Current Events (188)
WA State Capitol Campus is one of few without firearm restrictions
Written by reg mathuszAn interesting article from the Seattle Times: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020325837_legislaturegunsxml.html
Some excerpts:
Carrying guns on the Capitol campus has long been allowed in Olympia. It’s seldom discussed, rarely criticized and speaks volumes about the debate over gun control this session.
In fact, Washington’s Capitol is one of the few in the country with no restrictions on firearms.
Of the 42 states that responded to the survey, only Washington, Texas and Kentucky indicated they had no restrictions on carrying weapons at their capitols. Eight states allowed people with concealed-weapons permits on campus, and the rest restricted firearms to law-enforcement and security staff.
Interesting to note the folks that support banning firearms on campus even though there has NEVER been an incident. Shows the predisposed bias (hoplophobia) that some inherently have against firearms - even though they are just inanimate objects.
What I wrote to my legislators -- a sample -- please contact yours now!
Written by reg mathuszAutomated letters are great and certainly better than nothing but I believe that a personally crafted letter to your legislator will have most impact. The folks processing these letters can tell the difference between a one-click response and one that is actually written.
Several folks have expressed that they do not know what to write. Below I have included what I wrote and sent to my Senators and Representative. Interestingly only (1) responded back at all (not even auto-generated replies from the other two).
Feel free to use it as you like or take pieces from it. You may not agree with everything I say, or feel it reflects your tone -- I simply hope that it gives you ideas to craft your own. If nothing else please contact your legislators!
CA has just introduced draconian legislation to best even NY's recent laws. The time to act must be now!! It just takes a few clicks!
Who is your Representative? Find out here -> http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
Who are your Senators? Find out here -> http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Here's what I sent to my legislators:
Dear Senator, I am writing in opposition to S.150 et al. Rhetoric on both sides is heated/debated so I will keep this brief.
1. Criminals don't obey laws. You are punishing lawful gun owners.
2. This is a supposed response to the Newtown Shooting. However, nothing in this bill or any proposed legislation would prevent this in the future (No bans, background checks, etc.) See #1 above. Even VP Biden has stated this and says that since public mood has changed is a good opportunity to push gun control. Ironically, CT already has many of the proposed controls in place. The Newtown shooter violated multiple laws, adding more would change nothing. If his mother did not have the firearms to steal (remember he killed her over) he would have found alternate means of destruction. He was not hindered by a "gun free zone." The worst U.S. school massacre was done with an explosive device - not a firearm.
3. This Bill is poorly written and ambigious. The military-like features provision is very interpretive. In particular the "pistol grip" definition could fit any firearm. It specifically bans "thumb-hole" stocks--I am not aware of ANY military firearm that uses a thumb-hole stock. These are cosmetic restrictions. What's next? All semi-autos like Australia?
4. A 10-shot magazine ban is arbitrary. Folks fear that it is just a stepping stone and will be reduced. Not so crazy when you look at NY's recent passage of a 7 shot limitation, now followed with similar bills in NJ, CT, Minn. In fact, there is a bill in CT to limit magazines to 1 shot!
5. A lot of folks are proposing confiscation (see NY's original draft) and the passed legislation requires that >7 shot mags be turned in or shipped out of state! Ex Post Facto? No grand fathering? It is not much of a stretch to think of the potential that once their "registry" of firearms is up and running that they simply rule that owners do the same thing.
6. Last but not least, the Constitution. I know this is hotly contested but I will quote James Madison, the man who wrote the Bill of Rights, from the Federalist Papers: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." The Founders knew what they were doing.
Additionally, I think that if a school decides that it wants armed security, police, or even wants to purchase metal detectors that we should help. The arguments that the kids will be traumatized are silly -- they go to the bank, mall, concerts, sporting events, airport now without a second thought.
Thank you for your time.
Minnesota bill jumps on the NY 7 shot bandwagon - with no grandfathering
Written by reg mathuszIn NY it is (or soon will be) the law. Massachusetts has a proposal for similar legislation and now Minnesota joins too with HF243:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0243.0.html&session=ls88
I guess it is better than the CT bill I saw that attempts to limit firearms to a SINGLE shot! Seriously: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/TOB/S/2013SB-00122-R00-SB.htm
If you haven't contacted your legislators yet -- I urge you to do so. These a real threats!
Biden says gun legislation won't impact crime - somehow they are common sense though
Written by reg mathuszFrom VP Biden:
LINK: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=BDF76CF8-2C35-4654-9F68-DCB35A6F1F39
“Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.
But yet somehow he DEMANDS this same gun control and has the audacity to call it common sense.
WA State gun control bill - private sale background checks, fees, and waiting period
Written by reg mathuszWe have been hearing rumors that bill(s) were coming and I was waiting until they were officially introduced. Besides the obvious (criminals don't follow laws) I am disturbed by how these new laws are proposed with complete disregard for existing laws. It's like the legislators don't know the current law and don't care to even look it up.
The WA State waiting period exempts concealed pistol license (CPL) holders since they have already been fingerprinted and background checked. However, this new bill has no exemption on private sales. So, if this passes - no wait for guns bought from a gun shop (owned by the gunshop), but a wait would be required for private sales which would have to go through the same dealer?
Despite what KOMO & Seattle Times says, no assault weapon under state law...
Written by reg mathuszI don't know if it is media bias. Or just poor journalism but I have read multiple reports of the recent Seattle Gun Back giving folks a $200 Amazon gift card for turning in an "assault weapon" as "defined" by WA State Law.
Oh really? There is no definition as far as I know. I double checked. There is no definition in RCW9.41 (firearms and dangerous weapons). In fact, there is even a section for definitions where it is not. That took me about 2 minutes of online searching.
Here are a couple of links to the poorly researched articles:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020087447_apwagunbuyback3rdldwritethru.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Amazon-incentive-in-Seattle-gun-buyback-program-186051842.html
They both say:
Amazon.com, which has been expanding its headquarters in Seattle, kicked in $30,000 in Amazon gift cards - $100 for each handgun, rifle or shotgun turned in, and $200 for each gun classified as an assault weapon under state law.
Ever heard of fact checking?
If they can't get this simple legal fact correct (either the definition exists under RCW or it doesn't) can we really expect them to report ANY firearms legal issues?
Now, kudos go to this journalist who actually did some research and spent the 2 minutes to give factual information: http://www.westseattleherald.com/2013/01/10/news/update-firearms-collected-gun-buyback-event-will-
SPD also released details on how to distinguish between a regular gun and an assault weapon (regular guns get $100, assault weapons get $200):
"While the state doesn’t have anything on the books defining “assault weapons”, here’s what our in-house gun experts came up with for the purposes of the gun buyback: [snipped...generic Feinstein 1993 AWB definition]
Thank you West Seattle Herald for being actual journalists, doing research, and actually updating your article to reflect correct information.
LiveLeak.com - Feinstein’s New Gun-Grab AWB Bill: Only 17 co-sponsors
Written by reg mathuszGEICO cancels auto insurance because policy holder makes gun parts for a living!
Written by reg mathuszI was considering Geico for motorcycle insurance. Not any more. http://topconservativenews.com/2013/01/geico-cancels-auto-insurance-because-policy-holder-makes-gun-parts-for-a-living/
Actual Text of Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapons Ban
Written by reg mathuszA lot has been about Feinstein's "2013 Assault Weapons Ban" but up until now I had been unable to find any actual sources of the bill introduced Thursday. Today an entry appears for it in THOMAS (thomas.loc.gov), but no text.
CNN ran an article (http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/24/politics/feinstein-bill-details/index.html) titled "What's in Feinstein's gun bill" with the actual text of bill. But you can't copy it, save it, or copy/paste it. The "text" option doesn't even convert it correctly. Weird, why so protective?
Anyway, a little more fishing found the bill on Feinstein's own website here: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=9a9270d5-ce4d-49fb-9b2f-69e69f517fb4
I attach the PDF it to this post in case it should disappear.
Read it and then call your legislators.
People thought that the AWB in 1994 would never pass. This is one is far worse.
Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law
Written by reg mathuszMore...
Fontana, Calif., schools gets AR15s it ordered pre-Newtown:
news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-…
FONTANA, Calif. (AP) — The high-powered semiautomatic rifles recently shipped to school police in this Southern California city look like they belong on a battlefield rather than in a high school, but officials here say the weapons could help stop a massacre like the one that claimed the lives of 26 students and educators in Connecticut just weeks ago.
Fontana Unified School District police purchased 14 of the Colt LE6940 rifles last fall, and they were delivered the first week of December — a week before the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Over the holiday break, the district's 14 school police officers received 40 hours of training on the rifles. Officers check them out for each shift from a fireproof safe in the police force's main office.
Fontana isn't the first district to try this. Other Southern California districts also have rifle programs — some that have been in operation for several years. Fontana school police Chief Billy Green said he used money from fingerprinting fees to purchase the guns for $14,000 after identifying a "critical vulnerability" in his force's ability to protect students. The officers, who already wear sidearms, wouldn't be able to stop a shooter like the one in Connecticut, he said Wednesday.
"They're not walking around telling kids, 'Hurry up and get to class' with a gun around their neck," the chief said. "Parents need to know that if there was a shooter on their child's campus that was equipped with body armor or a rifle, we would be limited in our ability to stop that threat to their children."
Some parents and students, however, reacted with alarm to the news that school resource officers were being issued the rifles during their shifts. The officers split their time between 44 schools in the district and keep the rifles in a safe at their assigned school or secured in their patrol car each day before checking the weapon back in to the school police headquarters each night.
"If the wrong person gets ahold of the gun, then we have another shooter going around with a gun. What happens then, if that situation occurs?" said James Henriquez, a 16-year-old sophomore who just enrolled at Fontana High School this week after moving from Texas.
Other students said they felt disillusioned that officials would spend money on semiautomatic rifles while the district eliminated its comprehensive guidance counseling program two years ago.
"They should get guns, but not as many and not spend so much money on them," said student Elizabeth Tovar. "They should use the money to get back our counselors because a lot of us really need them."
The district saved millions by restructuring guidance services, said Superintendent Cali Olsen-Binks.
"I understand that people are looking at the layoffs, but $14,000 and $7 million is a huge disparity," she said.
The 40,000-student district came up with the school rifle program after consulting with top school safety experts and looking at what other large districts had done, said Olsen-Binks.
Santa Ana Unified School District, in nearby Orange County, has had a rifle program for about two years that operates similarly to the one Fontana has started, said police Cpl. Anthony Bertagna.
The Los Angeles School Police Department also deploys rifles to its officers as needed, the department said in a statement. It would not say how many rifles district police have but said the weapons are kept in the department's armory and are handed out and returned daily.
The San Bernardino City Unified School District police force purchased four Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles last July, said Linda Bardere, a district spokeswoman.
Fontana is a city of about 200,000 people east of Los Angeles.
"I came from a teaching background, and it's appalling to think that we'd have to have security officers — let alone armed police officers — on our campuses. But the bottom line is ... everybody has anxiety over school safety right now," Olsen-Binks said. "Our police officers said they would take a bullet for these kids and because they are willing to put their lives on the line, they need to be equipped for all scenarios."
Only sergeants are authorized to check out the rifles from the police armory, where they are kept. All officers have been trained for years to use the rifles.
The Fontana rifle purchase did not require approval from the school board but member Leticia Garcia said she believes there should have been a public discussion before they were purchased.
"We're talking about a war-zone rifle, and so are we going to militarize our public schools?" Garcia asked. "We have to provide a safe haven for people to learn ... but this, to me, seems a little bit too much."
___
Associated Press writers Robert Jablon and Christina Hoag in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
The Second Amendment attacked as 'racist' (and the 10th)...Constitution under attack!
Written by reg mathuszThere is a movement by anti-gunners to paint the Second Amendment as racist. The theory attempts to connect the 'Slave Patrols' and threats of slave rebellion as the ONLY reason for its existence. This is too much not to respond to.
I won't bore you with specific examples, as I do not believe that they justify any credit, however, if you Google you will find many very recent examples. Actually as shocking number of hits are returned.
To say that the Amendment was entirely focused on the preservation of slavery is a twisting of truth. They also attempt to tie the militia (and the States) into this perversion. Remember that the Continental (standing) Army was DISBANDED after the War. Perhaps the Militias served more function than 'enforce' slavery? But it makes a convenient argument for anti-gunners trying to discredit both the Militia and the 2nd Amendment.
Madison, who was charged with compiling the Bill of Rights (from thousands of requests), said that the Second Amendment was second in importance to only the First. The order is undeniably specific. The Second Amendment is the teeth of the Bill of Rights. Doubt his resolve?
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
What's worse is that many of these articles specifically tie the 10th Amendment (States' Rights) into their argument. So now States' Rights is racist too? Funny how the Left is all about States' Rights/Home Rule when they are not in power. Now that they hold the White House and Senate, suddenly, this concept is 'racist'? How convenient and hypocritical.
If you are not afraid of this rebranding, you should be -- How long is it until they attack the Constitution itself as being 'racist'?
Outrageous? I have seen postings and articles saying that the Founders themselves were racist and therefore the work they did is invalid! There was that whole "3/5 Compromise" (of course repealed) in the Constitution also.
Make no mistake -- there is a movement against the Constitution. Watch the media -- see how many "news" articles type it as 'constitution' (lower case 'c' -- like it is a generic concept, or one of many constitutions) instead of 'Constitution' as in THE U.S. Constitution -- the one and only -- the Supreme Law of the Land. These people are (supposedly) writers. They know the difference between capitalizing the C or not.
We must be vigilant now, more than ever. Please contact your legislators at all levels. I don't know who said it, but it is often repeated and true:
If the Second falls, so shall the rest...
Conn. Lawmaker Pushes Barney Fife Law: Limits Guns to One Round
Written by reg mathuszFirst is high capacity, then 10 rounds, then 5 rounds and then 1! See bill below: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/11/Conn-Lawmaker-Pushes-Barney-Fife-Law-Limits-Guns-To-One-Round ...and then none.