Concealed Carry Would Have Kept Norway Safe

Michael Reagan,FloydReports.com

How long would the Norway gunman have lasted in Texas or any state where
concealed-carry laws are on the books? I ran a survey while on a cruise:in
Texas,3 minutes;in Montana,7 to 8 minutes;in Arizona,2 minutes;and in Nevada,3
to 5 minutes.

Had Norway not surrendered to the anti-self-defense nuts,and allowed
Norwegians to protect themselves by legally carrying guns,the massacre might
well have been prevented. There’s a lot of truth in the old adage that if guns
are outlawed only outlaws will carry guns.

That was certainly true in Norway where Anders Breivik,a lone gunman,launched his assault on youth
campers of Utoya Island. According to press reports he fully expected Norway’s
special forces to swoop down and stop him at any minute. It didn’t happen. Faced
with unarmed victims he was given plenty of time to kill 68 innocent people who
could not defend themselves. Had just one of them been armed,Breivik could have
been stopped dead and lives would have been spared.

Moreover,if anyone had paid attention to Breivik’s rants they would not have
been surprised when he acted on them,especially since Breivik had preceded his
attack by setting off a car bomb in the heart of Oslo.

Tragically,Norway’s anti-gun hysteria resulted in laws restricting gun
ownership by law-abiding citizens,leaving them exposed to gun violence at the
hands of criminals such as Breivik,who simply ignore anti-gun ownership laws.
Despite the Second Amendment,which protects American citizens’rights to access
to guns for self-protection,the Constitutional right of citizens to bear arms is
under constant assault….

Read more.

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the Amish?

The Liberals’ Gun Control Crusade Targets…the
Amish?

April 4th, 2011

Kevin “Coach” Collins, FloydReports.com

The double-talking liberal Democrats in Illinois have
voted down a Republican measure to demand that those attempting to vote produce
a photo ID. The arguments they made were the same shopworn nonsense they always
use: “Such
a law will discourage voting”
; “It
disadvantage minority groups”
; etc.
In spite of the ever-increasing movement toward photo identification
everywhere we look, these people are able to kill photo ID bills. They have the
votes in the Illinois legislature and fear their fraudulent voters will not
be able to
keep supporting them if the system were to become honest.
Gun Control is the Liberals’ Religion
The same liberal Democrats who fight to keep voters from having to produce
photo ID have now passed a new law that will demand photo ID for those
who want to exercise their Second Amendment right
to buy a gun.
For most of the comrades living in a socialist-leaning state like Illinois,
assaults on freedom like this are part of life. Nevertheless, not all of
Illinois’ citizens can merely shrug off this law….
Read
more.

Cartoon of the Day: If Guns Kill People….

Obama Appoints Gun-Grabber Head of ATF

Obama Appoints Gun-Grabber Head of ATF

November 24th, 2010

Chris Johnson, CNSNews.com

Gun  rights advocates are unhappy with President Barack Obama’s pick   to  head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Obama  announced on Nov. 15 his intent to nominate Andrew Traver,  presently  the special agent in charge of the ATF’s Chicago office, to be  the  director of the agency.

Both the National Rifle Association (NRA)  and the Citizens Committee  for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms  (CCRKBA) criticized the president’s  selection.

According to the  NRA, “Traver has been deeply aligned with gun  control advocates  and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong  choice to lead an  enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight  and control over  the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers.”

Alan  Gottlieb, chairman of CCRKBA, told CNSNews.com that as ATF  director,  Traver would exercise vast control over all levels of the  firearm  industry.

“First of all, the big concern that we have is that the  agency that  he would be overseeing controls all the firearm  regulations against  everybody in the United States starting with the  manufacturers and the  wholesalers and the distributors down to the gun  dealers,” said  Gottlieb.

“They can deny dealers licenses, they  can decide that a person  doesn’t sell enough guns to be a dealer or  sells too many guns and  should be a dealer, all kinds of regulations on  how the stores have to  operate, what kind of security devices they  have to have, all kinds of  inspections,” said Gottlieb. “There are a  whole lot of monkey wrenches  that can be thrown into the firearm  industry very quietly behind the  scenes.”

“And there’s not a  whole lot anyone can do about it.” He said,   “because Congress has  given them the authority to basically impose  their own regulations.”

Read more.

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Sarah Palin: Another Victory for the Second Amendment

Another Victory for the Second Amendment
 Yesterday at 10:46am
The Supreme Court handed down an important ruling today stating what should be obvious: that the Second Amendment, in the words of Justice Alito writing for the court, “applies equally to the federal government and the states.” Today’s decision in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, in conjunction with the landmark Heller case two years ago, should leave little doubt that our individual right to keep and bear arms applies everywhere and is a right for everyone.

For an interesting perspective on the significance of today’s ruling, take a look at David Rittgers’ article in National Review here.

– Sarah Palin

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic’ Toward Gun-Rights Claim

Last update: 04:46 AM ET, May 13

Kagan Said She Was `Not Sympathetic’ Toward Gun-Rights Claim

By Greg Stohr and Kristin Jensen – May 13, 2010
Elena Kagan, U.S. solicitor general

Elena Kagan, U.S. solicitor general, smiles during a meeting in Washington, on Wednesday. Photographer: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was “not sympathetic” toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal.

The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

Kagan, currently the U.S. solicitor general, has made few public remarks about the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled, in a case that overturned the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, that the Constitution protects individual gun rights.

As a nominee to be solicitor general last year, Kagan told lawmakers that she accepted that 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller as a precedent of the court.

“There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation,” she said.

Review Denied

The Heller decision left room for states to require registration of weapons. The majority also said the ruling didn’t cast doubt on laws barring handgun possession by convicted felons and the mentally ill, or restrictions on bringing guns into schools or government buildings.

The lower court ruling in the 1987 case, issued by the District of Columbia’s highest court, said the Second Amendment protects only the rights of states to raise militias, and not individual gun rights. The ruling upheld Lee Sandidge’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

The high court refused to hear the case, known as Sandidge v. United States. The memo to Marshall, found in his papers at the Library of Congress, includes a handwritten “D,” indicating that he was among those who voted to deny review.

White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said the position taken in the memo to Marshall reflected the prevailing view of the law at the time.

Reflecting Marshall

During her confirmation hearing to be solicitor general, the federal government’s top Supreme Court advocate, Kagan said she was trying to reflect Marshall’s views when she evaluated so-called petitions for certiorari, or cert petitions. She called herself a “27-year-old pipsqueak” working for a “90- year-old giant in the law.”

“He was asking us, in the context in those cert petitions, to channel him and to think about what cases he would want the court to decide,” Kagan said. “And in that context, I think all of us were right to say, ‘Here are the cases which the court is likely to do good things with from your perspective, and here are the ones where they’re not.’”

Marshall was a civil rights icon before becoming the first black justice. He led the legal fight to dismantle the “separate but equal” regime in public education, arguing the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case.

As a justice, he opposed the death penalty and backed abortion rights and affirmative action. Kagan, now 50, clerked for Marshall during the court’s 1987-88 term and has described him as one of her heroes.

Clues to Kagan

The memos provide clues to Kagan’s potential approach as a justice. Much like Marshall, Kagan might find herself playing defense, at least in her first few years, working strategically to thwart the agenda of a more conservative majority.

Kagan on numerous occasions urged the justice to vote for so-called defensive denials, rejecting appeals from criminal suspects and defendants to prevent his more conservative colleagues from giving more power to police and prosecutors.

She urged rejection of an appeal from an Illinois man whose burglary conviction hinged on evidence discovered when he was stopped, ordered to lie down and searched by police. The search took place even though police lacked the “probable cause” required to make an arrest, Kagan said.

Kagan said she thought the court, if it heard the case, would uphold the conviction. That “would be an awful and perhaps quite consequential holding,” she wrote.

In recent years, Chief Justice John Roberts and four colleagues have joined forces in 5-4 decisions to strike down campaign finance regulations and limit shareholder lawsuits, as well as to protect gun owners’ rights.

B-Minus in Torts

The Marshall papers also include Kagan’s Harvard Law School transcript and glowing letters of recommendation to the justice from her professors. “She is soft-spoken and delightful to be with, but razor-sharp and iron-hard in intellectual give and take,” wrote one, Abram Chayes.

One professor referenced her transcript, which showed Kagan got off to a slow start as a law student. She received a B in criminal law and a B-minus in torts in the fall of her first year, later receiving predominantly A’s in classes including constitutional law.

“Whatever was in her way on those fall term exams, it wasn’t affecting her class performance even during the fall, and evidently was gone by exam time in May,” wrote Frank Michelman, who taught her in a spring property law course and said he had contact with his students starting in September.

To contact the reporters on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net; Kristin Jensen in Washington at kjensen@bloomberg.net.