Failure to arrest David Gregory illustrates the hypocrisy of gun control

David_Gregory_FelonLast Sunday, in a Meet The Press interview with NRA Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, NBC’s David Gregory repeatedly held up a 30 round magazine to illustrate his point that there should be a law against possessing such accessories.

The problem?  There IS a law in DC where the NBC studio is located. That law, like many of the draconian laws in DC that Gregory is a champion of, is very clear on what is prohibited:

D.C. Official Code § 7-2506.01

(b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..”

The law makes no exception for self-righteous news commentators and Gregory cannot even claim ignorance of the law since his office reportedly contacted the DC Metropolitan Police Department prior to the show and were told that it was illegal in the District. Noted gun rights activist Ed Levine contacted the MPD and received the following response:

“The Metropolitan Police Department is in receipt of your e-mail regarding David Gregory segment on “Meet the Press.” MPD has received numerous e-mails informing us of the segment. NBC contacted MPD inquiring if they could utilize a high capacity magazine for their segment. NBC was informed that possession of a high capacity magazines is not permissible and their request was denied. This matter is currently being investigated. Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to our attention.”

But I will predict that nothing will come of the ‘investigation’. Why? Because David Gregory is one of the ‘elites’ who cannot possibly commit a crime because their only intent is to serve the greater good of the progressive agenda.

But dare to be an ordinary citizen and break one of the District’s draconian gun laws and you will be in jail so fast you won’t even be able to say “What happened to my country?

Take the case of Lt. Augustine Kim. After being injured on foreign soil while defending his nation’s freedom, Lt. Kim returned home to find that, in DC at least, there is very little of it left to defend.  Lt. Kim was transporting his legally owned firearms from his parent’s home in New Jersey to South Carolina when he stopped at Walter Reed Army Hospital in DC for an appointment.  Bad move!

After getting lost and pulled over by police, he was arrested, thrown in jail, and had over $10,000 in guns seized by the District. Despite the fact that he had no evil intent, Lt. Kim didn’t get a pass … but I bet Gregory will.

Or how about the case of Army Specialist Adam Meckler? Meckler, who had recently ended his active duty tour, was dropping off records at the VFW in DC when they discovered a few rounds of ammunition in his bag left over from recreational shooting. Let me repeat that … a few rounds of ammo … not a gun … not a knife … not an RPG … a few rounds of 9mm ammo.

For that ‘crime’ Specialist Meckler was handcuffed, treated like a terrorist, arrested, and forced to accept a plea deal that will mark the honored veteran for the rest of his life. But will the same happen to Gregory? I don’t think so.

So let’s recap. Two soldiers, absent any evil intent, violate the strict letter of DC’s draconian gun control laws and end up getting no leniency from a justice system that serves anything but true justice.

However, David Gregory is told that he would be violating a law, continues to do so in front of thousands of witnesses, is on tape committing the crime, and will almost certainly not be charged.

Remember that when next you hear an anti-gunner talk about gun control. They don’t mean that the laws should apply to them. Equal protection of the laws means nothing when progressive elitists are those violating the law.

If those pushing gun control on normal Americans want to preserve any semblance of moral authority, they will rise up and call for Gregory’s immediate arrest and prosecution. If they do not, then it is prima facie proof that they are not in favor of gun laws but are simply anti-civil-rights.

Posted in Abuse of Discretion, Abuse of Power, David Gregory, District of Columbia, High Capacity Magazines, Media Views on The Second Amendment | 11 Comments

Democrats really DO want to take away your guns!

Democrats_Want_Your_GunsGun owners are a diverse group. In fact, I am fond of saying that “gun owners are as diverse as America.” Gun owners are both men and women … young and old … rich and poor. They come from all races, religions, and geographic regions. More importantly for purposes of this article, gun owners are just as likely to be Democrats as they are to be Republicans.

And that brings me to the sad topic of today’s article. Many of my friends are Democrats who have chosen that party for reasons other than gun rights and, as a Libertarian, I can respect that. The Republican party is opposed to many of the libertarian positions I espouse as well.

However, during the run-up to the last election, many of them tried to sway Libertarians to vote Democrat by implying that post-Heller, the battle for gun rights was over and I was paranoid for being concerned about a second term for President Obama from a gun rights perspective.

One of my more vocal friends posted on my Facebook page stating “You won … you won … you won! Gun rights are secure. Let’s talk about other topics now.” Another stated emphatically that “Democrats don’t want to take away your guns!

But if you haven’t been living under a rock the last week, you will know two things.  First you will know that there is true evil in the world and it is capable of ripping out the hearts and souls of Americans.  The second thing you will know is that Democrats were more than willing, anxious even, to exploit the tragedy (their word not mine) to immediately begin calling for gun bans.

Make no mistake about it. Democrats really do want to take away your guns!

On the same day that the nation was just learning of the extent of the damage done by a madman in Connecticut, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, called upon the president to ‘exploit‘ the tragedy to advance a gun control agenda.

And President Obama was more than willing to comply. After stating on Friday the 14th that the nation must take “meaningful action,” president Obama took the opportunity during a speech Sunday to let it be known that “meaningful action” meant gun control rather than any effort to make schools safer.

He admitted that laws will not eliminate such evil from the world but called for laws nonetheless.  He ended his speech on a chilling note for gun owners.  “I will use whatever power this office holds …

And early this week we saw just how significant that power was as, one after another, supposedly pro-gun Democrats betrayed the gun owners who had supported them and lined up obediently behind the president’s call for gun control.

West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, who enjoys an A rating from the NRA, announced that he was willing to back gun control and that “[e]verything has to be on the table.” He went on to join the president in attacking magazine-fed semi-auto rifles and normal capacity magazines stating “I don’t know anyone who in the hunting or sporting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting.

But Manchin was not to be the last. One of the Democrats I trusted the most on gun rights was next in line.  That was Virginia Senator and former governor Mark Warner, also A rated by the NRA. “Et tu Senator Warner?” Indeed the betrayal that stings most is that of a trusted ally. But betray us he did, joining Manchin in calling for a complete ban on magazine-fed semi-auto rifles.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was next. Despite his position in the Democrat Party, Senator Reid has, until now, resisted calls for gun control from within his own party and the NRA has rewarded him for it. But under pressure from the Obama Administration, Senator Reid signaled a willingness to allow gun control to progress in the Senate.

Bringing up the tail of this traitors list is Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania. He told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he would vote to ban both magazine-fed semi-auto rifles and normal capacity magazines.

But who will draft such a bill? It will have to be someone who know firearms well to insure that the Democrats do not step on the toes of the hunters who they insist they do not want to disarm. Thankfully ‘gun expert’ Diane Feinstein had just such a bill prepared.

If you didn’t feel the sarcasm dripping from the last paragraph then let me assure you that it was there. Hunters and sport shooters in California can tell you just how many popular models of firearms their ‘assault weapons’ ban has taken from them.

But Democrats are not ready to stop there. On December 18th, Democrat Bobby Rush of Illinois introduced HR 6680. This bill would institute national registration of gun owners. “And why is registration bad?” Because it is always a prelude to confiscation.

When I said this to one of the aforementioned friends in the Democrat party, he called me paranoid. But confiscation is exactly what is now being openly discussed in New York where Democrat Governor Andrew Cuomo eagerly declared that “Confiscation could be an option.” Perhaps sensing how that might play with normal Americans, he was quick to add that perhaps “mandatory sale to the state could be an option.

Liberal Democrat and MSNBC commentator Ed Schultz also called for the confiscation of all semi-auto firearms (including handguns) on his show last week. He told one caller that “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.

And to soften up the American people, Democrats have begun a systematic attack on gun owners in the media. Democrat grassroots organization CREDO staged a march against the NRA last Monday while blaming NRA members for the attack.

“After the shooter Adam Lanza, no one is more to blame for the massacre of 20 first graders and six women at the Sandy Hook Elementary School than the National Rifle Association.”

So I say this to my Democrat friends … “Never tell me again that your party does not stand in direct opposition to my rights as an American. They are enemies of gun owners and hate us in ways that countrymen should not hate one another.”

And to the rest of my friends I say this … “Democrats DO want to take your guns. They will come for semi-auto rifles today, handguns tomorrow, and eventually they WILL come for your single shot deer rifle! From this day forward, we must do everything we can to insure that they are defeated at the polls in every election, from dog catcher to president!

Those who know my libertarian views will certainly agree that I am not an apologist for the Republican Party but I now say this … “Open your wallets and donate your time because while the Republicans are nowhere near perfect, they are now all that stands between us and the destruction of the vision of a free America that we believe in. The Democrats have declared political war on gun owners and we must strike back where it counts … at the polls!

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Confiscation, Democrats, Registration | 13 Comments

7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home

In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.

The opinion is a joy to read as Judge Posner proceeds to shred the historical and public policy arguments against carry put forward by Illinois.

Here are some examples to warm your heart on this cold December afternoon:

Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at 628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home. Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592. Confrontations are not limited to the home.

….

Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.

A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress. But Illinois wants to deny the former claim, while compelled by McDonald to honor the latter.

That creates an arbitrary difference. To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.

The court has placed a 180 day stay to allow Illinois a chance to put together a shall-issue legislative solution in the state. But anyone familiar with Illinois politics can expect that the courts will be involved again before this issue is finally resolved in a constitutional manner.

In the meantime, this holding may be the first link in a chain that will finally put an end to the racist and discriminatory may-issue permitting schemes that still exist in a few less-enlightened states.

Merry Christmas America!

Posted in Chicago, Illinois, McDonald v. Chicago, Permit Requirements, Second Amendment Case Law, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals | 8 Comments

Bob Costas’ idea of an ‘apology’ is yet another attack on gun owners

Bob Costas is in trouble with football fans, a large majority of which are gun owners, and his insulting attempt at an apology is only adding fuel to the fire.

But let’s start at the beginning. It all started with FoxSports.com columnist Jason Whitlock.

In the wake of the media frenzy surrounding Jovan Belcher’s murder of his girlfriend and subsequent suicide, Whitlock penned an article in which he launched a scathing attack on the Second Amendment and those who value it.

He starts his rant with an assertion that the Second Amendment is threatening to the very liberty it purports to protect.

“We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.”

He then moves on to repeat the absurd cliche that the Second Amendment is irrelevant as a bulwark against an oppressive government because they could simply nuke the entire country.

“How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn’t protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?”

Not satisfied to stop there, he goes on to imply that domestic violence could not possibly end in death if a gun were not involved.

“Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead.”

“In the coming days, Belcher’s actions will be analyzed through the lens of concussions and head injuries. Who knows? Maybe brain damage triggered his violent overreaction to a fight with his girlfriend. What I believe is, if he didn’t possess/own a gun, he and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Now … while numerous commentators have noted that a man of Belcher’s size and strength would have little difficulty taking a life without a gun, Whitlock seemed determined to blame the instrument rather than the man who, in a fit of murderous rage, killed the mother of his child.

But he certainly isn’t alone in holding that strange opinion. Bob Costas dragged a very reluctant NBC into the controversy by expounding on Whitlock’s article during Sunday Night Football.

Since Sunday, NBC has been flooded with calls for Costas’ removal and today, he attempted to backpedal only to once again be goaded into attacking the heart of the Second Amendment.

“Here’s where I stand: I do not want to see the Second Amendment repealed. … People should be allowed to own guns for their own protection. Obviously, those who are hunters. … Access to guns is too easy in some cases. I don’t see any reason a citizen should be able to arm himself in some states in ways only police or military should — to have a virtual militia [by] mail order or gun shows. Why do you need a semi-automatic weapon? What possible use is there? … Whitlock wrote about a gun culture. That’s what I was focusing on.”

What possible use is there Bob? This single comment demonstrates just how far out of the mainstream that Costas is. And there are many others just like him.

They know nothing about the realities of the 20,000+ gun laws that are already on the books.

They know nothing about the laws that already prevent mail-order purchase of firearms unless they are shipped to a licensed dealer where a background will be performed.

They know nothing about the popularity and commonplace nature of semi-auto firearms, which make up a significant majority of the guns sold today.

They know nothing about the growing popularity of the shooting sports.

They just … know nothing.

Thankfully, there are just as many professional athletes who are willing to stand up and let their voices be heard. As reported in the NY Daily News, Chief’s defensive lineman Shaun Smith said:

“If you have daughters, you should [have a gun] …. You have to protect yourself. You work so hard to get to where you’re at, I’ll be damned if I’ll just let someone take it from me.”

Chief’s linebacker Brandon Siler joined Smith in his support for gun rights.

“Well, a majority of people own one, especially in the places where they’re legal. Most of the time they’re for self defense or sport.”

I want to thank those players for standing up for gun rights, and for the rights of their fellow athletes.

And I want to make one other thing perfectly clear … I will NEVER watch another sporting event if Bob Costas is in the booth.

UPDATE:  At the end of the interview quoted above, Costas is reported to have turned to the Aurora Colorado shooting.

“There are those who believe that denying a semi automatic weapon or an assault rifle is the first step down a slippery slope in denying an old lady a gun for her own protection, … There are people who honestly believe that in Aurora if only a dozen or so people there to watch the Batman movie had been packin’, they would have been able to take down the nut job in full body armor with military-type guns.

I don’t even know where to begin with this bucketful of nonsense.  Costas actually believes that over a dozen armed citizens, who I might add would be carrying the same handguns that law enforcement would, could not take down a single shooter armed with a semi-auto rifle (NOT military full-auto) and wearing paintball pads (not full body armor).

Perhaps I have overreacted to this entire affair. Perhaps instead of criticizing, I should be donating to a fund to support ole’ Bob in his dotage.  He clearly is already disconnected from reality.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', Celebrities, Gun Control, Media Views on The Second Amendment | 16 Comments

Guns fly out the door on Black Friday

This Black Friday marked a personal first for me.  I actually stood in line, in the cold, just to be one of the first shoppers allowed into a store when it opened at Midnight.

So what was I after?  Was it the latest electronics?  Could it have been a video game system?  Perhaps even a sale on tennis shoes?  No, no, and no.  The only thing that could have convinced me to engage in what I had always characterized as silly behavior was of course … cheap guns!

And I was certainly not the only one.  My brother-in-law and I were the first two in line, arriving at the Dick’s Sporting Goods in Johnson City Tennessee around 8:00 PM on Thanksgiving.  But we had no sooner setup our camp chairs than others began to arrive.  The next to arrive was a deaf shooter who showed us on the sale flyer that he was there to get one of the “doorbuster” gun safe specials.  And then, as if some invisible floodgates had opened, we were quickly joined by dozens and then hundreds of others who, by the time the store opened at midnight, were lined up around the block.

And despite the rowdy and even dangerous crowds reported at other stores, the line at Dick’s was orderly, polite, and full of people who exemplified why gun owners are some of the best people in America.  I had several six packs of soda in my van which I retrieved and shared. Another man was there with his father who made several trips to McDonald’s to get coffee for those in line.  And we all took turns holding each others’ places during bathroom breaks.

But perhaps the most inspiring thing of all was when an employee emerged at 11:30 to hand out tickets for the “doorbuster” gun safes.  Even though quantities were limited, those in line made sure that the deaf man, who couldn’t hear the employee’s announcement, got his ticket first before they got their own.  You will not find that level of consideration anywhere else and I was proud of my fellow sportsmen and women.

And that’s another thing that I found so promising about the night.  There were more women in line than men. One woman told us she was getting a shotgun for her teenage son for turkey hunting.  Another woman was a competitive shooter.  It was great to see this visible representation of a phenomenon we have all been talking about for years.

When the doors opened, the crowd did rush inside, but not so fast as to trample anyone or knock over merchandise.  Within 30 seconds of the door being unlocked, the gun counter had a crowd of hundreds surrounding it. From what I could see, the best selling guns were the Remington 700, the Ruger 10/22, and the Mossberg Maverick shotgun.  Even more popular than the guns themselves were the gun safes and the 50% sale on all ammunition. By morning, the shelves were stripped bare across the entire section.

This was not a local phenomenon either. Similar reports are coming in from all across the country. Colorado reported doing over 4,000 background checks on Black Friday while the number in California was reportedly over 10,000. I suspect that when all the numbers are finally in, this Black Friday will break all previous records for gun sales.

As for me, I am just glad that what started out as a rather miserable cold night turned into a celebration of what is still great about America; guns, freedom, and consideration for your fellow citizen.

Posted in Ammo Sales, Gun Sales | 3 Comments

Radford University’s self-defense ban goes into effect even as VCU sees huge increase in crime against students

Last week’s Virginia Register contained the final publication of Radford University’s campus weapons ban. This may seem rather sudden to those familiar with the rather long and complex ‘notice and comment’ process by which most regulations are promulgated in Virginia.  After all, the regulation was only first voted on by the Radford University Board of Visitors on Friday September 14th.

However, thanks to the ill-advised fast-track regulatory power granted to state-operated colleges and universities by § 2.2-4002(A)(6), the regulation becomes effective immediately upon publication without any public notice or comment period as would normally be the case with regulatory rulemaking.

It is with great sadness that I noted the final regulation bans not only firearms but also common self-defense products often carried by female students such as stun guns. Radford seems incredibly determined to eliminate any possible way that a student could possibly defend herself.

The publication of this regulation and the associated disarming of Radford’s adult students ironically comes on the heels of a massive crime spree against students at Virginia Commonwealth University.  Back on October 19th, VCDL ran the following in their VA-ALERT:

The violent crime spree at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond continues. There were THREE more robberies of students Tuesday night alone! As you recall, VCU had a town hall meeting on safety after another group of SIX robberies a few weeks ago. While adding more officers and hiring some unarmed security guards is supposed to help the crime problem, it isn’t a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination. Tuesday night shows the futility *and danger* of depending on someone else for your own defense.

BTW, VCU already has more police officers than any other Virginia university …

At the crime town hall meeting, the VCU Chief of Police seemed puzzled by the fact that criminals were coming from long distances to victimize VCU students. I wasn’t surprised. Violent criminals love a safe working environment and VCU’s unarmed students, faculty, and staff provide just that!

As a former Radford student, it saddens me to see yet another of Virginia’s fine public universities fall prey to illogical policymaking based upon emotion rather than logic.

As the students at VCU have discovered, they are the ones that pay the price of making colleges and universities a haven for criminals while administrators hold town hall meetings and helplessly wring their hands.

Posted in Abuse of Discretion, Abuse of Power, Administrative Regulations, Campus Carry, Virginia | 4 Comments

4th Circuit to hear oral arguments in two key gun rights cases

The oral arguments in Lane v. Holder (CA4 Case 11-1847) will take place next Tuesday, October 23rd at 9:30AM in room 201 (the ‘Green Courtroom’ ) of the Powell Courthouse in Richmond Virginia.  Lane is the first case docketed for the day in that courtroom so plan to be there early if you want to attend the Lane oral arguments.

One day later on Wednesday, October 24th, the 4th Circuit will hear oral arguments in Woollard v.  Gallagher (CA4 Case 12-1437).  Oral arguments are scheduled to begin at 9:30AM in room 412 (the ‘Red Courtroom’) but Woollard is currently scheduled as the last of the four cases docketed for that day.

Lane v. Holder

Lane v. Holder is a case challenging the federal prohibition on inter-state purchase of handguns and Virginia’s equivalent state law prohibition. The Plaintiff, Michelle Lane, lives in DC and, since the closure of DC’s only FFL, was unable to legally receive a handgun that she wished to purchase for personal protection.

The Timeline of The Case

The case was initially filed on May 10, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

On June 15, 2011, District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee dismissed the case on standing grounds.

On July 29, 2011, the plaintiff filed an appeal with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Woollard v. Gallagher

Woollard v. Gallagher is the appellate follow-up to the Maryland state case Woollard v. Sheridan which I have written about as it progressed.  For those unfamiliar with the case, it involves a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s discretionary carry permit issuance standards.

The timeline of The Case

The case was filed on June 29th, 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland

On March 2nd, 2012, District Judge Benson Legg granted summary judgement in favor of the Plaintiffs; striking down Maryland’s discriminatory issuance standards and effectively rendering Maryland a shall-issue state.

On March 30th, 2012, Judge Legg granted a temporary stay of the ruling to allow the state time to petition for a permanent stay.

On April 6th, 2012, the state appealed the ruling to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals as Woollard v. Gallagher.

On July 23rd, 2012, Judge Legg denied the state’s request for a permanent stay and lifted the temporary stay effective August 7th, 2012

On August 2nd, 2012, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay pending the outcome of the appeal

If You Plan to Attend Either Day

The address for the Powell Courthouse is:

1000 East Main Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219


View Larger Map

The 4th Circuit website also notes that the Bank Street entrance to the Courthouse is currently closed due to construction, requiring use of the Main Street entrance.

They also caution that all electronic devices are prohibited in the courthouse and that visitors must present photo id before being admitted.

Posted in Concealed Carry, District of Columbia, Federal Courts, Firearm Sales, Maryland, Permit Requirements, Virginia | 12 Comments

A seemingly confused President Obama takes stand against gun owners during debate

“[F]rankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s.”

– President Obama Oct 16, 2012

As co-founder and spokesperson for OpenCarry.org, I very much wanted to hear a question about guns put to the candidates. More specifically, like many Americans, I wanted to hear what kind of Supreme Court justices the candidates would nominate where gun rights are concerned.

In fact, we formulated a question that encompassed the core of these concerns and issued a press release urging that the candidates be asked the following:

A divided United States Supreme Court has twice ruled by way of razor thin 5 to 4 votes that the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

However the 4 dissenting justices in District of Columbia v. Heller stated that “self-defense . . . is not the [Second] Amendment’s concern.

If you are elected and have the occasion to nominate a Supreme Court justice, will you choose a nominee who believes that the Second Amendment is concerned with the individual right of self-defense, or one who believes that self-defense is not the Second Amendment’s concern?

However, when a question about guns was finally asked during tonight’s town-hall style debate it was nothing more than yet another attempt to resurrect support for the so-called ‘assault weapons ban’.

This question clearly played to the President’s ideology  and he took the opportunity to reiterate his support for the failed Clinton-era policy despite his admission that the violence in our cities is not being caused by sporting firearms. Nonetheless, he assured the crowd that he wants to ban them.

He followed this up with a number of statements that seem to indicate that he doesn’t even understand the difference between fully-automatic weapons and the semi-automatic sporting rifles that would actually be affected by the ban.

But don’t take my word for it. Here are some of his comments:

“[W]eapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.”

“[W]hat I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.”

Oh yes … If only someone would regulate fully-automatic firearms, silencers, explosives, and war ordinance.  You know … like the United States did in 1934 with the passage of the National Firearms Act.

That’s right folks.  The “automatic weapons … that were designed for soldiers in war theaters” are already heavily regulated and have been for almost 80 years. And yet the President of the United States is attempting to use them as an election issue in 2012.

So we are left with two possibilities.

One … he is so insulated from mainstream America that he truly believes that anyone can walk into a gun store and emerge with a fully-automatic firearm.

Or two … he is purposefully mis-stating the facts in order to take advantage of undecided voters who are unfamiliar with the country’s firearms laws.

In either case, it is conduct unbecoming of a president and a clear attack on the rights of gun owners.

And in the meantime, Governor Romney continues to imply that he might support gun control if it were brought to him by a bi-partisan group “coming together.

People may argue for days as to whether Romney or Obama won the debate but I do know who lost … the truth.

Posted in 'Assault Weapons', General Civil Rights, President Obama, Presidential Politics | 14 Comments

University of Mary Washington finalizes their gun ban

“Because professors, staff and students are precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.”

Holly Adams (mother of VA Tech Victim)

Located in Fredericksburg Virginia and with campuses in Stafford and Dahlgren, the University of Mary Washington is undeniably part of Virginia’s strong commitment to excellent public colleges and universities.

Unfortunately, UMW (which prides itself on being named after the mother of George Washington), has joined many of Virginia’s other fine public institutions in the very un-American act of rendering adult students, faculty, and staff defenseless.

In today’s Virginia Register, UMW’s finalized campus gun ban was published (putting it into full force and effect).  Codified at 8VAC55-10 through 8VAC55-30, the prohibition reads:

8VAC55-10-10. Definitions.
The following words and terms when used in this chapter shall have the following meanings unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:

“Police officer” means law-enforcement officials appointed pursuant to Article 3 (§ 15.2-1609 et seq.) of Chapter 16 or Chapter 17 (§ 15.2-1700 et.seq.) of Title 15.2, Chapter 17 (§ 23-232 et seq.) of Title 23, Chapter 2 (§ 29.1-200 et seq.) of Title 29.1, or Chapter 1 (§ 52-1 et seq.) of Title 52 of the Code of Virginia or sworn federal law-enforcement officers.

“University property” means any property owned, leased, or controlled by the University of Mary Washington.

“Weapon” means any (i) pistol, revolver, or other weapon designed or intended to propel a missile of any kind; (ii) any dirk, bowie knife, switchblade knife, ballistic knife, razor slingshot, spring stick, metal knucks, or blackjack; (iii) any flailing instrument consisting of two or more rigid parts connected in such manner as to allow them to swing freely, which may be known as nun chahka, nun chuck, nunchaku, shuriken, or fighting chain; or (iv) any disc, of whatever configuration, having at least two points or pointed blades that is designed to be thrown or propelled and that may be known as throwing star or oriental dart.

8VAC55-10-20. Possession of weapons prohibited.
Possession or carrying of any weapon by any person, except a police officer, is prohibited on university property in academic buildings, administrative office buildings, student residence buildings, dining facilities, or athletic facilities or while attending sporting, entertainment or educational events. Entry upon the aforementioned university property in violation of this prohibition is expressly forbidden.

8VAC55-10-30. Person lawfully in charge.
In addition to individuals authorized by university policy, University of Mary Washington police officers are lawfully in charge for the purposes of forbidding entry upon or remaining upon university property while possessing or carrying weapons in violation of this prohibition.

UMW joins the over half-a-dozen other Virginia colleges and universities (including Radford, JMU, and VA Tech) that have moved to promulgate regulations following the opinion by Attorney General Cuccinelli that regulations, which have the force and effect of law, trump Virginia’s concealed handgun permit law.

Attorney General Cuccinelli based his opinion on the holding in DiGiacinto v. Rector and Visitors of George Mason University and § 18.2-308(o) of the code of Virginia which states:

[t]he granting of a concealed handgun permit shall not thereby authorize the possession of any handgun or other weapon on property or in places where such possession is otherwise prohibited by law[.]

Since properly promulgated regulations have the force and effect of law, this generalized prohibition on the otherwise broad recognition of right-to-carry by permit holders withstands judicial review according to the Virginia Supreme Court.

This trend has also been facilitated by the fact that under current law, Commonwealth operated colleges and universities are largely immune to the requirements of the Virginia Administrative Process Act.

There are three distinct legislative remedies that gun owners need to seek in upcoming legislative sessions to address this problem.

1)  Remove the generalized prohibition in § 18.2-308(o) and require all prohibitions on the right-to-carry be specifically added to § 18.2-308 by the duly elected legislature rather than by administrative agencies.

2)  Enact a code section which extends preemption to the actions of administrative agencies. Virginia already preempts localities and their agents from regulating firearms in § 15.2-915.

3)  Remove the fast track administrative powers of Commonwealth operated colleges and universities where such administrative action will impact visitors and third-parties.

It is truly sad that an institution named after George Washington’s mother has chosen to follow the same path our founding fathers struggled against.

Posted in Abuse of Discretion, Abuse of Power, Administrative Regulations, Campus Carry, Virginia | 10 Comments

Appeals court judge immediately lifts injunction on NDAA indefinite detention

“If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”

– Christopher Hedges

For those just joining us, here is a quick recap of the action so far …

On May 16th of this year, New York Judge Katherine B. Forrest issued a temporary injunction against the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA in the case of Hedges v. Obama.

On Friday September 12th, Judge Forrest handed down her final holding in the Hedges case, making the injunction permanent and taking the Obama Administration to task for the broad, unconstitutional language which can be interpreted to allow the arrest and indefinite detention of American citizens, on American soil, without warrant or charges.

On Saturday, September 13th, the Obama Administration filed an appeal with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Sunday, September 14th, I wrote about Judge Forrest’s decision and applauded her for bringing the nation back from the brink of a constitutional abyss. In that article, I noted it had only taken a day for the administration to appeal and it seemed odd that a president who insists he will never use this power is working so hard to defend it.

On Monday, September 17th, the Obama Administration filed a request for an emergency stay of Judge Forrrest’s injunction. And by the end of the day, they had it, issued by 2nd Circuit Court Judge Raymond Lohier. The emergency stay will last until September 28th, when a three-judge appellate panel will hear the administration’s argument for making the stay permanent.

Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Christopher Hedges, the named first plaintiff in the case against the administration and a noted progressive, pulled no punches when told of the administrations actions on Monday.

“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush … Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”

America, and the world, waits to see whether the US Constitution will survive.

Posted in Abuse of Discretion, Abuse of Power, Democrats, Federal Courts, Fourth Amendment, General Civil Rights, National Politics, NDAA, President Obama, Presidential Politics | 5 Comments