House Dems Push Race and Gun Laws In Wake of Trayvon

House Dems Push Race and Gun Laws In Wake of Trayvon

That pink cowboy hat is very irritating. I can't explain it, but I have this irresistable urge to snatch it off her racist head and do the Mexican Hat Dance with it. Although this might have something to do with it:


Its always some racist with a gun who kills blacks. Unfortunately, I can't dispute that conclusion. Black street thugs are racist; blacks account for more black on black homicide than any other race. Get the guns out of the hands of the racist black thugs and your problem is almost solved.

House Democrats are moving to pass gun control and race-based legislation in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting, The Hill reports today. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus want to end “Stand Your Ground” laws – laws designed to allow people to defend themselves rather than running when threatened with serious bodily harm. They have sponsored a resolution claiming that the Martin killing was a “crime,” suggesting that “racial bias led to the use of deadly force,” and lamenting “the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free.” The evidence in the Martin case remains unclear, at best.

Of course there is more to read after the jump.

I, Too, Am The Gun Lobby

To all of those “reporters” and pundits at ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, the New York Times and all the other Times, the Boston Globe, the Spokane Spokesman-Review, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Arizona Republic, all of the Tribunes, Stars, and Ledgers;

Let me make something perfectly clear: The NRA is not the Gun Lobby. Neither is the NSSF, nor the GOA, nor even The Firearms Coalition, nor the hundreds of grassroots and activist organizations or the thousands of local gun clubs. I am the Gun Lobby. Whenever you talk about the Gun Lobby, you are talking about me. All those groups and entities work for me, but they are not me, and they do not necessarily speak for me. My power does not derive from my personal wealth nor financial support from the industry that serves me. My power comes from the fact that I am one of tens of millions who understand that individuals have the right and the obligation to protect themselves from criminal assault, and that no one — not the government, not the media nor anyone else, has the right to decide what, when, where, or how I responsibly exercise that right and obligation. We – each of us – are the Gun Lobby, and we’re not going away, We’re not backing down, and we’re not giving in – not one little bit.

It infuriates me when I hear “reporting” and editorializing about “the powerful Gun Lobby” and “the intransigent Gun Lobby” and sometimes even “the evil Gun Lobby,” as if we were a handful of rich fat cats in safari shirts sitting in a mahogany-lined room full of leather, stuffed animals, and cigar smoke plotting how to increase our profits by increasing crime. We are the people! We are the 80 to 90 million people in this country who own guns and the tens of millions more who do not own guns, but fully support our right to do so.

Unlike the anti-rights groups like the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign, we do not get the bulk of our money from wealthy do-gooder endowments like the Joyce Foundation or wealthy individuals like Mike Bloomberg. I am the Gun Lobby and I get my money by working for it in factories, on construction sites, in small businesses, stores, shops, farms and ranches. I pull the money I use to support or oppose candidates and to pay my professional advocates, not from tax dollars or union dues, but from my own back pocket.

Unlike my opponents, I do not derive my power from friends in the media or from minions in state and federal offices. I derive my power from the volunteers I can muster and the votes I can deliver. I want little from politicians — mostly to be left in peace. If a politician disturbs my peace, I will do my best to fire them and hire someone else to do the job. That’s not bullying, or threatening, or undue influence, that’s the American ideal as expressed in the First Amendment — Americans expressing their will and support for the Constitution with our individual votes.

Unlike the Bradys and Bloombergs who advocate for regulation, limits, bans, and government controls over law-abiding citizens, I do not advocate government making any decision for any responsible individual. I do not advocate the arming of teachers or the arming of students, or the arming of anyone. Instead I oppose their being forcibly disarmed, and defend the right of all responsible people to make their own choices. I do not assume that thoughtful, responsible people will become heartless killers or mindless idiots because a gun is present. I reject the notion that “the trigger pulls the finger,” as some of my opponents have suggested. I trust responsible adult citizens to be responsible adults, and that trust has been proven consistently everywhere it has been given. I reject the idea that a sign on a wall or a policy in an employee handbook can, will, or ever has stopped someone intent on murder and mayhem from carrying out their criminal acts. To the contrary, I believe that such acts can and have been prevented and curtailed by responsible citizens who had the means and were willing to place themselves in harm’s way for the sake of others. I believe that it is wrong to disarm such people based on their job or where they happen to be.

I am the Gun Lobby. I am deeply rooted in the ideals and principles of this great nation. I am a true American and a true grass roots movement, not like the externally funded, AstroTurf organizations that oppose me. Certainly there are honorable and committed individuals who truly believe that guns are the problem, that guns cause crime and that giving the State a monopoly on violence is the key to establishing a peaceful and safe society. I know that those people are wrong.

I am many, diverse, and have varying levels of knowledge and understanding, but I am unified by a single individual truth: that no one has the right to make me helpless in the face of violence to myself, my family, my community, or my country.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ 85326.

Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

What he said.

Charles "Chuckie" Schumer on Gun Control

‘Common sense’ gun-control debate lasts less time than it takes to reload a 9mm --

It didn’t take long after the Tucson shootings for New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to propose sweeping new gun-control legislation. It’s supposed to “strengthen” background checks, but as The Daily Caller reports, it'll more likely piss off anyone who’s never actually been found guilty in a court of law. “The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who’s ever been arrested — even if never convicted or found guilty — for drug possession within a five-year period.” Alleged gunman Jared Lee Loughner admitted to smoking weed. According to Schumer’s “rational gun-control,” ergo, that means anyone arrested for doing drugs, for that bong that wasn’t actually yours or for Tweeting that you were going to get “ripped” tonight, is tantamount to planning a psychotic bloodbath. Everyone agrees that only "law-abiding" citizens should have guns, but who would have thought Schumer would try to change the definition of “law-abiding.”

Where's the Celebration?

D.C. homicides fall 9% in 2010 to 131, lowest toll since '63
PG also down; Montgomery up

Two years after Heller, D.C. posts lowest murder rate in half-century -- In fact, two years after District residents had their right to keep and bear arms restored by the Supreme Court, the homicide rate for Washington, D.C., was the lowest it's been in half a century.

"The District finished 2010 with 131 homicides — a 9 percent reduction from 2009 and the lowest number of killings in the nation's capital since 1963," reports the Washington Times. "The drop, from 143 killings, was the second straight decline and the seventh time in the last 10 years that the city once referred to as the 'murder capital' of the U.S. recorded fewer than 200 homicides."

Does correlation imply causation? Not always, especially considering that the bureaucratic iron maiden engineered by Mayor Fenty and MPD Chief Cathy Lanier has made it quite difficult for law-abiding citizens to own guns. But it helps to remember the position taken by the Brady Center the day the Heller decision was announced: "After the Heller ruling, as before, approximately 80 Americans will continue to die from guns every day." Perhaps: But fewer of those deaths are occurring in a city that once saw 482 murders in a year. That's progress!

Latte and an M1911

EDITORIAL: Packing a gun in Starbucks

Coffee beans and firearms stir up a strong political brew

If you want to have a nice, relaxing cup of coffee in a safe environment, try Starbucks. The coffee-shop chain, generally known for environmentalist chic, is probably one of the safest places to hang out these days for a reason that doesn't fit its image - Starbucks is letting customers openly carry guns in its stores. Americans thus can enjoy their rights and wash them down with a Frappuccino.

Not surprisingly, Starbucks has taken some flak for its stand. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, an organization that has supported gun bans in Washington and Chicago, wants guns kept out of Starbucks. Collecting signatures from across the country, the gun controllers announced this week that they have gathered 28,000 signatures to try to pressure the bean sellers to hang fire. What the Brady Campaign actually did is misfire.

Here is some free PR advice for those who support gun bans: 28,000 signatures from a country of 200-some million adults is embarrassingly small. The National Rifle Association, with more than 4 million members, could collect that many signatures for the opposite position in less than an hour. It's obvious which side won this duel.

Despite all the harping from the left, a spokesman for Starbucks said last week that the company is sticking to its policy of letting customers carry guns where it's legal.
From sea to shining sea, the climate for guns is changing, and the progress extends beyond Starbucks. Major retailers such as Home Depot, Best Buy and Barnes & Noble apparently also are friendly to people who openly pack heat, according to the Wall Street Journal. The Brady Campaign warns businesses that allowing customers to carry guns will scare away other customers. Yet it seems pretty obvious that the businesses themselves - despite all the pressure they face from trial lawyers and bureaucrats to ban guns - are in a much better position to know what their customers want.

Hollywood and the liberal media have skewed public perceptions to such a degree that most Americans probably don't realize that not so long ago, people openly carried guns without a second thought all the time. Up until 1969, all but one of the
public high schools in New York City had rifle teams. Thousands of students carried their rifles every day on subways, buses and streets on their way to school, when they went to practice in the afternoon and on their way home. The students would store their guns in homerooms in the morning and then pick them up in the afternoon. In more normal times, no one thought it was a big deal.

Liberals claim they believe in science, but guns vividly illustrate their intellectual blinders. There is not a single refereed study by criminologists or economists using crime data from across America that shows that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime. The academic debate in refereed journals has been over how large the benefits are.

Here is a prediction: In a very short time, all the furor over Starbucks' pro-gun policy will be forgotten. The gun grabbers might not like it, but most Americans respect the right to keep and bear arms - even in a coffee shop.

Opponents of Gun Control Introduce New Legislation In VA GA

This will surely bring the nutroots out in full force this month.

Gun control opponents hope to reshape handgun laws
By: William C. Flook Examiner Staff Writer
January 3, 2010

Gun control opponents in Virginia's legislature are proposing what would amount to a vast roll-back of handgun regulations, hoping to capitalize on a friendlier administration in Richmond to undo long-standing firearms restrictions.

Conservative lawmakers have filed a flurry of bills including abolishing the state's one-handgun-per-month rule and allowing college faculty to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

Despite the arrival of Republican Gov.-elect Bob McDonnell, who has an A rating from the National Rifle Association and campaigned on a pro-Second Amendment platform, none of the bills necessarily will have an easy time getting passed when the General Assembly goes into session later this month. Proponents of stronger gun laws have become much more vocal and focused since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre and are likely to oppose the measures alongside many legislators.

Del. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge, is proposing to do away with the Gov. Doug Wilder-era policy that limits a person to buying a single gun a month, arguing the rule "has run its course."

"I don't think it's been a very effective policy," Lingamfelter said. "It hasn't done much to prevent crime; it has done a lot to affect commerce."

Del. Mark Cole, R-Fredericksburg, has filed legislation that would legalize bringing guns into a courthouse "when the courthouse is being used for non-judicial activities," according to an online summary.

Del. Bob Marshall, R-Manassas, is proposing that full-time faculty members at state universities be allowed to carry concealed handguns into the classroom, provided they have a permit.

Del. Charles Carrico, R-Galax, authored a bill that would allow permits for concealed handguns to be renewed through the mail. Another of Carrico's bills would change the penalty for bringing a firearm onto school property from a felony to a misdemeanor.
The legislature convenes Jan. 13, and McDonnell is set to be inaugurated three days later. McDonnell replaces Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine, who has repeatedly vetoed efforts to weaken gun laws.

The incoming governor has yet to roll out his legislative agenda.

Why State Attorneys can drink and carry concealed

Apparently Governor Kaine, either can't read what he's signing, is willing to ignore parts of laws that he signs, has an incompetent law office that gives him bad advice, or he's lying to gun owners.

At a recent town meeting in Norfolk, VCDL member and blogger Curtis Stone, confronted the Governor about his inconsistencies in enforcing the laws of the land. His reply:

I explain it by saying you got the bills wrong. Your first statement of my veto was 100% accurate. Virginia does not allow concealed weapons to be carried into restaurants except by sworn law enforcement officers...

Commonwealth Attorneys are not sworn law enforcement...

Well, you know, I have a lot of lawyers and we spent a lot of time on this...

While Commonwealth Attorneys can carry concealed weapons because of the bill I signed, they can't take them into restaurants that serve alcohol.

Here is part of an email from the VCDL explaining the facts of life:

Here is the analysis:

18.2-308 is Virginia's concealed weapons code section

18.2-308 A lists all the weapons that are considered concealed if
carried "hidden from common" (this includes firearms, nun chucks,
daggers, etc.) and makes such carriage illegal.

18.2-308 B lists all the people who are TOTALLY EXEMPT from the
concealed weapons law, on-duty or off-duty, except from part J1
(below). Police are in this section and, now thanks to the Governor,
so are Commonwealth Attorneys

18.2-308 C lists all the people who are TOTALLY EXEMPT from the
concealed weapons law ONLY WHILE ON DUTY. This includes mail
carriers, the, er, Harbormaster of Hopewell (?!), and correctional
officers.

18.2-308 D creates a concealed handgun permit, which allows citizens
to carry a concealed handgun and not be charged with doing so.
However, the permit holder is not exempt from any of the other
provisions in the concealed weapons law, unlike the people in 18.2-308
B and C (above)

18.2-308 J1 says a person can't be drunk while carrying a concealed
handgun. This only applies to those listed in 18.2-308 B and 18.2-308
D. Interesting to note that 18.2-308 C is not covered. Thus, the
Harbormaster of Hopewell can actually be drunk and carry a concealed
handgun as long as he is on duty (or going to or from such duty)!

18.2-308 J3 says a person can't carry a concealed handgun into a
restaurant or club that serves alcoholic beverages. It does say that
a sworn law enforcement officer can do so, but that is actually
irrelevant since everyone listed in 18.2-308 B and C are exempt from
the concealed weapons law, including J3! (For legal clarity it is
common practice to state that such restrictions do not apply to sworn
police officers, even when such restrictions clearly don't apply
anyway.)