevented Newtown. It wouldn’t have prevented the Tuscon shooting. Both shooters, Adam Lanza and Jared Loughner, had mental health issues.

Rather than focusing on mental health issues, the gun confiscation crowd focused on confiscating guns:

The governor then laid out several ideas for how the state would enforce stricter laws on those so-called “assault” weapons: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” he said.

Dianne Feinstein attempted to use the same emotional blackmail in justifying her legislation. Thankfully, Sen. Cruz, (R-TX), stopped that emotional blackmail dead in its tracks. Sen. Feinstein attempted to justify her gun confiscation legislation by talking about seeing a mayor shot down.

Horrific events don’t give people permission to ignore the Bill of Rights. Apparently, Sen. Feinstein and Ms. Giffords don’t agree with that principle. Their approach is to ignore the Constitution that they took an oath to uphold. Finally, this is disgusting:

Speaking is physically difficult for me. But my feelings are clear: I’m furious. I will not rest until we have righted the wrong these senators have done, and until we have changed our laws so we can look parents in the face and say: We are trying to keep your children safe. We cannot allow the status quo, desperately protected by the gun lobby so that they can make more money by spreading fear and misinformation, to go on.

Shame on Ms. Giffords. The “gun lobby” that she’s decrying are mostly made up of ordinary citizens paying $35 a year for membership. These aren’t high-powered K Street lobbyists. They’re your neighbors and co-workers.

As for “the wrong these senators have done,” they voted against an amendment that wouldn’t have solved any problems. God help us if we think voting no on amendments that don’t solve problems is a wrong that needs correcting.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday night, I was flipping through the channels at about 10:30. Lou Dobbs was discussing gun violence with Bill O’Reilly so I thought I’d take a moment to hear what they’d have to say.

O’Reilly said that background checks were good but that it was necessary for legal gun owners to register guns. Then he said something that frightened me and angered Dobbs. O’Reilly said that there should be a law that gave a 10 year mandatory sentence to people who didn’t register their guns. Here’s O’Reilly’s explanation/’justification’ for his law:

O’REILLY: But if you had the registration and the cops went out and stopped and frisked and grabbed the gun, that’s a 10 year penalty.

Later, he said that this would be done as a preventative measure. There’s just one sticky problem with O’Reilly’s law. It’s unconstitutional. The first time it got challenged in the Supreme Court, it’d be ruled unconstitutional with a near-unanimous vote. The Fourth Amendment prohibits searches of this kind. Here’s the text of the Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I’m not a constitutional attorney but I’d argue that requiring probable cause to be proven prohibits ‘preventative searches’.

Imagine police being able to search a person without obtaining a warrant. Without the Fourth Amendment’s protections, law officers would be able to go anywhere and search for anything at any time for any reason. That isn’t American. That’s what Third World dictators do in a police state. It’s what they did in the former Soviet Union or Saddam’s Iraq. It’s what they’re doing in China and North Korea.

I don’t doubt that Mr. O’Reilly’s intentions are sincere. There’s no question in my mind that he genuinely wants to protect children from gun violence. That said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. O’Reilly is a reactionary. He doesn’t think things through. It isn’t likely that he ever will.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Democrats defensively say that they’re defending the Second Amendment but that isn’t the truth. If they were, they wouldn’t make the statements like this:

“What is the inconvenience? What are we doing? What are we doing to impact on a gun owners’ right if he only has a clip with ten rounds in it instead of 30 rounds in it?” he asked.

The true test of whether Democrats are advocates of a citizen’s right to protect himself, his family or his business is whether they’ll fight for Chicago shopkeepers’ rights to protect themselves with a handgun. Unless they’re willing to tell fanatics like Rahm Emanuel, Michael Bloomberg, John Hickenlooper and Andrew Cuomo that their policies are anti-constitutional and dangerous, then Democrats shouldn’t be given credibility during Second Amendment conversations.

I’m not interested in finding ‘common ground’ with Constitution-hating zealots like Andrew Cuomo or Rahm Emanuel. Politicians like them are far beyond the mainstream on the Second Amendment. If they want to admit that they’ve been wrong about the Second Amendment and that they’re changing their position by 180 degrees, then there’s room to talk. If they aren’t willing to change their position, there isn’t much to talk about.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Columnist John Cass has written a column about a disturbing incident in Chicago. Here’s the video that’s going viral:

Kass’s column got my blood boiling. This is what got me started:

The video, posted by the Tribune’s Breaking News Center, shows in vivid and frightening detail how armed thugs robbed a gift and sports store Tuesday in the Logan Square neighborhood.

You can see the gunman demand the money. You see the store owner’s brother-in-law with a gun to his head. You see the shots being fired, and the bat wielded by a wounded and desperate Luis Quizhpe, the 62-year-old proprietor who fought for his life.

That’s what got me started but this is what’s got me seeing red:

On Wednesday we called Roderick Drew, spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s Law Department, who told us that store owners are prohibited from carrying handguns.

“A business owner can register a long gun (rifle or shotgun) for their fixed place of business, but it has to stay on the premises,” Drew said. “The business owner cannot register or bring a handgun to his place of business. The only place a person can lawfully have a handgun is the home.”

Chicago’s and Illinois’ royalty are protected but shop owners are without protection. Rahm Emanuel is part of that royalty. He’s protected. Mr. Quizhpe isn’t part of that royalty. He was shot. Repeatedly. If Mr. Quizhpe had used a handgun to defend himself, there’s little doubt that Emanuel would’ve had him arrested and prosecuted.

During the Clinton administration, President Clinton talked about “people that work hard and played by the rules.” He suggested that he’d fight for them. In Emanuel’s Chicago, “people that work hard and play by the rules” get shot while the city turns a blind eye towards the victims:

Quizhpe said he’s considering selling the store his family has run for decades.

“I’ve been thinking about selling everything off and changing my business,” he said. “The reality is, with everything going on, it’s difficult to put myself and my family in danger.”

Democrats frequently talk about hunting when the conversation turns to the Second Amendment. That isn’t what the Second Amendment is about. It’s about the right of the citizenry to protect themselves from criminals and tyrant politicians like Emanuel. Chicago is doing everything possible to prevent people from protecting their families and businesses.

That’s clearly a violation of Mr. Quizhpe’s Second Amendment rights. Thankfully, Kass has written about this horrific event:

Anti-gun policy wonks talk in abstract terms. But it’s not abstract for victims. It’s not abstract for Quizhpe. And it wasn’t abstract for Michael Kozel, 57, who for 20 years owned a muffler shop in the Gage Park neighborhood. On Jan. 3 he was shot dead in the back by robbers, one of the 42 homicides that month. Chicago has already forgotten his name.

Politicians that won’t let citizens protect themselves from gun-toting thugs should be run out of office. There’s no chance that Emanuel will be run out of office. He’ll be praised by gun control activists across the nation. That’s the definition of being un-American. There’s nothing more un-American than acting like royalty while telling the citizenry that they can’t protect themselves.

When will Chicago take its city back? When will they admit that shopkeepers have the right to protect themselves against violent thugs?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Rep. Paymar and Rep. Hausman introduced their gun grab legislation, they thought they’d get sweeping (that’s code for unconstitutional) legislation signed into law by a smiling Gov. Dayton. Then reality set in. Rural DFL legislators started saying no in droves. Pretty soon, the discussion shifted to closing the mythical ‘gun show loophole’. Then it shifted to background checks.

The problem with background checks is that they aren’t that straightforward. That’s best illustrated in this exchange between Chris Wallace and Gabby Giffords’ husband:

WALLACE: Captain Kelly, what do you think that showed?

KELLY: Well, you know, we went in there, my executive director and ours, the executive of our organization, and in five minutes and 36 seconds is the time it took to fill out one piece of paper. You only have to fill out one side and for it to be submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and get an answer. Five minutes and 36 seconds.

So, what it shows you is that it is not the burden that the NRA leadership says, what a background check is. I mean, it’s a simple, common sense thing we can do to make sure the criminals and the mentally ill can’t have access to firearms.

WALLACE: Well, let’s talk about that, because in Gabby’s tragic case, the shooter, Jared Loughner, had been suspended from college because he was deemed to be a threat to himself and to others. He went to a gun store, he got a gun, passed a background check. And, yet he was able then of course to go out and shoot Gabby and 18 other people.

And, the NRA says the problem, the problem with the background check is that, the kind of mental health information, for instance in Loughner’s case, doesn’t get passed on, so it doesn’t get to be part of the background check.

Noel Sheppard’s commentary is noteworthy:

Not surprisingly, much of the media are ignorant of something called the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act which established very strict security guidelines concerning the dissemination of individual health records.

Just last week, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights announced that it will soon publish a request for information on barriers related to HIPAA that could prevent states from making certain information available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

In other words, HIPAA’s security provisions make background checks ineffective. The background check legislation would make legislators think that they’ve done something without doing anything meaningful.

That’s typical surely-we-must-do-something legislation. In the activists’ minds, it isn’t whether the legislation solves a problem. It’s important because it shows ‘we cared enough to do something’. It’s time politicians figured it out that people want solutions. People aren’t interested in busywork legislation that doesn’t make their lives better.

It’s understandable that Capt. Kelly is a gun control activist. His wife was nearly killed by a gun-wielding violent man. That said, we shouldn’t pass legislation based solely on a person’s emotional experiences. Legislation should be written after going through a thoughtful analysis of what will improve public safety within the limits of the Constitution.

Whether it’s federal gun control legislation that Capt. Kelly prefers or whether it’s legislation crafted by Reps. Paymar and Housman, gun control is a tricky issue complicated by HIPAA and the Bill of Rights.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,