|

UN treaty signed to prevent weapons going to terrorist, too late to stop terrorists from stealing U.S. weapons in Benghazi or Mexico!

Secretary of State John Kerry signed a controversial U.N. treaty today that critics believe opens the U.S. to international interference and could serve as a basis to threaten U.S. Second Amendment rights. Excerpt: Kerry said … responsible nations should have control systems that reduce the risk that conventional arms transfers will be used “to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including those involving terrorism, and serious human rights violations.” Kerry also said: … that the United States looks forward to working with other countries to reach consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty “that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability” by helping to stem the illicit flow of weapons across borders. Anyone remember this administration’s “Fast and Furious” scandal? FOX News writes, that the treaty requires countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms and components and to regulate arms brokers. Kerry can sign, but it’s up to the Senate to ratify any treaty. Senate Democrats have bottled up liberal members’ efforts for gun control since earlier this year when a bipartisan coalition voted down new regulations. The treaty signing brings the issue back. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty, sent a letter to Kerry, a longtime gun-control proponent during his Senate career, saying the treaty was “dead in the water.” A majority of senators have gone on record against ratification of this treaty. Meanwhile, it was just discovered that militia groups aligned with terrorist organizations and the Muslim Brotherhood had made off with more advanced weaponry than previously thought as a result of raid last month on a U.S. military post in Benghazi, Libya. Again, Benghazi! The equipment includes dozens of armored vehicles, hundreds of weapons, M4 rifles and advanced night-vision technology intended for training in Libya by U.S. Special Forces. The training team has now been pulled from the country. Maybe the Obama administration’s signing of the UN treaty means that his administration will no longer arm terrorists in the future – in Libya or in...

read more

Research shows that defensive gun use saves lives!

  From today’s Patriot Post – Excerpt: In January, Barack Obama was leading the charge for federal gun control measures, standing on the caskets of the children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in December. He asked the Centers for Disease Control to “research the causes and prevention of gun violence.” His objective, of course, was to reinforce the leftist narrative that guns were to blame for acts of evil. Instead of blaming the perpetrator, the Left focuses on the implement. The CDC passed the job to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, which completed the study in June. But because it didn’t follow BO’s preferred BS storyline, it’s only now seeing the light of day. One inconvenient truth for the Left is that guns save lives. According to the report, “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals.” Indeed, while there were “about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” … defensive gun use incidents ranged “from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.” The study elaborated on the benefits of defensive gun use: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.” On the other hand, gun buy-backs, a favorite of leftists to reduce “gun violence,” were found to be “ineffective.” Obviously, in a culture as debased as ours has become, guns will be used for evil purposes. But that makes it all the more important for the good guys to have...

read more

Quinn creates nonstandard Concealed Carry throughout Illinois

According to Joe Sosnowski’s July 02, 2013 eNewsletter, Quinn is using his amendatory veto power to unilaterally change many portions of HB183, the Concealed Carry bill passed by a veto-proof majority vote of both houses of the General Assembly. The governor’s language will create a patchwork of different regulations and overly restrictive laws that will only obstruct law abiding citizens’ second amendment rights – the Chicago way! The governor is changing these portions of the law: Illinois must keep guns out of any establishment where alcohol is sold and consumed. Home rule cities can regulate handguns and ammunition, licensing, possession, registration and transportation as it sees fit and changes the uniformity of concealed carry across the state, with cities each having their own rules, such as Chicago not allowing AR15 assault rifles, for example, laws that are in violation of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion. As a matter of property rights, the governor feels that the legal presumption should always be that a person is not allowed to carry a concealed, loaded gun onto the premises versus displaying a sign that says no guns allowed. Because workplace violence is a frequent workplace fatality, employers must have a right to forbid guns – they do – put up a sign. Quinn also thinks that if Illinois is going to legalize concealed carry that the license should limit an individual to carry one gun and one ammunition clip that can hold no more than 10 rounds of ammunition and that the NRA is responsible for many items in this bill. Quinn is also demanding more clarification to the notification process to ensure enhancements to mental health reporting to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands – the bill provides ample checks in this area. The governor thinks that concealed means concealed and doesn’t want Illinoisans walking around in public with guns exposed. And the governor wants to change reporting that an individual carrying a concealed weapon immediately disclose concealment of a firearm to an officer, without a request of the officer. Even though this last veto paragraph might be considered, to override the amendatory veto the General Assembly must accept or reject the entire...

read more

Firearm manufacturers are relocating from states with strict gun control

Today’s Patriot Post shows that those whose Second Amendment rights have been further restricted by blue state legislators are fighting back. Some firearm manufacturers in those states are planning to relocate their businesses to other states, while the citizens are attempting to recall politicians who supported the increased restrictions. Excerpt: Connecticut has long been home to a number of firearm manufacturers, but that’s quickly changing following state lawmakers’ decision to exploit the Sandy Hook massacre to increase gun restrictions. In fact, the state ranks number seven in firearm production, providing nearly 3,000 direct jobs and thousands more through business channels. But Mark Malkowski, founder and owner of Stag Arms, is the latest in a string of companies announcing their intention to set up shop elsewhere. “[T]he state seems to want to be able to both have their cake and eat it, too,” notes HotAir’s Erika Johnsen. “The new gun-control laws did not restrict gun manufacturing in Connecticut, but merely the ability of those businesses to sell and distribute what they manufacture in the state — but they sure would like for those jobs to stick around!” In other words, they’re more than happy to reap the benefits of booming business — as long as the product is sold elsewhere. It’s a typical leftist double standard. Colorado is facing its own backlash. Magpul Industries joined nearly two dozen plaintiffs, including 54 county sheriffs, in suing the state. The lawsuit’s focus is on two recently implemented gun control measures: universal background checks, and a ban on “high-capacity” magazines (a term arbitrarily defined as a magazine holding more than 15 rounds). While Magpul is joining the fight, they’re moving forward with relocating. Duane Liptak, director of product management and marketing, explained that the legal action is a matter of devotion and principle: “[W]e will not turn our back on our native state.” Simultaneously, several lawmakers face recall efforts. The message here is that Democrats were naive to believe they could trample the Constitution without a fight. We commend those who are standing to defend Rule of Law. When the left restrains the Second Amendment, there are consequences. Their actions not only violate the intent of that amendment, it costs jobs, people’s lives are affected and they are fighting back – Freedom is not Free, even in America especially under the Obama...

read more

Illinois concealed-carry law fails to pass – Blessing in disguise?

Another attempt to pass the concealed-carry law in Illinois failed last week even though it captured the overwhelming majority of the vote 64-45, but needed a supermajority of 71 votes. A supermajority vote was required because the bill would override the home-rule authority of some municipalities to establish their own concealed-carry rules, and the bill sets a state-wide standard. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit stuck down Illinois’ last-state-in-the-nation ban on concealed-carry and ordered the state to pass some form of concealed-carry law by June 2013. If the state’s legislature doesn’t pass a concealed-carry law by the deadline, there might be no restrictions as to where a person can carry a loaded weapon in public or little additional restrictions other than those required to obtain a gun in the first place. Advocates of concealed-carry point to the Supreme Court decision that ruled the Second Amendment gives citizens not only the right to own firearms, but the right to “bear” those firearms outside the home. If the bill as written had passed last week, it would have been one of the most strict concealed-carry laws in the country, based on the whims of Chicago lawmakers who believe that no additional guns are needed in the state or necessary to defend one’s life. The state tried to pass “may issue” concealed-carry that leaves the final decision to local law enforcement, patterned after the New York bill that severely limits who may carry a weapon in public. The bill had higher permit fees than those originally imposed, more training required and restrictions where weapons could be carried. It was probably the strictest “shall carry” bill in the country, according to its sponsor Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg. Rep. Dwight Kay, R-Edwardsville is also worried that if something isn’t passed by the General Assembly, the court would “allow things we don’t want to happen in this state if we do nothing.” So, the pressure is on state legislators to do something before the court deadline. However, to get 71 Illinois legislators to agree on anything may be a near impossibility and the citizens of the state might get a better deal from the court, without Chicago making the decisions for the rest of us based on their 500 plus murders last...

read more

Missouri Democrats propose assault weapon confiscation bill

For all the gun control advocates who continually try to reassure gun owners that gun laws will not involve confiscation, take a look at the bill Democrats introduced in the Missouri legislature. Excerpt: The bill  would give owners of certain types of “assault” weapons 90 days to either turn them in to authorities, disable them or ship them out of the state. According to House Bill 545, “assault” rifles are defined as any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine that has one or more of the following characteristics: a.  A pistol grip or thumbhole stock; b.  Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand; c.  A folding or telescoping stock; or d.  A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel. Excerpt: The law also applies to certain semi-automatic pistols and semi-automatic shotguns with similar characteristics. Democrats in the state also want to confiscate pistols or rifles with fixed magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The law also prohibits anyone, including gun makers, from manufacturing, importing, possessing, purchasing, selling, or transferring any “assault weapon” or large capacity magazines. The law does not apply to law enforcement officers, members of the military and federal agents and employees. Those already in possession of these weapons or magazines will have 90 days to: Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. If the proposal becomes law, those who violate it will be charged with a Class C felony, punishable by up to seven years in prison. The proposal has very little chance of becoming law since Republicans hold a super-majority in the state legislature, like the Democrats do in the Illinois legislature. Minnesota is also considering similar legislation. The point is that there are many  elected officials ready to effectively eliminate the second amendment from the constitution. All Americans have to figure out is why our government is so adamant about instituting new gun control laws, when the current gun laws have been so ineffective....

read more
Share: