Tell the Truth About 'Gun Violence' Numbers

One would get the impression listening to gun control advocates or, indeed, to President Obama and those Democrats vying to succeed him that the United States is in the midst of an epidemic of violence; awash in blood with murderers and mass killers roaming the streets carrying guns they've bought at gun shows, over the Internet or from crazed neighbors. In fact, many Americans share this view. A recent Pew poll asked respondents if they believe the U.S. homicide rate has gone up or down over the last twenty years. Fifty-six percent of those polled said it has gone up and only twelve percent believed we are safer today than two decades ago.
The perception here and abroad has little to do with reality and a lot to do with political grandstanding. In fact, over the last twenty years or so the U.S. homicide rate has not just receded, but has been cut in half. The United States does indeed have a higher homicide rate than some industrialized nations in Europe and Japan, but is very, very different in size and complexity to those nations usually cited by those who wish to blame guns for the differences.

Here is one simple fact for those who blame firearms ownership and availability in this country for the murder and violent crime rate that plagues some of our major cities: while crime and violence were being cut in half, gun ownership was doubling.
It is too simple to claim that there is less violence in the United States today because more of our citizens are armed, but it is clear that there is no correlation between the number of guns in private hands with either the murder or violent crime rates as claimed by most gun control advocates.
The president likes to talk about ‘gun violence’ which is something that includes firearms accidents, suicides and those killed with guns. There are statistically very few firearms accidents in this country thanks to safety training and common sense. Two-thirds of all gun deaths are suicides and while some claim that making it more difficult for potential suicides to get guns would decrease the total number of suicides, international data suggest otherwise. That leaves two additional categories although former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's groups lump those killed by police and even the death of the Boston Marathon Bomber as a firearms homicide. They are criminal gun violence and so-called mass shootings.
Criminals using firearms are the biggest problem, but it is a problem we as a society know how to handle. If a thug walks into a convenience store with a gun and robs it, he has committed both a state and federal crime. Robbery is a state crime, but committing a felony with a firearm is a federal crime and prosecutable as such with a five year minimum sentence. A felon in possession of a gun is also prosecutable and can get five to ten years for having one in his possession.

Back in the nineties, the NRA partnered with law enforcement officials and prosecutors in Richmond, Virginia, which was at that time listed as America's murder capital. The message was simple. Use a gun to commit a crime and you will get five years in a federal penitentiary with no possibility of a plea bargain. The murder rate dropped 32 percent the first year and another 20 percent the next, but the U.S. attorney who participated in what came to be known as “Project Exile” was criticized by Eric Holder, then Deputy Attorney General, for wasting prosecutorial resources.
Today felons or criminals using firearms are rarely prosecuted by the federal government. In fact, today's U.S. murder capital is Chicago, the jurisdiction with the lowest rate of such prosecutions. Before President Obama issued his recent series of “Executive Orders” on gun violence, it was suggested that they would include instructions to U.S. prosecutors to begin charging gun criminals under existing law. That idea was dropped in favor of actions that don't target criminals, but will make it harder for non-criminals to buy firearms.
The final category involves mass shootings such as the killing at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and the Washington Navy Yard. These tragedies rarely if ever involve criminals. They are invariably perpetrated by the severely and dangerously mentally ill. This category of violence is the most difficult to deter or prevent, but beefed up school security, getting the states to put the most potentially dangerous into the background check system and rebuilding the U.S. mental health system are the keys to dealing with them.
The American people are lucky in that the nation's founders wrote the age old right of self defense into our Bill of Rights. Many nations don't recognize such a right, but Americans do. It is estimated, in fact, that as many as 200,000 crimes are deterred in a typical year by armed potential victims. It's why in every jurisdiction that has legalized what we call ‘concealed carry’ has seen a drop in violent crime. Burglars don't break into a house with a Rottweiler in the yard and are reluctant to use violence against a man or woman who just might be able to fight back.
source

NRA Statement on President Obama’s Proposed Executive Actions on Gun Control

Fairfax, Va. – The executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement on Tuesday regarding President Barack Obama’s Executive Gun Control Order:

Once again, President Obama has chosen to engage in political rhetoric, instead of offering meaningful solutions to our nation’s pressing problems.  Today’s event also represents an ongoing attempt to distract attention away from his lack of a coherent strategy to keep the American people safe from terrorist attack.

The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts.  The men and women of the National Rifle Association take a back seat to no one when it comes to keeping our communities safe.  But the fact is that President Obama’s proposals would not have prevented any of the horrific events he mentioned.  The timing of this announcement, in the eighth and final year of his presidency, demonstrates not only political exploitation but a fundamental lack of

seriousness.

The proposed executive actions are ripe for abuse by the Obama Administration, which has made no secret of its contempt for the Second Amendment.  The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.  We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be harassed or intimidated for engaging in lawful, constitutionally-protected activity – nor will we allow them to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.

Cornyn’s NRA-Backed Mental Health Bill Needs to Address Key Questions

Via David Codrea

 “A+”-rated* Sen. John Cornyn has the National Rifle Association’s backing for a “modest” bill “that would reward states for sending more information about residents with serious mental problems to the federal background check system for firearms purchasers,” Fox News is reporting. The legislation is generating no small amount of debate among gun rights advocates, with some supporting it as a pragmatic move designed to thwart more draconian proposals, and others characterizing it as a preemptive surrender (and worse).

Without getting into that debate, because there will be plenty of others weighing in on both sides, I’d instead like to just ask a few questions that all who are interested in due process ought to be interested in seeing answered. By way of disclosure, my longstanding contention is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, but that’s not likely to be reflected in social policy anytime soon, so it’s not the focus here.
Backers of the bill tell us “due process” protections will be increased for veterans and others under Cornyn’s bill. Per his spokesman, “This bill codifies into law that individuals must get their day in court they’re entitled to, and no agency or state can make their own determination without that.”
It would help if we knew what protections equivalent to those provided in a jury trial  that will provide. Specifically, will decisions rely on those who may have biases of their own, as can currently be the case, with ATF’s “clarifying the term ‘adjudicated as a mental defective’ to mean a determination by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority,” and with some states applying even broader “standards”?
What protections will exist to offset politically-connected anti-gun judges, politically-appointed boards, and “expert” adherents of the American Psychiatric Association’s “Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services.” It’s fair to ask, because APA includes in its advocacy platform registration-enabling, background checks, “smart” guns, storage requirements, “gun-free” zones, doctor-patient boundary violations, tax-funded anti-gun “studies,” all outside the scope of the training and credentialing of those making these proposals.
Significantly though, even APA admits:

Only a small proportion of individuals with a mental disorder pose a risk of harm to themselves or others.

Casting a wide net and leaving the shot-calling up to those with subjective political motivations has historical precedence – predominantly in “gun control” havens.
Also of interest – or it should be – how will rights be restored when there is no longer a compelling mental health prescription to deny them? What universal appeal mechanism – affordable to all, not just to elites for whom money is no object – will exist to declare a person is once more “eligible” to keep and bear arms? What guarantees are there that the same biases that colored the disability ruling in the first place won’t reassert themselves in the “parole” process? And have we identified psychiatric evaluators, risk management administrators and insurers who will be willing to subject themselves to malpractice liabilities should a person deemed “fit” be misdiagnosed? Or will the pressure be to “err on the side of caution”?

Read the whole thing Here

Gun-banners are after more than the 2nd Amendment

Via JPFO

By Donald L. Cline. June 24th, 2015

I am a Constitutional scholar and a pro-right to keep and bear arms activist. I am writing today to bring to the attention of the ----NRA members and leadership a fundamental issue everyone seems to be ignoring: The right to keep and bear arms is not the only right being assaulted today by the anti-rights gun-banners, and we are helping them accomplish their objective! It is time to stop helping our enemies.
When the Brady Act of 1993 was proposed, with its attended Form 4473 interrogation and NICS check, the NRA leadership thought it was a good idea. Apparently the NRA leadership did not realize it was a stalking horse. The object was not to reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms, and its backers knew it. And in fact it has not reduce violent crime or criminal access to firearms. Not one bit. The object was to sucker gun owners into supporting destruction of their Fourth Amendment-guaranteed right to be secure from unwarranted interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause of criminal conduct.
The object was also to confiscate from citizens their right to keep and bear arms without due process, and replace it with a government-issued privilege which could be permitted or denied by a faceless bureaucrat in some FBI basement boileroom.
The object was also to further erode – let’s face it, destroy, once and for all – our 10th Amendment-guaranteed right to a federal government exercising only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and a State government exercising only those powers not prohibited to it by the Constitution.

•   Interrogation and search and seizure of rights without probable cause: The purchase or transfer of a firearm is not probable cause of criminal conduct.
•   The taking our RIGHT to keep and bear arms without due process: A compelled interrogation and search under color of bogus law is not due process.
•   The federal government doesn’t even have the authority to license gun dealers or commission ATF agents or to monitor, notice, oversee, infringe upon or interfere with our right to keep and bear arms in any way.
•   Government does not have the lawful power to command the waiver of a right as a precondition to allowing you to exercise a right.
•   In fact, government does not have the lawful power to allow or deny the exercise of a right in the first place: State government have the Police Power to regulate the USE of arms – when, where, under what safety regulations, under what criteria for self-defense (so long as self-defense is not prohibited) – but under the 2nd Amendment and the prohibition clause of the 10th Amendment, even State governments have no lawful power to ‘regulate’ the right to keep and bear arms.
•   Article VI of the U.S. Constitution binds the judges to the supreme Law of the Constitution, the laws or Constitution of any State notwithstanding.

People are actually proud of the fact they have met government criteria to allow them to exercise a right government has no authority to allow or deny, when in fact they have waived their right to keep and bear arms AND their right to be secure from interrogation and search in the absence of probable cause AND their right to due process. When government decides to confiscate firearms, gun owners won’t have anything to say about it: They have waived their rights. ALL of their rights under the Rule of Law.
The have rendered the first nation in the history of the planet to establish the rights of citizens superior to the arbitrary whims of kings and princes and neighborhood warlords irrelevant and moot.
Compelled background checks is and was a stalking horse: Now the next step is being undertaken: Constitutional subversive Michael Bloomberg and his wealthy cronies are going around the country buying voter initiatives to expand these bogus background checks into what they call “Universal Background Checks.” The law is now in effect in Washington State, Oregon and Colorado, and is about to be voted on in Nevada and Arizona and Maine. Once this color of law is entrenched, whether it is enforced or not, the next step will be to require background checks for anyone wishing to speak out against government tyranny. Compelled background checks for anyone wishing to exercise their right to march in a protest rally. Compelled background checks for anyone petitioning government for redress of grievances. You must prove your ideas are not a threat to government, don’tcha know?
Background checks MUST be voted down. And the illegal, bogus, unconstitutional color of law known as the Brady Act of 1993 must be struck down with extreme prejudice. Not one crime has ever been prevented by the Brady Act.

Donald L. Cline
frdmftr@frdmftr.net
www.frdmftr.net

Gun blogger, others sue ATF over records request

 Via David Codrea

Three gun rights advocates sued the ATF on Tuesday after filing a records request they say wasn’t fulfilled by the federal agency.   

David Codrea, a pro-gun blogger, Len Savage, a federally-licensed gun dealer and the FFL Defense Research Center, a not-for-profit corporation that defends federal firearms license holders, claim the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives failed to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act request filed in March.

The FOIA request asked for clarification on how the ATF classifies firearms receivers, specifically how complete the component must be to be considered a firearm.

“Phrased otherwise, the point when a ‘receiver blank’ becomes a ‘receiver.’ … We have heard reference to ’80% complete’ as the standard, but whether this is correct, and if so, what features make it so complete, we cannot find,” the complaint read.

Codrea called the ATF’s determination process contradictory.

“The information requested is critical to ensure that citizens don’t suffer penalties due to conflicting rulings. Without clear policies, enforcing compliance and demanding accountability can become inconsistent and arbitrary,” Codrea wrote on Thursday.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs filed the request  March 12 and the federal agency failed to provide the documentation within the mandatory 20-day period, which expired April 13.

The ATF declined to comment citing the lawsuit and the federal agency’s policy against commenting on litigation.

ATF Wants To Go After All 5.56 mm Ammunition, Not Just Green Tip

Via Herschel @ The Captain's Journal

"What Jones is telling the Congress is that he wants their help in banning rifle ammunition.  Rifle ammunition.  All of it.  They will start with 5.56 mm ammunition, green tip, lead ball, pointed soft point – all of it.  Then they will make it clear that all other rifle ammunition is as lethal as 5.56 mm ammunition, so they need a ban on that too."




http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/03/12/atf-wants-to-go-after-all-5-56-mm-ammunition-not-just-green-tip/



 Pay special attention to the following..

***Here’s a warning flag to all the Elmer Fudds out there who only care about your bolt action hunting rifles, and think this stuff about AR-15s is all just a bunch of made up theater to bother pampered folk like you.  They want your rifles and ammunition too.  You do understand that, don’t you?***

All the hunters who have never fired an A-R , and believe that BATFEIEIO's nonsense,combined with the anti-gun zealots nonsense about "assault rifles" doesn't affect them better start paying attention.
I know this one's been used and abused,but the modified version applies here...
First they came for the M855
I didn't speak out,because I don't use M855 
Then they came for the M856
I didn't speak out,because I don't use M856
Then they came for_____________
You know the rest.

Stand up,speak out-there are evil people in our government-evil people who seek to control every aspect of your life.
These evil people can't gain control unless they disarm us first-they are afraid of an armed populace-they are afraid because we can fight back against they're unconstitutional actions.
That's why they want to ban the ammo-all of it-every centerfire rifle caliber- All. Of. It.
Every caliber.
What are hunters going to hunt with if all centerfire rifle ammo is banned?
Pay attention hunters-
Stand up! Speak Out! Fight Back!

Sensenbrenner Bill Would Abolish ATF Over Bullet Ban

A House Republican is introducing legislation to abolish the beleaguered Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives amid a contentious debate over the agency's proposed ban on a bullet used in AR-15 rifles.

Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said the policies under ATF's jurisdiction could be easily incorporated into other agencies, The Hill reports.

And, he adds, the agency has been caught up in too many controversies in recent years, including the botched "Fast and Furious" gun-tracking operation.

"The ATF is a scandal-ridden, largely duplicative agency that lacks a clear mission," the lawmaker said, according to The Hill. "Its 'Framework' is an affront to the Second Amendment and yet another reason why Congress should pass the ATF Elimination Act."

The agency has come under fire recently for its proposed ban on some types of 5.56 mm rounds used in widely available and popular AR-15-style rifles because the bullets can also be used in some new types of handguns.

Republicans also have complained \hunters frequently use the bullets, The Hill notes.

But the bureau says it initiated the regulation to help protect law enforcement officers from bullets that can pierce armored vests – a contention that has been shot down by the leader of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Sensenbrenner's bill would transfer the ATF's functions related to guns, explosives and violent crime to the FBI; responsibilities regarding alcohol and tobacco laws would fall under the Drug Enforcement Administration's jurisdiction, The Hill reports.

The ATF director would have 180 days, or about six months, to submit a plan to Congress on how to wind down the agency.

Michigan Rep. John Conyers, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, previously introduced a bill in 1993 to turn over the ATF's duties to other parts of the Justice Department.

Meanwhile, 239 members of the House have now signed a letter opposing the bullet ban, Fox News reports.

“This attack on the Second Amendment is wrong and should be overturned,” Virginia Republican Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who started the petition, told Fox News. "A clear, sizable majority of the House agree."

Source- http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/sensenbrenner-bill-bullet-ban-abolish/2015/03/05/id/628598/

Court filing argues post-1986 machine gun ban 'defies Constitution'

 


 Via David Codrea...

Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.”
Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Holder and Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

 That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection.

Read the rest @ http://www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution?CID=examiner_alerts_article