Virginia governor seeks to reinstate restrictions on handgun sales

Virginia governor seeks to reinstate restrictions on handguns

.

Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia makes remarks during a "Growth and Jobs in America" …

RICHMOND, Va. (Reuters) - Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, on Monday called to reinstate restrictions on the purchase of handguns, in a move that opponents described as unlikely to succeed with a Republican-dominated legislature.

McAuliffe asked lawmakers to reinstate a law allowing buyers to purchase only one handgun a month, which had been repealed during his Republican predecessor's administration. He also wants to require private vendors at gun shows to run background checks on all prospective buyers.

"At gun shows, private vendors are not required to conduct criminal background checks, creating an easy avenue for criminals to illegally gain access to guns," McAuliffe said. His call came the day after the second anniversary of a gunman's rampage in Newtown, Connecticut, that killed 26 elementary school students and educators.

McAuliffe also aims to revoke concealed weapons permits for parents who are delinquent on child support payments and prohibit the possession of firearms for misdemeanor domestic violence offenders.

The head of a Virginia gun-rights group called the move political payback to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun-control activist who was a major donor to McAuliffe's 2013 gubernatorial campaign.

"I think this is all politically motivated," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group. "If anything, Virginia is more pro-gun than it was last year."

The National Rifle Association, meanwhile, has said it financed $500,000 in ads on television and online striking out at McAuliffe’s views on firearms.

In 2013, gun sales in Virginia set a new high with nearly 480,000 transactions, according to state police statistics on the number of mandatory criminal background checks of gun purchasers.

Gun sales grew 10.8 percent over the previous record set just a year earlier.
Overall sales could be even higher, because state police don't track private firearm transactions. Final sales numbers for 2014 aren't in yet.

Thomas Baker, a criminologist and an assistant professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs, said McAuliffe’s gun control proposals could spur even more gun sales.

“Usually, when new policies restricting firearm purchases are proposed, we see a rise in firearm sales,” Baker said.

http://news.yahoo.com/virginia-governor-seeks-reinstate-restrictions-handgun-sales-221451821.html 

Should local police be armed with military weapons?

New jersey...

Thanks to the military, local police are arming themselves with high-powered assault weapons, raising the question: how much firepower do cops need?
From 2006 to 2013, towns and police agencies across the state received a total of 1,328 M14s, M16A2, shotguns and pistols, and more than 22,000 other military items, from shirts to an 18-ton armored truck, from the Department of Defense's 1033 military surplus program.


The state's Office of Emergency Management, which is responsible for transferring the weapons, is in the process of doling out 300 more M14s and M16s from a Nov. 13 distribution to local police departments across the state. M16s can kill at 800 or more yards.
Police in Monmouth and Ocean counties took in 135 M14s and M16s, according to an inventory of the weapons. The high-powered rifles have been converted to from automatic to semi-automatic.
A national debate about whether it's appropriate for community police departments to have such weapons erupted in the months after police used them to contain riots in Ferguson, Missouri, after the police shooting death of Michael Brown.
Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey don't believe local police officers need battlefield equipment, and that there should be more oversight and transparency when it comes to the decisions to acquire such weapons.
"Communities — if given a chance to know about this and speak out against it — might not like the militarization of their local police," said Ari Rosmarin, director of public policy for the ACLU of New Jersey.
As the conversation continues, public officials all over the country are demanding more transparency about the weapons transfers — New Jersey included. The state Senate Thursday approved two bills to increase oversight over the transfer of weapons.
Local weapons
In Central Jersey, police departments in Clinton, Dunellen, Linden, Milltown, Monroe, Perth Amboy, Piscataway, Raritan Township and Readington, along with the Union County Prosecutor's Office have received weapons since 2006. The items include different types of rifles, according to data from the defense department.
In Raritan Township, the rifles are currently not being used and are kept in a locked in a gun locker at police headquarters, officials said.
The four .223-caliber M16s obtained by the Clinton Police Department through the government surplus program are currently assigned to a trained, authorized officer, said a police spokesman, who added that obtaining the firearms was a "proactive measure" in keeping officers adequately armed during times of crisis. The surplus program helped to save the department and taxpayers money, since they were free, the spokesman said.
New Brunswick, Perth Amboy, Plainfield, Sayreville and Scotch Plains also received different types of surplus items, according to Department of Defense records, ranging from cargo trucks and ammunition chests to digital computers systems and an Ipad.
Plainfield this summer received more than 100 items worth nearly $2 million. A bulk of the supplies were vehicles such as a dump truck, a forklift, more than a dozen utility, cargo and pickup trucks and a number of trailers.
The shipment also included 20 bayonet knives, which Police Director Carl Riley returned because he initially believed they could have been used as utility knives.
Riley said the vehicles will be painted in police colors and used by officers for water rescues and other calls. He said the equipment, which also includes radios, battery chargers and a power washer, helps the city save money on having to buy equipment on its own.

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/2014/12/11/military-weapons-nj-police-departments/20275065/

Disturbing allegations of police misconduct in NYC gun cases

Allegations that NYPD cops may have planted evidence, perjured themselves and engaged in cover-ups while investigating gun cases.

The tip comes from a confidential informer: Someone has a gun. Ten or more minutes later, police officers find a man matching the informer’s detailed description at the reported location. A gun is discovered; an arrest is made.

That narrative describes how Jeffrey Herring was arrested last year by police officers in the 67th Precinct in East Flatbush, Brooklyn. It also describes the arrests of at least two other men, Eugene Moore and John Hooper, by some of the same officers.

The suspects said the guns were planted by the police.

There were other similarities: Each gun was found in a plastic bag or a handkerchief, with no traces of the suspect’s fingerprints. Prosecutors and the police did not mention a confidential informer until months after the arrests. None of the informers have come forward, even when defense lawyers and judges have requested they appear in court.

Taken individually, the cases seem to be routine examples of differences between the police account of an arrest and that of the person arrested. But taken together, the cases — along with other gun arrests made in the precinct by these officers — suggest a pattern of questionable police conduct and tactics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/nyregion/gun-arrests-with-2-things-in-common-the-officers-and-unidentified-informers.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad&_r=1 

Wisconsin Police Chief Badgers Residents to Forego Second and Fourth Amendment Rights

Perhaps inspired by the recent introduction of surprise home inspections of gun licensees in the UK, Beloit, Wisc., Police Chief Norm Jacobs issued a press release on December 1, urging city residents to volunteer for warrantless police searches of their homes for firearms.  Jacobs framed the residential probes as a valuable “opportunity” his department was offering to the public.  Notably, the press release did not offer participants immunity from prosecution for any illegally-possessed firearms or other contraband police might find while “inspecting” the premises, suggesting the program was aimed squarely at law-abiding households.

In the press release, Jacobs made clear that he doesn’t have a very high opinion of the gun-owing residents in his community.  The concerns that prompted his initiative included his belief that residents are not able to account for guns within their own homes, fail to secure them adequately against theft or unauthorized access, or use them “in the fit of rage” to “settle scores.”  Jacobs even absurdly insisted, “We need to consider potential crime guns as if they were the Ebola Virus and deal with them similarly to a health care issue” (no word from the chief yet on whether he’ll offer a similar program to snoop for unhealthy snacks or those showing signs of infectious disease).

Beloit isn’t the first city to explore this type of “voluntary” rights relinquishment program.  In 2008, Boston and the District of Columbia launched so-called “Safe Homes” initiatives where a resident, or an informer, could alert police to the possibility of an illegally possessed firearm inside a residence.  Police would then be sent to the location and attempt to acquire consent for a search of the premises.  The initiatives were met with widespread opposition, prompting D.C. to abandon their program, while the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts expressed its displeasure with Boston’s.  Offering a further critique of the Boston program was Boston City Councilor Michael Flaherty.  A Boston Globe article described his opposition to the initiative, stating, “Flaherty argues that the Safe Homes Initiative has been a bust.  Obviously, not many people have been willing to turn in their weapons voluntarily.”

Fortunately, Beloit city officials have stepped in and put a halt to Jacobs’ scheme.  In a December 9 press release, the Beloit Office of City Manager stated, “At this time, the department is withdrawing its offer under this initiative, and will be submitting the program to the City’s legal office for further review.”  Officials admitted reaction to the program had been negative.

Chief Jacobs’s belief that firearms in the home of law-abiding residents pose enough of a public safety risk for police to search for and seize them serves as a chilling reminder of how important all of our constitutional rights are, including the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  It also suggests a need for the chief to rethink his policing priorities and focus on those actually committing crime, none of whom accepted his offer or would ever be likely to do so.  In the future, we suggest he leave the “health care issues” and house calls to local doctors and start brushing up on police tactics for dealing with actual bad guys.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2014/12/wisconsin-police-chief-badgers-residents-to-forego-second-and-fourth-amendment-rights.aspx

Pew poll confirms amnesty a danger to gun rights

Amnesty will give a foreign culture demonstrably hostile to the right to keep and bear arms a significant say in legislation affecting it.

Photo by David McNew/Getty Images

Survey results made public Wednesday by Pew Research Center show public support for protecting gun rights on the rise across all demographics except for two notable categories, “liberal Democrats” and “Hispanics.” Significantly, the latest numbers also show the most dramatic increase in support for gun rights over gun control among African Americans, who registered a 25 percent gain to a majority position of acknowledging guns protect more than they put people at risk.
While the new survey may encourage gun rights activists to make inroads appealing to black voters to elect gun rights-supporting politicians instead of automatically giving power to anti-gun urban Democrats, attitudes expressed by Hispanics show overwhelming rejection of pro-gun political sentiment. With only 25 percent favoring laws protecting the right to own guns, 71 percent want government to “control ownership.”
That tracks with warnings issued by Gun Owners of America, curiously alone among national gun rights advocacy groups. GOA has warned that amnesty for illegal aliens, and a "pathway to citizenship," will provide for millions of new anti-gun voters with the electoral clout to undo all hard-won legislative and judicial gains gun owners have enjoyed in recent years. That in turn has bearing on what Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, the official behind so-called "executive amnesty," told the United Conference of Mayors in January, when he maintained that “the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have ‘earned the right to be citizens.’”
With other gun groups justifying their inaction to take on amnesty under the “single issue” excuse that it's not directly about guns, with establishment Republicans and their Chamber of Commerce patrons favoring labor that’s “cheap” for employers because true costs are borne by all and don't appear on their books, and with Democrats and the mainstream media in lockstep with Barack Obama’s plan to “fundamentally transform America,” those opposing amnesty are becoming increasingly isolated.
If holdout gun organizations neither make politicians accountable for amnesty support, nor make the developing political gun rights threat known to their members, most gun owners may remain unaware, uninformed and unconvinced until it’s too late for them to seek political solutions. Indications are, such groups would not be motivated to alter a policy of deliberate indifference unless enough members to get their attention demanded it, and backed that up by loudly redirecting support to GOA.
That’s assuming it’s not already too late. Per CNS News, the spending bill passed Thursday by John Boehner “join[ing] forces” with Barack Obama “does not prohibit the president from using appropriated money to implement his plan to legalize illegal aliens, [meaning] the president may move forward--drawing taxed and borrowed money from the Treasury--to carry out this plan.”
All that's left is what Gun Owners of America describes as a "a Hail Mary pass." The group issued an alert Friday urging members to contact their senators "to say NO to the anti-gun funding bill."

http://www.examiner.com/article/pew-poll-confirms-amnesty-a-danger-to-gun-rights?CID=examiner_alerts_article

We’re terrifying kids in the name of protecting them

Last month, a principal in Winter Haven, Fla., was suspended for allowing police to stage an unannounced “school shooting drill” in his school’s classrooms:

It took frightened teachers, students and parents all by surprise last week when armed officers swept through classrooms with guns drawn during the drill at Jewett Middle Academy Magnet School in Winter Haven.
Now, there’s fallout. Principal Jacquelyn Moore has been suspended and a school resource officer has been reassigned to road patrol. It sparked an internal investigation and changes to district policy.
Superintendent Kathryn Leroy is apologizing to students and parents for the scare at the school and claiming the principal used bad judgement, when allowing officers to use guns during the drill. Leroy promises it will never happen again.
Parents say it better not. “I have never requested an active shooter drill be performed with students present and officers having weapons in their hands,” says Leroy.
Leroy told school board members even she didn’t know that a school resource officer would draw his loaded pistol, and a patrol officer would be armed with an AR-15 during the unannounced lockdown drill at Jewett Academy.
It had students ducking for cover as if an active shooter was in the building. Parents were never notified.

That no one involved even considered the unnecessary terror the drill would inflict on students demonstrates just how ridiculous the panic over these shootings has become. And it isn’t just in Winter Haven. Consider this utter insanity in Troy, Mo.:

In a cramped, carpeted amphitheater in the basement of Troy Buchanan High School, 69 students are waiting to die.

“You’ll know when it pops off,” says Robert Bowen, the school’s campus police officer. “If you get engaged with one of the shooters, you’ll know it.”

“When you get shot, you need to close your fingers and keep ‘em in,” adds Tammy Kozinski, the drama teacher. “When the bad guy and the police come through, they’ll step all over you, and who will be saying they’re sorry?”

“Nobody!” the students cry in unison.

This isn’t a bizarre, premeditated mass murder or some twisted sacrifice led by a student cult. These are the 20 minutes preceding an active shooter drill, the 13th one Missouri’s Lincoln County school district has staged in the past year.

All but 69 students have gone home for the day on early dismissal. These volunteer victims, mostly culled from the school’s drama class, are outfitted in fake-bloody bullet wounds, still wet and dripping down their foreheads, necks and chests. Bowen tells them what to expect: They’ll see “bad guys with AR-15s” shooting blanks during a simulated “passing period”—the moments when one class ends and the other begins. PVC pipes will be dropped on the floor to approximate IEDs. Crystal Lanham, a baby-faced freshman with long, gently-crimped brown hair, receives the dubious honor of being chosen as one of the gunmen’s hostages. She’s thrilled.

“I just really wanna get shot,” she jokes. “Is that weird?”

Yes, it is. And it isn’t healthy. It’s twisted and obsessive. I mean, 13 times in one year? The odds of your average school seeing even one on-campus homicide is one in several thousand — never mind an actual mass shooting. Yet these drills are getting more common. In one Chicago school, officials fired blanks in the hallways, apparently to “make students and teachers familiar with the sound of gunfire.” When the parent of a third-grader complained about the intensity of an unannounced shooter drill in Cahokia, Ill., last year, the principal responded: “I’d much rather your children be a little bit scared and alive.” In another unannounced drill at a special-needs school in Harlem, a panicked faculty member called police. Browse the media write-ups of these stories and you’ll see children who volunteered as “victims” posing as corpses, complete with bullet holes in their heads and shirts soaked with blood. We’ve lost our minds.

In September, the Wall Street Journal reported on a rash of lawsuits from terrified victims of mass-shooter drills across the country, not just at schools but also at businesses and nursing homes. Some were announced, others were not. The paper reported that six states require such drills. At least four of those (Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri) have lax concealed-carry laws. What happens when someone who wasn’t in on the planning decides to stop one of these fake shooters?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/12/11/were-terrifying-kids-in-the-name-of-protecting-them/ 

Should all convicted felons be banned from having guns? Missouri Supreme Court hears case

 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/should-all-convicted-felons-be-banned-from-having-guns-missouri/article_bf54b17a-896c-554d-8848-26bd1c26245c.html?mode=comments



There’s a couple good points raised in the article-and in the comments.
My opinion is this-since once a person is released from prison and/or probation/parole-their “debt to society” is considered to have been paid,yet they are punished for life-often for non-violent crimes.

There’s also a huge problem with all the things the states and feds now consider a felony.
There’s a book called “Three Felonies a Day”-it’s an eye opener.
There’s the fact that .gov inc. via the police and courts-especially the prosecutors-can charge,indict,and convict anyone they choose to of a felony,at any time they choose to.
There are far,far too many “crimes” that are classed as felonies.
There are even more that are classed as “crimes of violence” yet there was zero violence involved in the crime. That’s a huge problem in and of itself.

There is nothing in the bill of rights that says the states and feds can start making up new categories of crimes,and start labeling a lot of really,really ridiculous shit as a felony.
In some states,if you raise your voice during an argument with your wife-and your neighbors call the cops-you can be charged-and convicted of “domestic violence”.  (ask me how I know)

Do it a second time-and it’s a felony. 

There are hundreds of “crimes” that are classed as “crimes of violence” in which there is no violence-no one was harmed,no one was assaulted-yet they are considered to be “violent felonies”.
It was only in fairly recent times that a lifelong ban on gun ownership was created if you had a felony conviction-and there was less gun crime back then-back when a guy-or lady was released from prison,and their “debt to society” was considered to have been paid.
Heck,in the old days,when a guy was released from prison-he was given a $20.00 gold piece,a horse with saddle and tack,and a revolver with holster.

With all the bullshit that is classed as a felony these days-we need to go back to doing what was done in the past-once your prison term,or probation/parole is completed-you are a free man-or woman,and you get to vote,serve on juries,and keep and bear arms…

Enough of this bullshit where a person is punished for life for what in most cases was a mistake.
People do dumb shit when they are young-they didn’t used to be charged with a felony,convicted,and sent to prison for it-the sheriff,or city cop would lock them up for a few days,or let them sleep off a drunk-then they went on their way.

The punishment for the crime is the prison/jail sentence and/or parole/probation-that’s it.
Once a person serves their sentence-that should be it-end of story.
No more of this lifetime punishment-if a person is to be punished for life-then the sentence needs to fit the crime.
Only those who commit horrific,truly heinous crimes should lose their rights for life-and that would be because they are in prison for life.

All of these idiotic laws that take young kids and label them as felons are creating a whole class of people who are unemployable at any meaningful job for life.
Hell,you have to pass a background check to flip burgers at McD’s !!!!
No one with a felony conviction can ever work at a decent paying job-because they are labeled as a “felon” for life-this must stop.

There is absolutely zero value to society in labeling a person as a felon,making them pretty much a person reduced to performing some kind of menial labor for minimum wage for the rest of their life.
It’s not just about gun rights,it’s about an unfair and unjust “justice” system.
We,as a country,as a society,lock up more people than any other country in the world.
Who does this benefit? It sure as hell does not benefit society when you have millions of people who are labeled as felons walking around pissed off because they can not earn enough $$$ to support themselves,much less a family.

Incarcerating millions of people benefits .gov inc. it benefits those who own and/or operate jails and prisons-look no farther than Jeb Bush-he is part owner of private prisons-so you have politicians-a judge in Georgia who was caught sentencing people to jail for ridiculous shit just so the jail would be close to full,and he would make $$$ by locking people up.

Society does not benefit at all,not one bit from labeling millions of people as felons for life-there is simply no benefit,other than creating jobs for politicians friends that own jails and prisons.
Justice would be sentencing those who committed an actual crime of violence-as in rape,murder,armed robbery,arson,assault- during which a person is actually seriously hurt- to a long prison term.

The only people who should lose their gun rights are those who commit the crimes listed above-those are the people that if they are prevented from owning firearms would benefit society.
 All those who are now labeled as felons for life do not deserve to lose their gun rights for crimes that are not related to guns.
 All those who are now labeled as felons for life should have that label removed so that they can again get a decent job,be able to support themselves-and a family-and so they don’t end up as cheese eaters and part of the free shit army for life because they can not get a decent job.
They also deserve to be able to defend themselves and their families.

If .gov inc. makes everything a “felony”-it’s easier for .gov inc. to control people.
That’s the path we are on…
.gov inc. keeps making more and more things a “felony” as they do this-more and more people lose some of their rights,fewer and fewer people will have rights.
It’s long past time to put and end to the “felon” label for life,and reserve that label for those who have committed serious,horrific,heinous crimes-instead of the guy who yelled at his wife a few times,and the second time the cops came-he was charged and convicted of ‘domestic violence” and he never lifted a finger in anger at his wife.

Don’t think that one’s possible? Guess again-happens every day to those who don’t have a few thousand dollars laying around to pay a lawyer.
Think about it-and tell me how it is a benefit to society to label people as a “felon”,and to keep them labeled as a “felon” even AFTER they have served the sentence imposed by the court?

Read!
Learn!
Train!
Do More PT!
Do some extra PT because it’s the holidays and you scarfed down 6# of turkey,dressing and mashed taters on turkey day,and laid around on the couch watching football-and you will do the same on Christmas,new years,and pound a bunch of extra beers for the rest of the month of Dec.