Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Gun Control Laws Increasingly Irrelevant as 3D Printed Rifle Receiver Fires Hundreds of Rounds - Hit & Run : Reason.com
Thursday, February 21, 2013
we like litigation too much
while we're at it let's sue car manufactures when people kill one another with cars
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
They do want disarmament
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President
On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases.
The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know -- just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.
To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks” click here.
THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM
NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) , and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.
“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Decorated Combat Veteran arrested in New York: Charged With 5 Felonies For Possession of AR Magazines
A Left Argument for Gun Rights
Monday, February 11, 2013
Sunday, February 10, 2013
I ran across this article on WaPo. I think a reasonable point is made here by Sen. Nancy Jacobs in opposition to State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger. There is a fine line between regulation and restriction. When you are dealing with a right, you need to take into account how the right you are trying to "regulate" can "restrict" other rights. Restricting the right to yell fire in a theater makes sense, restricting the right to peacably assemble to enjoy entertainment does not. Restricting the rights to of violent criminals, those deemed mentally unfit and those who would supply the prior two classes with firearms (straw purchasers) makes sense. Restricting those who lawfully purchase and own firearms for defense of all types (self-defense and tyranny included), hunting, competition and target shooting does not. Perform your background check, keep the databases up to date and let people be.
“We all agree that the First Amendment right, the freedom of speech, is not absolute,” Shellenberger said. “We all agree that you cannot walk into a crowded theater and yell fire. So if we can agree that the First Amendment freedom . . . of speech has reasonable limitations we should be able to find a place where the Second Amendment has reasonable limitations.”
Sen. Nancy Jacobs (R-Harford), the committee’s most outspoken opponent of O’Malley’s plan, said the comparison to gun ownership didn’t work.
“We don’t prevent people from going to the movies in the off chance that they might yell fire,” Jacobs said.
See this link for the full story.