As Paris and Brussels reel, London’s Met Police say: Hand over your BB guns

UK Shooting News

The Metropolitan Police have launched a two week gun surrender, urging members of the public to hand in lawfully owned ” imitation weapons, BB guns and air weapons”.

There are no restrictions on owning imitation firearms or BB guns, though you must be 18 to buy them. Airguns are subject to some of the controls on firearms, mainly on having a clean criminal record.
Coming on the heels of the EU gun ban proposals, the recent attack on Paris and the seemingly thwarted attack on Brussels, demanding that innocent people hand over lawfully owned toys is a pathetic response.
The Met insists that people handing over firearms (or, indeed, children’s plastic toys, which if coloured black or grey now fall under the classification ‘realistic imitation firearm’) “may not face prosecution for illegal possession and can remain anonymous”, though immediately continues its statement by saying “some weapons [will be] forensically checked for evidence”.
Actual firearms can also be handed in to local police stations during the surrender.
The term ‘surrender’ is used in order to allow police to mount prosecutions against people who hand in firearms or toys. Previously such initiatives were labelled ‘amnesties’, which UK Shooting News understands implied immunity from prosecution.
Detective Superintendent Stephen Clayman of the Trident and Area Crime Command said, in a canned press release: “We are asking Londoners to hand in firearms and imitation weapons to avoid them falling into the wrong hands. In an inappropriate setting, imitation weapons will cause fear and panic, and could lead to a police response involving the deployment of armed police officers, with potentially tragic results.”
UKSN’s standard advice if you have an unwanted firearm or come into possession of one, for example through an elderly relative’s death, is to contact your local gun shop immediately. Registered Firearms Dealers will in most cases be quite happy to help you safely and lawfully dispose of firearms without exposing you to the risk of overzealous police employees trying to make you into their next arrest and conviction statistic.
In 2009 Surrey Police arrested a man who found a shotgun in his garden and took it to his local police station for unlawful possession of a firearm. He was later convicted of the offence, which carries up to 5 years in prison – but escaped with a suspended sentence. Unlawful possession is a strict liability offence, meaning your intentions count for nothing in court.

What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Guns

  You may encounter the question in your health plan’s standard health appraisal questionnaire. Even though it may not be of your doctor’s making, it’s still part of your permanent medical record. Or your doctor may have a personal prejudice against gun ownership, shaped by her training in medical school or residency. Either way, it is important for people to know some very important facts:

• Doctors receive absolutely no training about firearm safety, mechanics, or tactics in medical school or residency. They are completely unqualified by their training to advise anyone about guns.

• Gun ownership is a civil right. A doctor’s abuse of his position of trust to pressure you to give up that civil right is professionally and morally wrong. In some states it is illegal. You DO NOT have to tolerate it.

• You as a consumer have great power in the doctor-patient relationship. Do not be afraid to use it.

A range of options is available to you, some sending a more powerful message than others. These are updated from DRGO’s original recommendations, since the medical profession has changed so much in the last two decades.

1) Politely refuse to answer the doctor’s question or the health plan’s questionnaire item about guns. You can either explain your discomfort with the question or decline to give a reason.

2) If the gun question(s) appears on your health plan’s routine health assessment questionnaire, file a formal written complaint with the health plan. Every health plan has a member complaint process, often prescribed by law. Your complaint will be registered and the health plan will respond.

3) If the health plan responds with the excuse that their questions about your guns are standard medical practice that they must follow, you can take the complaint to the next step—file a written complaint with your state agency that regulates health plans. For example, in California you would follow the complaint procedure on the Department of Managed Health Care web site. It’s your right as a patient under California law.

4) If your doctor persists in asking intrusive questions about guns in your home, you can also file a complaint specifically against him or her with your health plan. Such complaints are taken seriously, and the doctor will be called to account for it. Having one or more complaints about ethical boundary violations on her record will make her think twice about doing it again.

5) Internet consumer rating sites have created another way doctors can be publicly rated on the basis of service, attitude, and behavior. Some commonly used rating sites are Yelp.com, Healthgrades.com, Vitals.com, and RateMDs.

6) Increasingly, doctors’ pay from Medicare and insurance companies is tied to how they score on patient satisfaction surveys. These are often sent randomly to patients, but you can request one to fill out. You can have a powerful impact on a doctor’s conduct by reporting the doctor’s unethical questioning about your guns.

7) If the doctor’s conduct is especially offensive, as was the case with this Florida pediatrician, you have the right to submit a complaint to the doctor’s licensing board. This is an agency in your state government that holds the ultimate power of licensure over your doctor. A quick internet search for “medical board” in your state should take you to the official form for filing a complaint. This is a step that should not be taken lightly.

Remember when writing your complaint to be polite. Explain why you find the doctor’s or health plan’s behavior unacceptable. Include the powerful points we’ve discussed:

• Your doctor is professionally unqualified to give expert advice on firearms

• Your right to own firearms is a civil right that is none of your doctor’s business

• A doctor misusing his or her authority and trust to push a political agenda of gun control is an ethical boundary violation. Such unprofessional conduct is not acceptable.

Your right to own a firearm is enshrined in the Constitution. Don’t let any doctor or health plan intimidate you into giving up your civil rights.

Download the DRGO Resource Document “What to Do When Your Doctor Asks About Your Guns” here 

 source

Warning: Federal Court Rules that 2nd Amendment Right is Now a Reason for Cops to Detain You

Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.
The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.
Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.
The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.
The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.
The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.
Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”
Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.
In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”
When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.
The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.
It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.
Sound off in the comments!
Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!
Read the decision below.

Johann Deffert court documents

Source   http://thefreethoughtproject.com/federal-court-rules-police-detain-individuals-open-carrying-firearms/

Gun rights in California: court to hear another showdown

By Howard Mintz

hmintz@mercurynews.com

It is time for another duel over gun rights in California.

In a hearing set for Tuesday in San Francisco, a special 11-judge federal appeals court panel will consider whether to side with the gun lobby's effort to dramatically loosen California's restrictions on carrying concealed firearms.

While the case involves challenges to regulations in San Diego and Yolo Counties, it has implications for local gun control efforts across the state, including most Bay Area counties that have similar restrictions in place.

And depending on how the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rules, the outcome could force the U.S. Supreme Court to address what many legal experts consider one of the most important unresolved issues in the gun debate -- how far the constitutional right to bear arms extends outside the home.

Concord resident Alany Helmantoler carries her unloaded firearm as she waits to have dinner outside a restaurant in this 2011 file photo. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group archive)

"It may be the biggest unanswered question in the Second Amendment," said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. "This is a big question and an important one."

The 9th Circuit case has attracted national attention, in part because the court is reconsidering an earlier ruling that broke new ground by invalidating San Diego's strict but common guidelines for issuing concealed-carry gun permits. In that ruling last year, a divided three-judge panel found San Diego's restrictions trampled on the Second Amendment rights of private citizens to carry a gun for self-defense.

After a tortured procedural battle, prompted by San Diego abandoning defense of the law, the 9th Circuit voted on its own to rehear the case. Most legal experts predict the court is likely to uphold the regulations, particularly given that much of the 11-judge panel is comprised of liberal to moderate Democratic appointees.


The judges in recent months have been inundated with legal arguments pitting the gun lobby against gun control advocates and Attorney General Kamala Harris, who urged the 9th Circuit to uphold such regulations.
The case was triggered by a former police officer, Edward Peruta, who is backed by groups such as the National Rifle Association. Peruta sued San Diego County in 2010 when he was denied a concealed carry permit because authorities found he did not prove "good cause" for needing one.
Twenty-one states have jumped into the case backing Peruta, arguing that regulations such as San Diego's violate the right to bear arms in self-defense. Among other arguments, gun rights groups say their position is backed by two major U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the past decade striking down bans on handguns in the home.
Chuck Michel, a top lawyer for the NRA, said gun control groups are waging war on those rulings in the lower courts.
"They want to make (them) mean essentially nothing," he said. "That it's no protection at all of those (Second Amendment) rights."
But gun control groups argue that local law enforcement has a right to restrict concealed carry of weapons to protect public safety. Major California law enforcement organizations have backed gun control groups in the case.
"The reality is that this completely affects the law throughout the state," said Mike McLively, attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.


Striking down such restrictions would be a sea change for most Bay Area counties, where sheriffs generally require applicants to show evidence their safety is at such great risk that it can only be addressed by giving them a permit to carry a gun.
State law generally discourages concealed weapons in public but leaves it to local authorities to regulate exceptions. By state law, requirements for concealed-carry permits include demonstrating "good moral character," taking a training course and establishing "good cause." Gun rights groups say those requirements arbitrarily result in gun owners being denied permits.
Harris, however, argued that imposing strict limits is constitutional, telling the court they "do not burden the core Second Amendment right to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
Three other federal appeals courts have already upheld such regulations, making it unclear whether the Supreme Court might get involved. Legal experts say the high court is reluctant to take on new gun rights cases, citing the justices' refusal last week to hear a hotly contested challenge to a San Francisco gun control law.
But if there is anything the two sides in the debate agree on, it's that the Supreme Court might have no choice but to clarify its previous rulings, in 2008 and 2010, finding a right to possess guns in the home for self-defense. And the Peruta case may be the right legal vehicle.
"After (those decisions), one of the big questions is does the Second Amendment apply outside the home," said McLively. "Getting an answer to that question is important in terms of policy."

Obama admin asserts dominion over creeks, streams, wetlands, ditches — even big puddles

President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.
The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority.


“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.
The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.
“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” McCarthy said. “This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science.”

The Supreme Court has twice questioned the breadth of powers decreed under the Clean Water Act, prompting Wednesday’s actions.
McCarthy claimed the new powers would “not interfere with private property rights or address land use.”
“It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”
Not surprisingly, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, THE top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, loves the plan.
“The Obama administration listened to all perspectives and developed a final rule that will help guarantee safe drinking water supplies for American families and businesses and restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness to the Clean Water Act,” she said in a statement.
 House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said:
“EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond, and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs. The House is committed to fighting back against this radical policy, which is why we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this month to stop the EPA in their tracks from moving forward with this misguided proposal. It’s time for President Obama’s EPA to abandon these radical proposals, all in the name of protecting wetlands and waterways, that instead will only lead to more American jobs being shipped overseas at the expense of the American economy.”

Source  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/27/obama-admin-asserts-dominion-over-creeks-streams-w/

 “Indian Chief “Two Eagles was asked by a white U.S. government official, “You have observed the white mand for 90 years.  You’ve seen his wars and his technological advances.  You’ve seen his progess, and the damage he’s done.”

The Chief nodded in agreement.

The official continued, “Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?”

The Chief stared at the government official then replied,

“When white man find land, Indians running it, not taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, clean water.  Women do all the work, medicine man free, Indian man spend all day hunting and fishing all night having sex.”

Then the Chief leaned back and smiled, “Only white man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.”

Police chiefs group offers drone-use policy

h/t Wirecutter

Model law enforcement drone guidelines: No weapons, limit deployment, keep them in operator's sight

SAN DIEGO — Police agencies across the nation are increasingly using drones to improve public safety, but need clear operations policies and limits to win public trust, experts said at a law enforcement conference in San Diego.

To that end, a model policy on use of drones – or “small unmanned aircraft systems” – was rolled out Wednesday by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The policy, which could be adopted or revised by any law agency, sets out specific procedures for deploying a drone, lists restrictions on its use, details how data would be retained or deleted and how operators should be trained.

“Do not start a (drone) program without a policy ... Engage the public,” advised Alan Frazier, a Grand Forks (N.Dak.) County part-time sheriff’s deputy and member of the association’s aviation committee.

He spoke to an audience of about 30 law enforcement officials from around the country and other countries attending the three-day conference focusing on technology from body cameras to digital evidence and social media.

Read the rest @ http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/20/drones-unmanned-aircraft-iacp-law-enforcement/

California: The Battle for Shall Issue is On!

Via NRA-ILA...

Federal Appeals Court will Re-Consider NRA Victory in California Right to Carry Case, Peruta v. San Diego

Litigation Update

On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peruta v. San Diego will be re-heard by an eleven-judge “en banc” panel.  In February 2014, the NRA and CRPA sponsored Peruta case resulted in a monumental ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. That decision held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
After Attorney General Kamala Harris and the gun ban lobby learned that Sheriff Gore had decided not to appeal the case further (even though he refused to change his policy), the Attorney General and several anti-gun groups filed requests to join the litigation and continue litigating the appeal as parties to the case. The three-judge panel denied each of the intervention requests. In December 2014, the Attorney General and the anti-gun-rights groups filed requests for en banc review of the decision to deny them entry into the case.
Also in December 2014, at least one Ninth Circuit judge made a “sua sponte” (or on the Court's own accord) request for all Ninth Circuit judges to vote on whether the Peruta case itself should be reheard en banc, regardless of whether the Attorney General would be allowed to join the case.
Today, the Court issued an order confirming that a majority of Ninth Circuit judges voted to rehear Peruta en banc.  The Court has set oral arguments for June 15, 2015. The Court also ordered that the related case of Richards v. Prieto, which was decided under the reasoning outlined in Peruta, will be heard along with the Peruta case on June 15.
No matter what happens as a result of the rehearing en banc, either side will almost certainly petition a loss to the U.S. Supreme Court.
For those who are interested in learning more about this critical Second Amendment case, NRA News has produced an outstanding video and the America’s First Freedom magazine published an enlightening article about the case.

A Court Battle Already Paying Dividends

The most common method used nationally by states and localities to selectively deny a person their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense is to create a subjective licensing prerequisite. Requiring a demonstration of “good cause” or its equivalent before a license will be issued is such a method, because if you have to show “good cause,” then you must prove a special “need” to carry a firearm. This creates a subjective system prone to political cronyism and corruption, which is the way California’s “good cause” system has been working for years. Reform is long overdue.
As a result of the 3-judge panel’s decision in Peruta, several California counties that had policies similar to San Diego’s have changed those policies from a restrictive “good cause” standard that few could meet, to one that accepts general self-defense as “good cause,” which most anyone can meet. Orange and Ventura counties are among the California jurisdictions that have changed their ways since the Peruta decision was issued. Previously, applicants had to show proof of specific threats, such as a police report or a protective order, to prove they were in immediate danger before they could get a license. Since the Peruta decision, these counties have generally been accepting self-defense as “good-cause” for obtaining a license.
If the Peruta decision is upheld by the en banc panel, all of the states and territories in the Ninth Circuit would also have to review their license issuance policies, and revise them to conform to the Peruta decision. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska and Arizona (“constitutional carry” states), Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington (“shall issue” states).  It also includes Guam, which has already changed its policy in light of Peruta. And it includes California and Hawaii, the outliers.
We need to hold onto the victory in Peruta so that these policies go into effect throughout California and the entire Ninth Circuit! But the Peruta decision’s persuasive influence is not limited to the Ninth Circuit territories and states. Recently, in the case ofPalmer v. District of Columbia, a federal court relied heavily on the Peruta decision as precedent for its opinion striking down D.C.’s total ban on the public carrying of firearms. Significantly, the ban at issue in Palmer was more extreme than the California policy challenged in the Peruta case.
Nevertheless, the Palmer court cited to Peruta extensively, suggesting that the D.C. court is warning D.C. lawmakers that they should not adopt a California style “good cause” licensing scheme, because it will face the same fate as the one struck down in Peruta. Without the Peruta opinion as precedent, it is doubtful that the D.C. court would have gone so far.

The Next Fight Looms

If the eleven-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reverses the three-judge panel’s decision, Mr. Peruta and the other plaintiffs will appeal to the Supreme Court, with continued support from the NRA, CRPA, and their legal teams. And, although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller ruling didn’t need to address the specific issues of carrying outside the home, much less “good cause” for a license to do so, victory at the Supreme Court is possible given observations about bearing arms in the Court’s Heller decision, and the difficulty the Court would have in affirming the existence of one half of a fundamental right (to keep arms) but not the other (to bear arms).
If the en banc court affirms the decision that requiring a special need to carry a firearm is an unconstitutional restriction, the anti-gun forces have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court, which is likely.

 Supreme Court Bound?

The Peruta case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to settle some Second Amendment issues that desperately need resolving. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the principles, though not the specific details, of the Peruta ruling in another NRA-supported case of Shepard v. Madigan and the related case of Moore v. Madigan. In these cases challenging Illinois’ ban on bearing arms in public, the Seventh Circuit Court held that prohibiting any form of carrying arms in public was unconstitutional. Rather than risk having the ruling confirmed by the Supreme Court, Illinois did not seek Supreme Court review. Meanwhile, three other circuit courts have gone the opposite direction and held that there is effectively no right to bear arms outside the home: Kachalsky v. Cacace in the Second Circuit (New York), Drake v. Filko in the Third Circuit (New Jersey) and Woollard v. Gallagher in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland). The Supreme Court was asked to review each of those cases, but declined to do so. With this split of opinions among the federal Circuit Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court could take the Peruta case to resolve these critical Second Amendment issues.

Gun Banners Seek Poster Child

Gun owners and carry license holders should be acutely aware that their conduct could be mischaracterized and used to influence the licensing process in California for years to come. The gun ban lobby is waiting and hoping for a license holder to do something that they can spin, politicize, and use to fight against a constitutional shall-issue regime in California. Several years ago in Los Angeles County, an unfortunate incident involving a license holder caused Los Angeles County Sheriff Baca to stop issuing the few licenses that he was issuing at the time. Be careful not to take any action that could be used for the gun ban lobby’s anti-gun-owner PR efforts!               

Forced Blood Draws, DNA Collection and Biometric Scans: What Country Is This?

 From -

The Burning Platform

Guest Post by John W. Whitehead

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

Our freedoms—especially the Fourth Amendment—are being choked out by a prevailing view among government bureaucrats that they have the right to search, seize, strip, scan, spy on, probe, pat down, taser, and arrest any individual at any time and for the slightest provocation.
Forced cavity searches, forced colonoscopies, forced blood draws, forced breath-alcohol tests, forced DNA extractions, forced eye scans, forced inclusion in biometric databases—these are just a few ways in which Americans are being forced to accept that we have no control over what happens to our bodies during an encounter with government officials.
Worse, on a daily basis, Americans are being made to relinquish the most intimate details of who we are—our biological makeup, our genetic blueprints, and our biometrics (facial characteristics and structure, fingerprints, iris scans, etc.)—in order to clear the nearly insurmountable hurdle that increasingly defines life in the United States: we are all guilty until proven innocent.
Thus far, the courts have done little to preserve our Fourth Amendment rights, let alone what shreds of bodily integrity remain to us.
For example, David Eckert was forced to undergo an anal cavity search, three enemas, and a colonoscopy after allegedly failing to yield to a stop sign at a Wal-Mart parking lot. Cops justified the searches on the grounds that they suspected Eckert was carrying drugs because his “posture [was] erect” and “he kept his legs together.” No drugs were found. During a routine traffic stop, Leila Tarantino was subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic, during which a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino. Nothing illegal was found. Nevertheless, such searches have been sanctioned by the courts, especially if accompanied by a search warrant (which is easily procured), as justified in the government’s pursuit of drugs and weapons.
Close to 600 motorists leaving Penn State University one Friday night were stopped by police and, without their knowledge or consent, subjected to a breathalyzer test using flashlights that can detect the presence of alcohol on a person’s breath. These passive alcohol sensors are being hailed as a new weapon in the fight against DUIs. However, because they cannot be used as the basis for arrest, breathalyzer tests are still required. And for those who refuse to submit to a breathalyzer, there are forced blood draws. One such person is Michael Chorosky, who was surrounded by police, strapped to a gurney and then had his blood forcibly drawn after refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test. “What country is this? What country is this?” cried Chorosky during the forced blood draw. Thirty states presently allow police to do forced blood draws on drivers as part of a nationwide “No Refusal” initiative funded by the federal government.

Not even court rulings declaring such practices to be unconstitutional in the absence of a warrant have slowed down the process. Now the police simply keep a magistrate on call to rubber stamp the procedure over the phone. That’s what is called an end-run around the law, and we’re seeing more and more of these take place under the rubric of “safety.”
The National Highway Safety Administration, the same government agency that funds the “No Refusal” DUI checkpoints and forcible blood draws, is also funding nationwide roadblocks aimed at getting drivers to “voluntarily” provide police with DNA derived from saliva and blood samples, reportedly to study inebriation patterns. When faced with a request for a DNA sample by police during a mandatory roadblock, most participants understandably fail to appreciate the “voluntary” nature of such a request. Unfortunately, in at least 28 states, there’s nothing voluntary about having one’s DNA collected by police in instances where you’ve been arrested, whether or not you’re actually convicted of a crime. The remaining states collect DNA on conviction. All of this DNA data is being fed to the federal government. Indeed, the United States has the largest DNA database in the world, CODIS, which is managed by the FBI and is growing at an alarming rate.
Airline passengers, already subjected to virtual strip searches, are now being scrutinized even more closely, with the Customs and Border Protection agency tasking airport officials with monitoring the bowel movements of passengers suspected of ingesting drugs. They even have a special hi-tech toilet designed to filter through a person’s fecal waste.
Iris scans, an essential part of the U.S. military’s boots-on-the-ground approach to keeping track of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, are becoming a de facto method of building the government’s already mammoth biometrics database. Funded by the Dept. of Justice, along with other federal agencies, the iris scan technology is being incorporated into police precincts, jails, immigration checkpoints, airports and even schools. School officials—from elementary to college—have begun using iris scans in place of traditional ID cards. As for parents wanting to pick their kids up from school, they have to first submit to an iris scan.
As for those endless pictures everyone so cheerfully uploads to Facebook (which has the largest facial recognition database in the world) or anywhere else on the internet, they’re all being accessed by the police, filtered with facial recognition software, uploaded into the government’s mammoth biometrics database and cross-checked against its criminal files. With good reason, civil libertarians fear these databases could “someday be used for monitoring political rallies, sporting events or even busy downtown areas.”
As these police practices and data collections become more widespread and routine, there will be no one who is spared from the indignity of DNA sampling, blood draws, and roadside strip and/or rectal or vaginal searches, whether or not they’ve done anything wrong. We’re little more than economic units, branded like cattle, marked for easy identification, and then assured that it’s all for our “benefit,” to weed us out from the “real” criminals, and help the police keep our communities “safe” and secure.
What a bunch of hokum. As I point out in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, these databases, forced extractions and searches are not for our benefit. They will not keep us safe. What they will do is keep us mapped, trapped, targeted and controlled.
Moreover, what if you don’t want to be forced to trust the government with your most intimate information? What if you don’t trust the government to look out for your best interests in the first place? How do you protect yourself against having your blood forcibly drawn, your DNA extracted, your biometrics scanned and the most intimate details of who you are—your biological footprint—uploaded into a government database?
What recourse do you have when that information, taken against your will, is shared, stolen, sold or compromised, as it inevitably will be in this age of hackers? We know that databases can be compromised. We’ve seen it happen to databases kept by health care companies, motor vehicle agencies, financial institutions, retailers and intelligence agencies such as the NSA. In fact, 2014 was dubbed the Year of the Hack in light of the fact that over a billion personal data records were breached, leaving those unlucky enough to have their data stolen vulnerable to identity theft, credit card fraud and all manner of criminal activities carried out in their names.
Banks now offer services —for a fee—to help you in the event that your credit card information is compromised and stolen. You can also pay for services to protect against identity theft in the likely event that your social security information is compromised and misused. But what happens when your DNA profile is compromised? And how do you defend yourself against charges of criminal wrongdoing in the face of erroneous technological evidence—DNA, biometrics, etc., are not infallible—that place you at the scene of a crime you didn’t commit?
“Identity theft could lead to the opening of new fraudulent credit accounts, creating false identities for criminal enterprises, or a host of other serious crimes,” said Jason Hart, vice president of cloud services, identity and data protection at the digital security company Gemalto. “As data breaches become more personal, we’re starting to see that the universe of risk exposure for the average person is expanding.”
It’s not just yourself you have to worry about, either. It’s also anyone related to you—who can be connected by DNA. These genetic fingerprints, as they’re called, do more than just single out a person. They also show who you’re related to and how. As the Associated Press reports, “DNA samples that can help solve robberies and murders could also, in theory, be used to track down our relatives, scan us for susceptibility to disease, or monitor our movements.”
Capitalizing on this, police in California, Colorado, Virginia and Texas use DNA found at crime scenes to identify and target family members for possible clues to a suspect’s whereabouts. Who will protect your family from being singled out for “special treatment” simply because they’re related to you? As biomedical researcher Yaniv Erlich warns, “If it’s not regulated and the police can do whatever they want … they can use your DNA to infer things about your health, your ancestry, whether your kids are your kids.”
These are just a few of the questions we should be asking before these technologies and programs become too entrenched and irreversible.
While the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent government officials from searching an individual’s person or property without a warrant and probable cause—evidence that some kind of criminal activity was afoot—the founders could scarcely have imagined a world in which we needed protection against widespread government breaches of our privacy on a cellular level. Yet that’s exactly what we are lacking.
Once again, technology has outdistanced both our understanding of it and our ability to adequately manage the consequences of unleashing it on an unsuspecting populace. As for all of those databases being sold to you for your safety and benefit, whether or not they’re actually effective in catching criminals, you can be assured that they will definitely be snatching up innocent citizens, as well.
In the end, what all of this amounts to is a carefully crafted campaign designed to give the government access to and control over what it really wants: you.

Bratton ‘resisting arrest’ proposal a ploy to strengthen police state

" Bratton said it would be “very helpful” if charges of resisting arrest were upped from misdemeanors to felonies."




Attempting to further bolster a de facto monopoly of violence in New York City, Police Commissioner Bill Bratton proposed additional edicts to tip the power scales even more in favor of enforcers over citizens, the New York Observer reported Wednesday. In addition to stiffening penalties for things like wearing protective body armor, tinting windows and holding police to similar information disclosures that “civilians” (a telling attitude in itself ) are subjected to, Bratton said it would be “very helpful” if charges of resisting arrest were upped from misdemeanors to felonies.
Who that would be very helpful to is obvious. And, as with so much of what Bratton has stood for throughout a long career as a tax-fed serial oath-breaker, the potentials for further assaults on liberty and shielding of a corruption are intentionally terrifying -- if we let ourselves be cowed by them.
"There's a widespread pattern in American policing where resisting arrest charges are used to sort of cover -- and that phrase is used -- the officer's use of force," retired criminal justice professor and expert witness Sam Walker told WNYC in a December analysis of police abuse. "Why did the officer use force? Well, the person was resisting arrest."
“NYPD Has a Plan to Magically Turn Anyone It Wants Into a Felon,” Gawker Justice observes in a more hard-edged assessment that includes examples of resisting arrest charges being deliberately unjustly applied. And it’s that felony rap that should most outrage right to keep and bear arms advocates, because such convictions will result in lifetime prohibitions against owning guns, outcomes Bratton and his boss, socialist mayor Bill de Blasio, wouldn't mind seeing more of. Understand, these are people who want to deploy with machine guns to control protesters, a wish they've apparently publicly backed down from -- for now.
And it’s not like the leadership for the rank and file don’t share the goal of total armed control, with an overwhelming continuum of up-to-lethal force should any have the temerity to resist.
"We need to make it clear that if someone lifts even a finger against a police officer, their life could be on the line," Patrick Lynch of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association has advocated. That’s quite the threshold level for “justified” use of lethal force, is it not? How much less will be required for a “resisting” charge? Is it any wonder attitudes like this result in the “permitting” of a right that is reserved for the “right people”?
It’s consistent with a sense of entitlement actually bragged about by former mayor and longtime domestic enemy Michael Bloomberg, when he told an audience in a speech at MIT “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh largest army in the world.”
Noting how megalomaniacs with power consistently presume their will trumps the Constitution, it’s no surprise they flaunt their workaround to Article .1. Section. 10, which declares “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress .... keep Troops...” But don’t look for anyone to successfully challenge the power elites by reminding them of that unheeded mandate, either through legislatures or courts serving the hands that hold their leashes.
What remains to be seen is if a new paradigm being tested and adjusted to results in a new awakening sufficient to discourage someone lifting an iron fist against a citizen who is exercising his rights. This latest move by Bratton, with his variation on Star Trek’s Borg warning, “Resistance is futile,” may set the stage for seeing if that’s really so.

http://www.examiner.com/article/bratton-resisting-arrest-proposal-a-ploy-to-strengthen-police-state?CID=examiner_alerts_article

Sharyl Attkisson’s Free Press Statement to Senate Judiciary Committee

Facets of federal government have isolated themselves from the public they serve. They covet and withhold public information that we, as citizens, own. They bully and threaten access of journalists who do their jobs, news organizations that publish stories they don’t like and whistleblowers who dare to tell the truth.
When I reported on factual contradictions in the administration’s accounts regarding Fast and Furious, pushback included a frenzied campaign with White House officials trying to chill the reporting by calling and emailing my superiors and colleagues, and using surrogate bloggers to advance false claims. One White House official got so mad, he angrily cussed me out.
The Justice Department used its authority over building security to handpick reporters allowed to attend a Fast and Furious briefing, refusing to clear me into the public Justice Department building.
Advocates had to file a lawsuit to obtain public information about Fast and Furious improperly withheld under executive privilege. Documents recently released show emails in which taxpayer paid White House and Justice Department press officials complained that I was “out of control,” and vowed to call my bosses to try to stop my reporting.
Let me emphasize that my reporting was factually indisputable. Government officials weren’t angry because I was doing my job poorly. They were panicked because I was doing my job well.
Many journalists have provided their own accounts.
The White House made good on its threat to punish C-SPAN afterC-SPAN dared to defy a White House demand to delay airing a potentially embarrassing interview with the President.
Fifty news organizations, including CBS and the Washington Post wrote the White House objecting to unprecedented restrictions on the press that raise constitutional concerns.
A New York Times photographer likened White House practices to the Soviet news agency Tass.
Former Washington Post executive editor Len Downie called the Obama War on Leaks “by far the most aggressive” he’s seen since Nixon.
David Sanger of the New York Times called this “the most closed, control freak administration” he’s ever covered.
New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said it’s “the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”
ABC News correspondent Ann Compton calledObama “the least transparent of the seven presidents” she’s covered.
Months before we knew the Justice Department had secretly seized AP phone records and surveilled FOX News’ James Rosen, before Director of National Intelligence James Clapper incorrectly testified under oath that Americans weren’t subject to mass data collection… I was tipped off that the government was likely secretly monitoring me due to my reporting


http://sharylattkisson.com/attkissons-free-press-statement-to-senate-judiciary-committee/

Blomberg's Moms Attack Gun Rights in Another State on Their Hit List

 ***************** "None of those shootings would have been stopped by background checks,said Johnson,the key opponent of last year's bill."*********************************************

GRANTS PASS, Ore. (AP) — Fresh off a victory in Washington state, a leading gun control group backed by billionaire Michael Bloomberg is hoping to make Oregon its next prize in a campaign to require gun sales to go through universal background checks.

Everytown for Gun Safety backed a voter-approved initiative in Washington last year that made the state the 17th in the country to expand background checks past the federal standard applying only to licensed gun dealers.

"This is our top priority," said the group's spokeswoman Erika Soto Lamb.

The organization came out of a merger last year between Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It has been spending tens of millions of dollars on political operations.

Now its attention is on Oregon, where the state Legislature narrowly failed to pass legislation two years running to require background checks for private gun sales.

According to state records, Everytown spent nearly $600,000 on the 2014 election — $450,000 in contributions to candidates and committees, and $110,000 on other grassroots efforts.

FILE - This Jan. 17, 2013 file photo shows Michael Kiefer of DeFuniak Springs, Fla., checking out a  …

Part of that was devoted to strengthening the Democratic majority in the state Senate, the key battleground.

Democrats ended up expanding their majority by two seats to 18-12 in the Senate. The party holds a stronger majority in the House. Gov. John Kitzhaber, a Democrat, is a longtime supporter and is expected to sign the bill if it passes.

"There's a loophole there that can be closed," said Lamb.
Oregon voters extended background checks to require them for sales at gun shows in 2000.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Floyd Prozanski, D-Eugene, plans to introduce legislation to expand that to private gun sales. The bill would require anyone selling a gun privately to call state police for a background check on criminal history and mental illness. It would exclude sales among family members, inheritances and antique guns.

View gallery

FILE--In this Dec. 9, 2013, file photo, firearms evidence is on display during a news conference in  …

"I want to put closure on the only loophole we have on the background check law," said Prozanksi, a native Texan who owns a few guns. "Most all of us gun owners, as well as the general public, believe we should take reasonable steps to stop felons from getting easy access to guns. This will do that."
Opponents include Democratic state Sen. Betsy Johnson of Scappoose and the National Rifle Association.
"The NRA is not privy to the specifics of the legislation, but Oregonians should not be fooled by the rhetoric from out of state gun control groups funded by New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg," NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said in a statement. "They are pushing an extreme anti-gun agenda that seeks to curtail Oregonians' constitutional right to self-defense."

Under federal law, background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System are required for sales by licensed gun dealers, but not at gun shows or private transactions. The checks target convicted felons, people under indictment, the mentally ill, drug users, people under restraining orders, dishonorably discharged veterans and people in the country illegally. But not all states report mental health records to the system.

About 40 percent of Oregon households have guns. And the state has had its share of horrifying shootings.

FILE -This Feb. 8, 2013, file photo, Arin Forrest of Portland, Ore., holds an AR-15 rifle at a pro-g …

In 1998, Kip Kinkel went to his high school in Springfield with guns his parents bought to teach him to shoot. He opened fire on the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25.

In 2012, three days before the deadly Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, Jacob Tyler Roberts took a stolen semi-automatic AR-15 rifle to the Clackamas Town Center mall outside Portland, where he killed two people and wounded one before killing himself.

Last June, high school freshman Jared Michael Padgett took his brother's assault-style rifle to school. He killed a student and wounded a teacher before killing himself.

None of those shootings would have been stopped by background checks, said Johnson, the key opponent of last year's bill.

"It puts law abiding citizens at a significant disadvantage," she said. "And it does not touch the problem, which in most cases involves severely mentally ill, disaffected, alienated young people causing mayhem."

http://news.yahoo.com/oregon-focus-effort-expand-background-checks-guns-154828650--finance.html 

These people will never,ever stop-unless we allow them to attain their goal of a complete ban on all civilian ownership of firearms.

They are going to keep doing this shit state by state,and every state that they succeed in passing "universal background checks" and/or "safe storage" laws,CAP laws,banning "assault rifles" and on and on-we will have no gun rights.

Gun owners  HAVE to get involved,we have to stop these people,they have succeeded in finding a weak point-and they are going all out with their offensive. So far,they won in Washington state,and are working on Nevada,Oregon and Vermont,and they will keep going,even if they lose in one state-they are just going to go down their list,putting as many as they can in the W column.

They know they can't this bullshit passed in DC,that's why they're going state by state,and going all out with their propaganda campaign before gun owners even find out they have filed the paperwork to get this horsepucky on the ballot.

Anyone who lives in any of the states that Bloomberg and Ms. Watts attack needs to get everyone they know to call,write,and e-mail their state representatives as soon as it's discovered these enemies of the Constitution and our rightful liberty are trying to impose these draconian measures on others because of their hoplophobia,and their dreams of everything suddenly being rainbows,unicorns,puppies and butterflies if they could just ban guns.

The rest of the states on their list... 

http://starvinlarry.com/2014/12/04/bloomberg-gun-control-group-targets-more-than-12-states/

The Surgeon General’s Gun Problem

In his confirmation hearing, he promised he wouldn’t preach gun control, but his record suggests he might not keep his word.

 

Will America’s new surgeon general preach for gun control, as three of his predecessors did? Early signs nurture cautious optimism that he won’t, but nagging doubts remain. Two days after his confirmation, the website of Dr. Vivek Murthy’s eagerly progressive organization Doctors for America (formerly Doctors for Obama) was updated to reflect his new status as America’s doctor. The advocacy group’s multi-page gun-control campaign was scrubbed from the home page and buried in a menu that doesn’t even mention firearms (click on the “Learn” dropdown menu heading). And Murthy promised wary senators during his February Senate-confirmation hearing (at 50:54 in this video) that he would not use his new position as a bully pulpit for gun control.

Advertisement

Still, one wonders. What else would he say to a room full of legislators who know from experience not to tangle with gun owners? And the Doctors for America website leaves no doubt at all what Murthy would like to see happen to gun owners. Let’s take a look at some of the main goals of the group Murthy co-founded:

1. Remove military-style guns and ammunition that are designed to be able to kill large numbers of people quickly. There may be a place in war for such weapons, but they represent a threat to public safety in our neighborhoods. . . .  Specific approaches should include: A federal ban on the sale of assault weapons and ammunition — to stop weapons from being added to the existing stock.

For a doctor as dedicated to rigorous scientific method as Murthy claimed to be in his confirmation hearing, he seems singularly unconcerned with the facts about modern sporting rifles. These rifles, as Murthy and everyone else should know by now, have become the standard type of rifle for hunting, sport, and self-protection in America. He must know that in 1994 the public went along with the Clinton administration’s Federal Assault Weapons Ban, championed by former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders. But because the promised crime-stopping benefits of the law proved questionable at best, Congress allowed the law to sunset in 2004.
It was known even when the ban was enacted that rifles of any kind, including so-called assault weapons, account for less than 3 percent of murders, and that banning them was purely symbolic. By advocating a repeat of this massive failure, Murthy indicates either that he is ignorant of it or that he simply doesn’t care that it failed.
Murthy’s Doctors for America letter to Congress continues, listing its second goal:

2. Strengthen safety measures and regulations for guns used for hunting, sport, and self-protection. . . . Specific approaches should include: Universal background checks and licenses for anyone purchasing guns and ammunition.

Again, Murthy seems undeterred by President Obama’s spectacularly embarrassing failure only last year to get mandatory background checks passed. Murthy even wants to go a huge step further than background checks and mandate licensing, a possibly unconstitutional measure and one that is certainly a non-starter politically.
And here is Doctors for America’s next stated goal:

3. Remove prohibitions and barriers that keep health professionals from protecting our patients from harm. . . .  Specific approaches should include: Prohibit laws preventing physicians from discussing gun safety with patients.

Doctors for America is still trying to trying to promote the erroneous notion that the legislature wants to prevent doctor-patient discussions of gun safety. That was not the intent of the Firearms Owners’ Privacy Act. The intent of this bill, which the legislature approved, was to stop doctors from invading their patients’ privacy to push anti-gun politics. The public-health gun-prohibition faction is still in a state of angry disbelief that Florida’s legislature prohibits doctors from advocating gun control in their exam rooms. Oddly, these medical gun-control zealots have never explained why they believe doctors are at all qualified to advise patients about guns, nor have they so much as acknowledged proven firearm-safety-education programs, such as the NSSF’s Project ChildSafe or the NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program.
The leaders of medical organizations long ago and with much fanfare kicked off a crusade for gun control. The centerpiece of their agenda is official policy urging doctors to use patient visits as an opportunity to preach that guns are bad and that patients should get rid of theirs. Despite resistance from patients, leading to such roadblocks as Florida’s law and its recent affirmation in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Doctors for America wants to continue pressing our medical professionals into service as gun-control drones.
No one who has followed the public-health gun-prohibition movement should be surprised by Murthy’s hoplophobic leanings. The tradition of surgeon generals’ pushing gun control goes back as far as C. Everett Koop, who served under Ronald Reagan. Considered very conservative on most issues, Koop nevertheless shared the academic elites’ view of gun ownership. He advocated universal gun registration and licensing, and decried “a vast lobby of special interests [that] supports the utterly unfettered ownership and use of firearms.”
As did Murthy, Surgeons General Joycelyn Elders (under Clinton) and David Satcher (under Clinton and G. H. W. Bush) both went on record fuming against the NRA — Elders in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution on March 23, 1994, and Satcher in a Washington Post editorial on November 5, 1995. Both came from public-health backgrounds, a milieu that considers gun-control advocacy a pillar of its mission. Murthy, also nominated by a liberal president, brushes off any opposition to his agenda as uninformed or worse. Nor, as he famously tweeted, is he patient with the political process when it gets in the way of his wish to ban guns. That’s curious in a doctor whose proposed remedies are nothing but bare politics.
And all of this is entirely consistent with the public-health community’s gun-control mission since its inception in the late 1980s. They carry on with a self-satisfied doggedness in their convictions despite contrary experience, and they are impatient with legitimate opponents who also happen to constitute a political majority. American gun owners can hope that Dr. Murthy was telling the truth when he renounced gun-control advocacy. But given his history, they should be skeptical.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395842/surgeon-generals-gun-problem-timothy-wheeler 

The False Promise of Background Checks

The idea of background checks for firearm purchases seems to sound sensible, but the reality is much different from the appearance. In truth, expecting firearm background checks to stop criminals is like trying to catch a few particular salmon during spawning season by placing a rock in the middle of the stream and watching for the specific fish to jump over the rock.

specious: adjective:
superficially plausible, but actually wrong.
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive.
– merriam-webster.com

There are more than 15 million NICS background checks processed every year, totaling over 180 million checks since the program’s inception in 1998. Between 98% and 99% of those checks were on regular, unrestricted people – most of whom already own at least one firearm. Of the few prohibited persons caught trying to purchase a firearm, the vast majority didn’t realize they were prohibited, and who had no criminal intent. In 2010, which is typical of recent years, only about 60 individuals – out of 15 million – were considered worthy of prosecution, and only 13 people – out of 15 million – were actually convicted of illegally trying to purchase a firearm. Not a very impressive return from a program that infringes on an enumerated constitutional right – that “shall not be infringed” – and has cost taxpayers an estimated $2 billion dollars so far.
Now the same people who brought us this incredibly inefficient and wasteful system want to expand it to include private transfers between individuals. Again, the idea seems, on the surface, logical and reasonable. But again, it is just another rock in the stream – a minor obstacle at best. The arguments in favor of so-called “universal background checks” are, in part, an acknowledgement that the present system can’t work; there’s just too much stream around the rock. One more rock in a wide flowing stream won’t stop, or even perceptibly slow the flow. There will always be plenty of ways for those wishing to acquire guns for criminal purposes to easily get them. Criminals get guns by stealing them, buying them on the black market, or by convincing a girlfriend, family member, or paid associate to purchase them.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/false-promise-background-checks