When quasi-celebrities attack: Jay Mohr blames Boston attack on the 2nd Amendment

Aging comedian/actor JJay_Mohray Mohr managed to generate some publicity for himself on Monday by exploiting the Boston Marathon explosions to push his anti-Second Amendment agenda.

Mohr, who those from my generation might remember from Tom Cruise’s hit 1996 film Jerry Maguire, and younger readers might remember from absolutely nowhere, sent his first clueless tweet Monday night.

“What bothers me most about today is that we’re getting used 2 it. ENOUGH. 2nd amendment must go. Violence has 2 stop. Culture MUST change.”

When questioned on the connection between the Second Amendment and the Boston explosions, he just kept digging.

“The 2nd Amendment lends itself to the CULTURE of violence we are living in.”

Later, when he continued to be flooded with comments from gun owners taking him to task, he commented that he was “[a]mazed at [the] pro gun responses” and wondered “Where are u maniacs coming from?”

That’s right folks … to the elites in New York and Hollywood, your rights contribute to a culture of violence and you are ‘maniacs’ for daring to speak up when liberals call for your rights to be stripped away.

If his comments upset you as much as they did me then perhaps you might like to join me in contacting his employer.  Mohr has a sports radio program on Fox Sports Radio called Jay Mohr Sports.

I am guessing that either of the following executives would love to hear from sports fans who are upset by Mohr’s words.

Dan Metter, Senior Vice President & Director of Talk Radio Sales

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (212) 445-3926

Craig Hawkesworth, Vice President of Interactive Sales

Email: [email protected]

Telephone: (972) 455-6267

Let them know that it is probably not a good idea to keep someone on the payroll who considers more than half of their viewers to be violent ‘maniacs’.


Posted in Celebrities, General Civil Rights, Popular Culture | 8 Comments

What does a traitor look like?

So what does a traitor look like?

That is a very good question.

After all, a traitor is different than an enemy.  An enemy declares himself and opposes you openly.  But in order to become a traitor, someone first needs to enjoy your trust.

Those of us in the gun rights community have plenty of enemies … people who have openly declared war on the Second Amendment and the Constitution.  Heck … practically every Democrat in the country seems to have signed up for a frontal assault on gun owners.

But to be betrayed by one of our own is not a common occurrence and when it happens, it never fails to hurt.

Today, Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania betrayed gun owners.  He betrayed us by caving in to pressure from Bloomberg and the Obama Administration and putting forward a supposed “compromise” bill with New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer and West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin.

That’s right.  Senator Toomey’s co-sponsor in this supposedly ‘Second Amendment Protection Bill’ is none other than Chuck Schumer.  That should be your first clue even before you read the bill.

But when the so-called ‘compromise’ was announced at a press conference today, Schumer was nowhere to be seen.  He stayed away so that Toomey would not have to explain to gun owners why he was standing on the stage with one of the single most anti-gun politicians in the country.

A Democratic aide, speaking to Roll Call, explained Schumer’s absence by noting that Toomey’s job in this bill was to simply “persuade the gun rights groups that it’s an acceptable deal.

We have a name for a creature who goes amongst their own kind to calm them in the face of obvious danger … a Judas Goat.

In any case, returning to the bill text itself shows us … well nothing initially … they have not released the full text to the public yet.  But Gun Owners of America (GOA) and RedState reportedly have a copy and they do not like what they are seeing at all.

First, and perhaps most disconcerting, it contains a provision whereby a doctor can unilaterally add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever telling the patient.

You heard me … no due processno appeal.  Anger your doctor and you can lose your Second Amendment rights forever.

And as we saw in New York last week, you can bet that as soon as that happens, the SWAT team will be there to take your guns.

The results of this bill are easy to predict.  Gun owners will soon realize that seeing a counselor means losing their rights and they will not seek help, even when they need it.

Veterans with PTSD will face it on their own.

Women with post-partum depression will suffer in silence.

Suicides will increase.

But that’s not all.  Schumer has proudly reported that he made numerous contributions to the bill such as a partial repeal of FOPA so that New York airports can continue to arrest law-abiding gun owners traveling through their state as I have reported on this very week.

Another amendment to the bill by Schumer reportedly stripped out language that would have forced states to recognize each other’s carry permits.

And Toomey wants to take this monstrosity to the floor of the Senate where Democrats can begin building an ‘amendment tree’ that will include an assault weapons ban, a ban on normal capacity magazines, and any other restrictions on the rights of gun owners they can think of.

And all the while, they can smile for the press and declare it to be a ‘bi-partisan’ bill.

All because of Pat Toomey.

So what does a traitor look like?”  They look just like us … until they don’t.

Posted in General Civil Rights, Gun Control, Gun Sales, Pennsylvania, Republicans, Universal Background Checks | 14 Comments

Innocent Victims of Gun Control: The welterweight champion

Robert_Guerro_4Robert “The Ghost” Guerrero has beaten many opponents on his way to becoming the WBC Welterweight Champion. He has also beaten back leukemia and is known far and wide for his squeaky-clean lifestyle.

In short, Guerrero is a champion in every meaning of the term. He is truly an American hero and role model.  But once again, we see the gun control trap set by Democrats snap shut on an innocent, law-abiding citizen.

Guerrero is now facing a felony charge that could put him away for 15 years.

Just like Beth Ferrizzi from yesterday’s edition of this series, the champ was arrested while trying his best to legally check an unloaded firearm at a New York airport. Unbeknownst to many residents of normal states, New York’s gun laws are so complex and strict as to effectively strip all Second Amendment rights from those who foolishly enter its boundaries.

En route to Vegas, Guerrero was attempting to complete an act that is both legal and commonplace in almost all other states … checking a properly encased and unloaded firearm with his luggage.

Guerrero, a known hunter, had been asked to bring one of his firearms by a film crew from Showtime that wanted to get shots of Guerrero shooting and Guerrero, like so many other innocent people, did not realize that New York has effectively shredded the Constitution within its borders.

To add insult to injury, Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown issued a press release mocking Guerrero by saying that “I hope he fights better than he thinks.

Once again, we see the Democrats achieving their true goal at the expense of a good man. Who is the real criminal in this story?

The ‘Innocent Victims of Gun Control‘ series of articles details the effects of gun control policies on law abiding citizens and exposes the lie that gun control is only aimed at criminals.
 

Posted in Flying With a Firearm, FOPA, General Civil Rights, Innocent Victims of Gun Control, New York, Travel | 7 Comments

Innocent Victims of Gun Control: The veteran’s pregnant wife

Beth_FerrirzziI would like for you to meet Beth Ferrizzi of Fargo North Dakota.  She is an average American women who considers herself a law-abiding and even upstanding citizen. She is married to Air Force Master Sergeant Joe Ferrizzi and they are expecting their second child.

Joe, who is deployed to Honduras serving his country, was recently able to meet Beth and their 6 year old daughter in Pennsylvania for a family visit.  He also wanted to show her the Philadelphia neighborhood where he grew up.  It was to be a happy family reunion between a soldier and his girl.  What could be more American than that?

But now, she has an arrest record and is facing a felony charge that could imprison her for up to 15 years.

How could this happen in a supposedly ‘free’ country?

It is simple really.  Beth took her husband’s firearm with her when she flew to meet him. He has a North Dakota carry permit which is also recognized in Pennsylvania and he wanted to have it for personal protection while they were visiting.

However, her fatal decision was made when she booked her return flight from New York’s La Guardia Airport.

For those who haven’t figured it out yet, for all intents and purposes, you leave America when you enter New York.

Despite going out of her way to insure that she understood the complex process of legally transporting a firearm on a airplane, she ran afoul of New York’s soviet-style web of draconian gun laws and was arrested, handcuffed, separated from her 6 year old daughter, and kept overnight in a New York City jail before finally making her way back to Fargo.

And despite what I suspect is a burning desire to never again enter the state of New York, she is scheduled for a hearing on the case just about the time that her baby is due.

Surely this is a mistake?  “No” says Queens District Attorney Richard A. Brown. Furthermore, Brown has no sympathy for Beth, or any other person who enters the gulag once known as New York expecting that the Constitution is still in effect.  His comment?

“For anyone who hasn’t gotten the message, let me be crystal clear. You cannot bring an unlicensed weapon – loaded or unloaded – into this county or this city. And if you do, you will be arrested and face felony charges … Unless you have a New York City license to carry, leave your gun at home.”

So when you next hear a Democrat claiming that no one wants to take away your guns or deprive you of the right to protect yourself … just think of the veteran’s pregnant wife and know it for the damnable lie that it is.

The ‘Innocent Victims of Gun Control‘ series of articles details the effects of gun control policies on law abiding citizens and exposes the lie that gun control is only aimed at criminals.
 

Posted in Flying With a Firearm, FOPA, General Civil Rights, Innocent Victims of Gun Control, New York, Travel | 42 Comments

Perhaps Loki was onto something

Loki_KNeel

In the hit 2012 movie The Avengers, the Norse trickster god Loki threatens a crowd and makes them kneel before him as he delivers a speech about what he thinks of the human race.

“Is this not your natural state? It’s the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life’s joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.”

As I was watching the movie, I was properly outraged at the character’s assertions.  I remember thinking that he was going to be surprised at the fighting spirit inherent in the human race.

But as I sit here tonight watching the Democrats across the country systematically stripping away the self-defense rights of their ‘subjects’ one state at a time and being praised by their sycophants for doing so, I am made to wonder … perhaps Loki was right after all … at least where some humans are concerned.

There seems to be a subset of humanity that does indeed crave subjugation, even in America.  We call them anti-gunners.  They cower and whimper in fear whenever faced with the responsibility and cost of freedom.  Instead they beg for the safety of a prison and the ‘protective’ hand of an all powerful government.

So how do we deal with a nation divided between those who would be free and those who would rather seek the safety of servitude?

In truth, I honestly do not know.  I just do not know.

I can only continue to believe that the spirit of individual freedom, responsibility, and exceptionalism has not perished from the face of the Earth.

I will leave you with the words of Samuel Adams, spoken over two hundred years ago and yet still so very apt … “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Posted in General Civil Rights | 6 Comments

Innocent Victims of Gun Control: The bear attack

Bear_AttackA Massachusetts man is facing charges of illegal possession of a firearm and failing to secure a weapon after using a shotgun to kill a bear that began chasing him in his own backyard while he was stocking his bird feeders.

The man in question is 76 year old Richard Ahlstrand of Auburn Massachusetts and the bear was 7 feet tall and pushing 400 pounds.  But despite the reasonable fear that a 76 year old man might feel in such a situation, the local prosecutors have gone after Mr. Ahlstrand with a vengeance.

When he went out that afternoon, he took his shotgun because he had seen the bear the day before and feared that it might still be around.  But local officials have used Mr. Ahlstrand’s bird feeder and the presence of the shotgun as the basis of additional charges of illegally baiting a bear and illegally killing a bear.

Apparently, the only thing that Mr. Ahlstrand could have done to satisfy local officials would have been to lay down and die.  He says that “They got me set up now like I’m some kind of murderer.  And then the environmental guy told me ‘You should have called me instead of shooting it.’  What was I going to do, say ‘Mister Bear would you excuse me please while I go make a phone call?’

The ‘Innocent Victims of Gun Control‘ series of articles details the effects of gun control policies on law abiding citizens and exposes the lie that gun control is only aimed at criminals.
 

Posted in Democrats, General Civil Rights, Gun Control, Innocent Victims of Gun Control, Massachusetts | 8 Comments

Why ‘universal background checks’ will inevitably lead to registration

Gun_ConfiscationI have a friend I attended law school with who is constantly stating that his family “owns over a hundred guns” while simultaneously supporting (at least partially) some of the Democrat’s proposals that I am most concerned by.

His latest post on Facebook was to share Slate’s article about how American’s are concerned about the possibility that so-called ‘universal background checks’ will quickly morph into nationwide registration.

His comment accompanying the article was that this was “[y]et another irrational fear.

I started to comment on his Facebook post but then realized that this topic deserved a detailed commentary.

So here we are … answering the question “Is it irrational to fear that the ‘universal background check’ bill will lead to a de-facto registration scheme?

Let’s just start with the plain text of the bill itself.  Does it say anything about a record-keeping requirement?

Why yes it does!  It says that “[r]egulations … shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transfer or and unlicensed transferee.

Hmm.  I wonder what form such a record would take?

But let’s not stop there.  We have a historical precedent.  While generally a very pro-gun state, Pennsylvania has a very similar de-facto registration problem.

Under Pennsylvania law, it is illegal to maintain a registry of firearms.  This is codified at 18 Pa.C.S. § 6111.4.  However, Pennsylvania also has ‘universal background checks’ for all handgun transfers and, in order to enforce that law, the Pennsylvania State Police maintains a ‘transfer database’ of all handguns in the state and use it as a de-facto registration scheme.

In the 2002 case of Allegheny Sportsmen League v. Ridge, the Commonwealth Court allowed this practice to continue by distinguishing between a registry of ‘ownership’ and a registry of ‘sales’ or ‘transfers.’  Even the court admitted that the distinction is ‘slight.’

“While we agree that the database maintained by the Commonwealth is a ‘registry’ of sorts, there are no allegations that the Commonwealth maintains a registry of firearm ownership.

The distinction lies not in the term ‘registry’, as urged by Petitioners, but with what is being registered.  A ‘registry of firearm ownership’, by plain definition, would maintain a record of ownership, whereas a registry or database of handgun sales would maintain a record of sale.

While the distinction may seem slight, a registry of ownership would necessarily encompass a registration of all firearms, including long guns, firearms owned by Pennsylvanians not purchased in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as well as information on transfers of handguns to spouses, children, and grandchildren, whereas the database of handgun sales maintained by the Commonwealth contains only information on the sale of handguns in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

Regardless of what it is called, Pennsylvania law enforcement uses the database as a de-facto registration and woe betide anyone who possesses a handgun that is not in the ‘registry.’ Numerous gun owners have had their firearms confiscated and have been forced to prove their ownership and compliance with the ‘universal background check’ law before getting them back.

Pennsylvania’s scheme is a perfect example of how law enforcement will address such a scheme.  After all, in order to enforce a ‘universal background check’ law, they need to know whether you complied or not … right?

That brings me to my next point which is the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism outside of actual registration.  Without a nationwide registration, this law would be an empty shell and they know it.  If there is no database to check then the only option is to require owners to be considered criminals until they themselves prove otherwise (as happens in Pennsylvania).

Let’s face it.  If this bill passes as written, the courts will uphold some form of database in order to provide an enforcement mechanism.  Forcing citizens to maintain their own paperwork would, in my opinion, be unenforceable as a 5th Amendment violation under the holding in Haynes v. United States.

So … The courts will pontificate that Congress would not have passed a law without intending law enforcement to take the reasonable steps necessary to implement and enforce it … and voila … we have nationwide registration.

And before my friend, who I hope will read this article, says that I too am merely irrational, I should point out that the ACLU shares my concerns.

Chris Calabrese, a privacy lobbyist for the ACLU, speaking to reporters Wednesday said that a registry would be a logical “next step” in the implementation of the bill as written. He went on to add that “we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us … As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.

He noted a prime example of what gun owners might expect to happen with such data.  “And they come to use databases for all sorts of different purposes. For example, the National Counterterrorism Center recently gave itself the authority to collect all kinds of existing federal databases and performed terrorism related searches regarding those databases. They essentially exempted themselves from a lot of existing Privacy Act protections.

Calabrese went on to note other concerns the ACLU has about the bill include the vague language that would criminalize gun ownership for same-sex couples, unmarried couples, people shooting on their own property and even those shooting each other’s firearms at certain shooting ranges.

They are also concerned about the implications and possible misuses of school tip lines in Schumer’s bill.  In short, the ACLU is not a fan of this bill despite their general support for background checks.

To my friend, I can say only this … When even the ACLU says you are wrong then perhaps you shouldn’t let your distrust of the NRA get in the way of logical thought.

Carry on!

Posted in ACLU, Confiscation, Democrats, General Civil Rights, Registration, Universal Background Checks | 10 Comments

Democrats says the darnedest things

Rep_Diana_DeGette

Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO)

The media loves to point out the stupid things that Republicans say … and, being politicians, they do say their share of stupid things.

But if you depend on the mainstream media for your news, then you might think that Democrats are all genius-level intellects whose every word is cherished wisdom designed to send thrills down Chris Matthew’s leg.

But let me assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.  And this is particularly true when Democrats attempt to talk credibly about the firearms that they want so desperately to ban and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms that they wish to destroy.

I thought it would be illustrative to share a few of the more frighteningly egregious comments that Democrats have made.

Let’s start with Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette.  She joined New York Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy in introducing a bill to ban the manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for sale to civilians.  In other words, she appears to be just another anti-gun bigot … right?  Maybe not.  Maybe she doesn’t even understand the fundamentals of what she is talking about.

Yesterday, Congresswoman DeGette participated in a Denver Post public forum in which she discussed her proposal.  When asked whether such a ban would be effective since there are tens of millions of such magazines already in circulation, she made the following statement.

“What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them … the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Yes … that’s right …  a US Congresswoman who feels she is qualified to restrict the rights of American gun owners is ignorant enough to believe that magazines are single-use items.

Don’t believe me?  Watch the video yourself.  The level of ignorance displayed by Congresswoman DeGette is staggering.

 

But Congresswoman DeGette does not stand alone on the plains of ignorance.  There are others there with her.  After all, no parade of the stupid would be complete without an appearance by good ole’ ‘Average Joe’ Biden.

In fact, I have written before about ole’ Joe’s monumentally stupid advice regarding firearms use and home defense tactics.  But I feel that the truest example of what we are facing occurred back at the end of February, when ole’ Joe was stumping for the administration’s newly declared war on guns in Connecticut.

Dismissing tens of millions of vocal gun owners in a single sentence, ole’ Joe made the absurd statement that “No law-abiding citizen in the United States of America has any fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed in any way. None. Zero.”

Wait … what?  There are lots of law-abiding citizens who fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed.  Gun owners fear the Democrat’s war on guns, same-sex couples fear DOMA, minority citizens of New York fear the stop and frisk antics of Mayor Bloomberg and his minions.

I could go on and on but you see my point.  In fact, a lot of law-abiding citizens fear that their constitutional rights will be infringed because they are infringed … on a daily basis.

But in Joe’s world … a world of privilege and power I might note … such people do not even warrant recognition.  In his worldview, we are less than wrong … we don’t even exist.

Once again, I suspect that many of you reading this will doubt the accuracy of my words. And once again, I will direct you to the video.

I know that we are only a few days beyond April Fools Day so let me make this perfectly clear.  These comments were actually made.  Even worse, they were made by people who are supposedly intelligent enough to make public policy for our nation.

And people wonder why gun owners fear the intentions of Democrats …

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Colorado, Democrats, General Civil Rights, High Capacity Magazines, Vice President Biden, Vice Presidents | 16 Comments

Text messages and the Fourth Amendment

Marijuana_Text_MessageYour communications, including text messages, are private and may only be intercepted with a warrant … right???

Not so fast.   Even outside the constitutionally questionable practice of ‘warrantless wiretapping’ that occurs under the auspices of the War on Terror, there is a much more mundane threat to your privacy where text messages are concerned.

In 2011, in the case of People v. Diaz, the California Supreme Court held that defendants lose their privacy rights for any items they are carrying when taken into custody.

That means anytime you are taken into custody, your phone (which has become an almost universal personal accessory at this point) may be searched without your permission if it is not secured.  And you can be sure that your stored text messages will be the first thing they review.

And before you ask, the US Supreme Court will not be stepping in to save the day. They refused to hear the case, letting this dangerous precedent stand.  Since then, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has made a similar ruling in United States v. Flores-Lopez.

But the risks inherent in text messaging do not end there.  Unlike the content of voice conversations, your entire text messaging history is probably stored by your telecommunication provider and may be requested by any law enforcement agency with a valid warrant.

So what does this mean to you?  The answer is simple.  It means that you should not consider text messages to be a private means of communication, at least not until the justice system catches up with technology and properly recognizes that the ‘papers’ referenced in the Fourth Amendment can just as easily be comprised of electrons.

Posted in Fourth Amendment | Leave a comment

“There are certain times we should infringe on your freedom”

Evil_BloombergThere are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.”  These words, or ones very much like them, are powerful words indeed.  They have been spoken countless times throughout history by pharaohs, and kings, and emperors, and men with far too much power over the weak and defenseless.

And once spoken, they have shaped the blood-spattered history of mankind.  They are the words of tyrants … of dictators … of slaveowners.

And always … what followed was misery, and suffering, and then ultimately … horror and death.

Most recently, these words came from the mouth of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has long made it clear that he is far more qualified to run your life than you are.

He made these comments while defending a host of draconian policy issues he has pursued; including bans on what you can eat and drink, whether you are worthy to defend yourself, and whether or not you can even choose to breastfeed your children.

His policies apparently spring forth from what seems to be a sincere belief that you are unfit, unqualified, and unworthy to make any decisions regarding your life and it is his sacred duty to take up the mantle as your king and warden … whether you like it or not.

In fact, if you are a minority, he seems to believe that you are not even worthy to walk the streets without subjecting yourself to unconstitutional ‘stop and frisk’ attacks on your rights and dignity.

And yet this man continues to hold office.  No one in the media, or the courts, or the government seems shocked or dismayed by his words and deeds.

As Bloomberg embarks on a self-funded 12 million dollar ad campaign to push for civilian disarmament, remember this picture of life under the type of government that Bloomberg advocates.

NYPD_Stop_Frisk_Abuse

When I think of the world that awaits us if we do not stop the Bloombergs of the world from taking away our freedoms ‘in our own best interest’, I am often reminded of the words of George Orwell from his prophetic, but slightly ahead of its time, novel 1984.

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face … forever.

That will certainly be the case if we allow our elected officials to believe that “There are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.

Posted in Bloomberg, General Civil Rights | 10 Comments