Eliminating Gun-Free Zones

Hello, Rev. Paul 

SB174-Eliminate Gun Free Zones at UA We members of the 2nd Amendment Task Force have expended a lot of energy over the the last few years trying to back down the Board of Regents at the University of Alaska (UA) to reverse the "no guns on campus" policy. YAL (Young Americans for Liberty) has managed to lobby and get a bill introduced that will accomplish much of what we have been after. Senate Bill 174 was introduced by Senator Kelly and co-sponsored by Dunleavy, McGuire, Giessel and Stoltze. You can read the bill HERE. In a nutshell the bill stops UA from preventing concealed carry on campus. It still allows the Board of Regents to regulate open carry. It's unclear how the bill affects on campus storage of long arms, for instance is a cased shotgun considered concealed or open carry. This is major step toward eliminating “Gun Free Zones” and deserves our support. We will keep you informed as the bill moves forward. Please take a few minutes and call the Senators that are backing the bill to thank them personally. With all the budget issues facing the state it's hard to say where this will go but we need to be behind it. You will find Senate contact information HERE. Please step up and take a few minutes to help out with this issue. Here is a copy of the email from Senator Kelly's office to YAL: Greetings Kelsi, Our bill got introduced as SB 174. We picked up four unsolicited co-sponsors from Senators Dunleavy, Stoltze, McGuire, and Giessel. It got an Education and a Judiciary referral, but since the chairs of those committees are both co-sponsors, I don’t anticipate too much difficulty from the committees. Although, the number of referrals is somewhat concerning, particularly since I expect the University of Alaska to trigger a finance referral by adding a fiscal note, I’ll have a better idea of our way forward once I find out if we can get a hearing next week. Regards, Joe Byrnes Staff for Senator Pete Kelly 907-465-2872

Quote of the Day

"Consider getting a carry permit for protection, and maybe take a friend to a range to enjoy some safe shooting. Self-defense is a God-given right."

~ Sarah Palin, Sweet Freedom (2015, Regnery Press)


The lady knows whereof she speaks.

Congressional Gun Control Hypocrisy Shines On Capitol Hill

From Bullets First:

Posted by Tony Oliva on Oct 9, 2015 in Email Featured, Fallacy, Featured, Gun Control FAIL, Hypocrisy, Legislation

It’s jaw dropping when the perfect storm of Congressional tone deafness, meets the mindset of the oligarchy with the illogical fallacy of gun control.

To what am I referring?

On Thursday, Senate Democrats gathered on the steps of the Capitol to announce a new push for tougher gun-control laws.


While Democrats exploiting the death of children and unarmed victims for their own political gain is not a new phenomenon, the abject hypocrisy in how they do it is always mind boggling to me.

You see, these Democrats, including NY Sen Chuck Shumer and Oregonian Sen Ron Wyden, made the announcement while surrounded by a dozen armed guards who were in ADDITION to the regular detail of Capitol Police who protect Congressmen.

So in Washington DC, whose city council is doing EVERYTHING they can to subvert he rulings of the courts in order to deny the Second Amendment to its citizens, these Senators have the gall to prance around with their own, heavily armed, tax payer funded, private use army while the peons of the “servant class” have to fend for themselves unarmed, to announce MORE restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms.

The hypocrisy of it all would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.

And the restrictions of course wouldn’t do anything to stop criminals from using guns to kill people because the last time I checked murder was still illegal and that doesn’t stop the criminals.  The gun control measures just make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to exercise their God given rights.

Gun Controllers love to throw scary sounding words around when they push for more Constitution shredding.  That’s why we have the bogus term “Assault Weapon” applied to sporting rifles.

The measures proposed by the Democrats include old favorites (yet in reality non existent things) like the “gun show loophole” mixed in with new ones like the “illegal gun pipeline.”

Unless Chuck Shumer is talking about the time the Obama Administration smuggled weapons to the Mexican Cartels in Operation Fast and Furious, I don’t have time for his nonsense.

And of course, the ubiquitous “improved background check.”  Simply put, be treated like a criminal and give the government MORE information before exercising your rights.

Yet somehow, if you support the idea of require ID’s in order to vote you are a vile racist who is trying to usurp democracy.  Gun Controlling Democrat hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The most egregious thing that was said while these Senators were armed behind their wall of guns was muttered by Sen Wyden of Oregon.

“The victims and their families deserve better than a Congress that shrugs its shoulders and waited for the next tragedy.  They deserve action.”

No Senator, they don’t need “action” they need the Government to get the hell out of the way and let law abiding citizens exercise their right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves.
Unlike you, We the people don’t go around with a small army on the taxpayers dime.

We are on our own. But We like it that way.  So you can take all your rights infringing garbage and your tragedy exploiting bull that you and your kind have facilitated in the first place and pound sand.
You want to do something to stop further mass shootings?  Outlaw gun free zones.  Oregon forces Christian bakers to bake wedding cake for gay couples.  At least the 2nd Amendment is an actual RIGHT.

But that is a discussion for another time.

Next time gun controllers want to push for gun control they should do so without the army of hired guns.  I mean, its DC and its all about gun control…it should be the safest city in America…

Why then does it have a crime index of 4…with 100 being the safest?

Food for thought.

Read more at http://bulletsfirst.net/2015/10/09/congressional-gun-control-hypocrisy-shines-on-capitol-hill/

A Couple of Interesting Things

to click on, in the inbox this morning.

Oregon County Passes Initiative Allowing Sheriff to Void Gun Control Laws If He Thinks They’re Unconstitutional

Nearly a month after a tragic mass shooting shook Umpqua Community College, a rural Oregon county roughly two hours west of the school passed a measure directing the sheriff to bypass state and federal gun laws if he judges them unconstitutional.

Coos County residents smoothly approved the Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance on Tuesday with more than 60 percent voting for its passage. The ordinance bars public employees from using county funds to enforce any laws the sheriff deems unconstitutional.

It also prohibits enforcement of Oregon’s recent law requiring background checks on private gun transfers, including transactions between friends. County employees who violate the measure could face a $2,000 fine.

And then there's this one:

New Emails: Benghazi Cover Story Continues to Unravel 

A new lot of emails released by the State Department on Halloween were so newsworthy that not even the holiday could drown it out.

It turns out, three days after the Benghazi attack, on Sept. 14, 2012, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli specifically warned the State Department in an email not to promote the idea that an anti-Muslim YouTube video was the cause of the attack.

The embassy issued this warning for two reasons: one, it was not true. And two, by calling continued attention to the video, anti-American sentiment in Libya was inflamed, where the video had not been a factor to any significant extent.

“[O]ur view at Embassy Tripoli is that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” wrote an embassy official whose name was redacted from the Sept. 14, 2012 email.

“[I]f we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it,” the official said. “And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence.”

Well, well, well. Madame Secretary not only lied through her teeth, but she was thumbing her nose while she did it. And then lied again.

We're still waiting for the criminal investigation ...

Wild Bill: Guns, Bibles and Freedom

The Dangerous "Background Check" Lie

By Alan Korwin, American Handgunner

A Gun-Transfer Ban For Everytown Means Death To Liberty.

Half the media doesn’t even know it’s deceiving you when it talks about so-called “universal background check” bills. The other half knows it’s lying.

They know this code phrase means a national gun-transfer ban, plus universal gun registration — total government control over all guns held privately in America.

Without total registration, universal background checks don’t work. A comprehensive gun-owner list is the whole point of getting falsely reported “background bills” passed. One man — multi-billionaire former NYC mayor Mike Bloomberg — is pushing the bills and funding operations, with shell corporations, hired hands, advertising, federal cooperation and mountains of his cash.

His goal is to make you subject to arrest if you hold someone else’s gun — a “gun transfer” — with or without a sale, like he just snuck through in Washington State. Sounds impossible but it’s stone-cold true. He did that by deceiving the public with a $10 million false advertising campaign. He told the public one thing, for a law that did something else. When people found out, after they passed it, they were furious. Too late. Let’s do this by example, so you understand what we’re talking about.
Let’s say you buy a Colt Python from some regular Joe at a gun show, or my next-door neighbor, or in a class, it doesn’t matter where. Gun-show loophole is just a buzz phrase the media uses to bamboozle — the proposed bills always cover every inch of the nation.

Loophole is a synonym for liberty. Never forget that. Gun-show liberty. Bloomberg, an anti-freedom bigot of the worst kind, hides behind a privately armed army, assaulting your right to arms, while exercising his. He wants to kill a liberty you currently have, willing to blatantly lie to get his way, spending obscene fortunes to bully us.

But I digress.

Joe says he’s the Python’s original owner, bought it at retail from Tony’s Gun Store (where you shop sometimes) and you believe him. You’ve known Joe for years and he’s always seemed like a right guy. That might all be true, or not, you have no way of knowing. You now have the Python, it’s sweet, no paperwork, cash and carry. That’s got a name. It’s called freedom. Two free people doing business. You don’t even have to buy it — if Joe just hands it to you you’re both guilty under Bloomberg’s bill.

That handoff scares the crap out of the left and gun scaredy cats because both of you might be criminals! And there’s no controls! Joe the criminal could have just sold (or handed) you, the criminal, a stolen gun and the police won’t even know! Everyone in the world might be criminals, selling each other g- g- g- guns!

What they miss of course is if new background checks were required and everyone was a criminal, the exact same deal could take place anyway, without the check, like it does now. Laws stop nothing. Law enforcement does. That’s what’s missing, insiders understand this and the “news” omits it (too conveniently), leaving voters misled. We’ve already made all of those actions illegal — the criminals, the transfer, the sale and the stolen gun. But I digress again.

Perfectly Legal

I’ve just described the private transfer of property between two free citizens in a free country, the same as the transfer of a Bible, gold coins, this publication or any legal property. In most states nationwide this is 100 percent legal. There’s no victim, no one is harmed and no crime is committed. Laws against it would ban liberties most of us currently enjoy, without affecting criminals who do all that now — even though it’s banned. All Bloomie’s new law would do is outlaw you. Anti-rights bigots and ignorami are hell-bent to outlaw these transfers for you.

Getting back to your shiny new Python, since you really have no idea where it’s been, let’s suppose several possibilities.

First, Joe is telling the truth, second Joe got the gun like you just did, from someone he knows (so he really doesn’t know its background), and third Joe stole the gun or it’s tainted in some other way (smuggled, traded for outlawed drugs, used in a crime, etc.) all of which are already highly illegal with harsh penalties. What does all this mean for you, background checks and gun registration? Will new laws requiring more government interference make anyone safer or help stop crime?

Loophole is a synonym for liberty.

Never forget that. Gun-show liberty.

If Joe, the gun and you’re all legal, which is typically the case, no amount of extra government helps
anything, but it does raise everyone’s costs, diverts resources away from policing and into record keeping, and eats up time. As long as you use your sidearm righteously, no blood, no foul.

If some new private-transfer ban gets enacted, Joe and you can obey and travel somewhere during business hours, go through the red tape, pay the fees, fill out the papers, clerks in West Virginia (where the sprawling FBI campus for this has been built) enter the records, and nothing changes except — you have the Python, owned or borrowed, and now the government knows it.

There’s only one thing the government can actually do with that information besides store it. They can decide to come and take your Python, now that they know you have it, should they decide to do so. They would have to ban Pythons first though, to make the confiscations “legal.” Sorta.

But if Joe and you decide not to go through the rigmarole and just transact the property, who’s to know? Without a universal gun-registration system in place, the private-transfer background check accomplishes nothing — because there is no way to tell who owned what beforehand. The government obviously needs a list of where America’s 300 million guns are today before the system really works — they even said this themselves. And then, it just identifies innocent people who own property, with no connection to any crimes committed. How does writing everyone’s name on a government list help stop crime? (Hint: It doesn’t.)

How accurate do you think a government record of 300 million guns will be? Guns that look alike, distinguished by tiny characteristics, owned by Americans who want nothing to do with the system, with easily bollixed serial numbers in an obese inventory that’s constantly in flux, run by low-wage dead-end clerks who are tired and waiting for the Friday bell, just like any work force.

In this database — errors are felonies. If the system says Joe owns a Python and he can’t produce it with federal jackboots at his door, that’s a potential crime, and he has some jawing to do. If Joe sends anyone to your door you may admit to having it or deny it or clam up and demand an attorney.

Don’t forget, nobody here harmed anyone; this is a database problem. And I haven’t even gotten up to the part where criminals with guns cannot be part of the system — because they would have to self-incriminate to register. That’s prohibited, since they can’t have frickin’ guns in the first place.

No, the universal-background-check scam has one purpose — to control all of America’s privately owned guns. It has nothing to do with crime, blatantly violates the Second Amendment, is completely beyond any power delegated to government and should be rejected outright as an illegitimate public policy choice in this country.

A Final Thought

Bloomberg, and the leftist approach he represents, is misguided. To prevent criminals from potentially buying guns outside civil controls, they would subject everyone who isn’t criminal to submit to control, drastically reducing freedom. This is unacceptable from the perspective of liberty. Liberty is the higher requirement.

The public is guilty of nothing and cannot legitimately be subjected to such demeaning treatment. To prevent criminals from obtaining guns, they must be caught in possession, as hard as that is, which is why they are — and remain armed — historically, and possessed of other contraband despite laws to the contrary. Burdening the innocent, and drastically curtailing currently enjoyed freedoms will not improve the situation and are intolerable acts.

Alan Korwin: The Effort to Subarm America (Part II)

Korwin: The Effort To Subarm America (Part II)

By Alan Korwin. August 2015

(JPFO note: The following was syndicated with the permission of Alan Korwin, the author of this article. Mr. Korwin is the author of 14 books, has been invited by the U.S. Supreme Court twice to observe oral arguments and runs the website GunLaws.com. He is also a friend of GunsAmerica and a stalwart JPFO consultant and advisor.)

SUBARMED, ADJ. A POINT BETWEEN DISARMED AND FULLY ARMED.

To a careful observer, the ongoing effort to subarm Americans is increasingly obvious. It’s a cooperative project involving government, private hoplophobic (gun-fearing) anti-rights groups, and a compliant poorly informed “news” media that has become a lapdog, not a watchdog.

The whole point of being armed is to be properly armed, to create the balance of power the Second Amendment intends and makes possible. Balance of power. You heard that phrase in school if you’re old enough. It used to be important. It still is. Subarming the public upsets this critical balance.

The right to keep and bear arms serves many purposes, from providing duck to saving children, as anyone in the gun debate has heard to death. The role of the public’s arms in preserving peace and freedom however is the Second Amendment’s quintessential one. It is only by force or the ability to use force that our society’s enemies — people who would take what is ours and hunt us down individually or as a nation — are prevented from doing so. I don’t like that sentence but I can’t deny its truth. I’d prefer utopian pacifism, but force is what keeps us safe and free. That’s been true since biblical times.

Col. Jeff Cooper, “the father of the modern technique of shooting,” put it best in his book, The Principles of Personal Defense, when he said: “Some people prey upon other people. Whether we like it or not, this is one of the facts of life… the peril of physical assault does exist, and it exists everywhere and at all times.”

That applies, distressingly, to all enemies, foreign… and domestic. Too many Americans today are unaware how this works. It is only by the potential force of an armed body politic that government here has been kept at bay, and our high relative freedom has been maintained — a condition so world famous and effective it has been drawing people like a superconducting magnet from around the world for centuries.

As firearm parity between our policing forces and the public slips however, freedom slips, because that critical balance slips away. And in a headlong quest for increased power, those in government power, working with misguided anti-rights zealots and the fears of hoplophobes, they have been incrementally subarming the public, finding that disarmament is a too-tough hill to climb. By working to reduce all aspects of civilian arms, subarmament is succeeding where disarmament stalled.

HERE’S WHERE FREEDOM SLIPPED

The major turning point came with the so-called Firearm Owner’s Protection Act in 1986. We didn’t know it at the time, because the ornaments hung on that tree distracted us. Abuse by local authorities had gotten so extreme Congress had to act — people were being arrested in droves for merely traveling with firearms, for simple legal possession, nothing more. Cops were just obeying orders from their gun-hating masters. Who says cops won’t obey infringing laws? Have a gun? Go to jail.

We were now protected federally, sorta, from arrest for transporting legal firearms from one place to another — if they were unloaded in the trunk, where they did you absolutely no good if you needed them. You couldn’t bear arms, as the Second Amendment supposedly guaranteed, but you could transport them. Hooray for our side. And that was the bait.

Up until then, what cops had, we had. We went hand-in-hand from matchlocks to flintlocks, muzzleloaders to cartridge guns, smooth bore to rifled barrels, bolt action to auto-loaders… and that’s where the roads diverged.

In 1986 our betters in government decided people could have all the machine guns they wanted, as long as they worked for government. If you were just a citizen, the commerce in these products was closed for you. Oh, you were “allowed” to keep whatever you already owned on the cutoff date, a couple hundred thousand total (suddenly astronomically priced collector items). There was no easy way around that, because the Fourth Amendment required compensation if agents tried to confiscate your property. You might actually use your weapons if jackboots attempted that.

From that point on, officials of every description started stockpiling full autos, by the millions, while you Joe Q. Public could proudly keep and bear only your single shot guns like AR-15s that looked like badass guns. But you were hopelessly subarmed and freedom went right downhill, now facing 80,000 full-auto SWAT raids yearly. And they want your one-pull-of-the-trigger guns too.

SUBARMING TAKES MANY FORMS

Normal capacity magazines are part of it. Police want double-stack magazines for their pistols because they’re safer. When you’re in a firefight, more ammo means more safety. Subarming the public with infringed capacity magazines is a danger no cop would ever accept.

Recently, one federal agency exercising controls over firearms, called BATFE, proposed banning a certain type of popular ammo, “green ammo,” by deciding it was suddenly too dangerous. If this group of unelected bureaucrats gets away with subarming Americans by limiting them to ammo that isn’t dangerous enough, all is lost.

The very idea of ammunition that can’t accomplish its designed purpose or isn’t very good, that’s almost better than disarmament, because it slips under the public’s awareness, a dastardly tactic. An agency that even pretends to have such power is a threat to freedom. You can’t ban ammo because it’s dangerous! Ammo is supposed to be dangerous. Deadly dangerous.

BATFE SEEKS ONE-WAY GUNFIRE: AGAINST YOU

The core of BATFE’s argument is that this brand of ammo is suddenly armor piercing. Something about a ban on armor-piercing ammunition I don’t understand. See if you follow me here.

It’s illegal to fire any bullet at a cop — or at anyone! — intending to do harm without cause, right? You rot in jail until you're old for that — or are put to death. So is it worse to use a green bullet than a regular one? No, of course not. It is murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, or any of a dozen deadly serious crimes all at once.

Does the violation change if the victim is wearing a T-shirt? No difference. Well, what if the person is wearing body armor?

Aha. With armor-piercing ammo, your gun remains lethal. But with plain ammo your gun is no longer lethal. It’s almost as if you don’t have a gun at all (“You only think you’re armed if the other guy is wearing body armor.” –from The Cartridge Family Band). You have been effectively disarmed, versus the state, if BATFE gets its way (without an act of Congress, I should add). The balance of power shifts again: State 1, People zero.

This is the secret sauce behind the BATFE proposal that no one wants to speak about in public. The BATFE proposal about certain types of ammo (that they claim is armor piercing) would make the state invulnerable and shift the balance of power the Second Amendment is supposed to provide. They can shoot you, but you can’t shoot them (their proposed ban only bans you, just like the machinegun ban). It’s the same as disarming the public, without having to disarm the public, a thoroughly villainous scheme.

Oh that’s so far fetched. Their proposal is for only one type of ammo, you can still buy body armor yourself (in most places, still), who cares if 3,000 armored SWAT raids in 1980 is 80,000 today and growing, BATFE wouldn’t expand the list of dangerous ammo if they somehow got the power to ban the green stuff, which was stalled (but not foreclosed). That’s just paranoid delusion (like expecting “BITS” — blood in the streets — every time a CCW law passes, which never occurs).

Yes, the illogic is legendary, yet strangely compelling when you look closely. The balance of power between the people and the state will have been completely broken if BATFE gets the brand new power they seek. “You can have your guns, as long as they don’t work.” This is something democrats have been developing for a while, with lock-up-your-guns schemes.

The nefarious activities at BATFE are legendary. These are the people who smuggled thousands of guns to Mexican drug lords. Now, on their own, they seek to ban reliable ammo to the public. And no one there suffers any consequences. They want you subarmed and outgunned.

Subarmament policies must be recognized for what they are, infringements on Second Amendment rights to keep arms and to bear arms, and rejected categorically as violations of American freedom. The perpetrators of such proposals need to be removed from power and face punishment for denial of civil rights and violation of oath of office.

Alan Korwin Asks: Should America Subarm Its Citizens?

Korwin: Should America Subarm its Citizens?

By Alan Korwin. August 2015

(JPFO note: The following was syndicated with the permission of Alan Korwin, the author of this article. Mr. Korwin is the author of 14 books, has been invited by the U.S. Supreme Court twice to observe oral arguments and runs the website GunLaws.com. He is also a friend of GunsAmerica and a stalwart JPFO consultant and advisor.)

There’s a point between fully armed and disarmed that is subarmed. Being subarmed is dangerous. Officials would never stand for it themselves. It’s the point where you don’t have a very good gun, or certainly not the type you’d prefer, or not the type your police prefer for their own safety, and not the right ammo, or certainly not enough of it. It isn’t the caliber you want, and the magazine is too small. You’re subarmed.

It seems there are people at work in the government and the euphemistic gun-control movement who have figured out if they can’t disarm the public — because the public will not stand for it and put up intense opposition — they can subarm the public (that’s you) a little at a time. If you’re subarmed, and they’re fully armed, that’s pretty much victory for them and a shift in control.

Because it happens by bits, the big picture is obscured. Little by little the power shifts from the public to the authorities. We used to have parity with government, and this kept government in check, made America the liberty capital on Earth. We the people were equal with our hired hands. Both sides were in a state of stasis, equilibrium. They had matchlocks, we had matchlocks.

They had flintlocks, we had flintlocks. They got cap and ball, we all had it. We grew up together, we were partners in this, developed the field together. Self-contained cartridges, rifled barrels, bolt action, revolvers, semi-auto, improvements to everything, optics, full auto… the story starts to rag out right there.

TWO GUN LAWS: TECTONIC SHIFT IN AMERICAN FREEDOM

In 1968 our employees in government decided it was time for us to fill out paperwork for any gun purchased from any manufacturer. It’s been that way ever since, despite the enormous trash piles generated by “news” media to the contrary. It’s no big deal — maybe — but every gun made and sold legally to an American since then comes with government paperwork.

Twenty-two years later, in 1986, the scales of equality tipped over. The Gun Control Act basically said members of the state could have machine guns but the peasants (that’s us) could not — only one-shot guns for us. Matching firepower was no longer for the masses — it was for the hired help only. Two centuries of Gun Equality between government and the public was over. Now that’s a big deal.

Oh, the few full autos in public hands at the time could remain, but this was subarming on a grand scale, an order of magnitude, it made the two sides totally unequal. The miniscule number of now collectible machine guns people owned could be cherished, lost to wear-and-tear and jealously safeguarded — thanks to five-figure price tags instantly springing upon a closed finite market.

SAY GOODBYE TO OFFICER FRIENDLY

The rapid decline in freedom everyone has been noticing was catalyzed. The rise of the police state became more intense. SWAT raids (multiple battle-equipped specialists with machine guns and overwhelming power) have gone from 3,000 per year in 1980 to as many as 80,000 per year now. The Andy Griffith Show was solidly in the past. Officer Friendly was on his way out.

We weren’t a police state then and we’re not one now, we’ve just started looking more like one than anyone would like — and toe the line, pal. Not to worry, our morals are still intact. Or are they.

You’re overwhelmed when a dynamic entry team of eight masked, body-armored men storm through your door with flash-bang grenades at two in the morning, like the state does these days. You’ve been subarmed to the point of being gunless when they have MP-5 machine guns and you have the civilian single-pull-of-the-trigger AR-15 you’re so proud to own. It’s the gun you insist is OK because it’s the one-shot model, not the machine gun it looks like, which ignorant gun haters fear it really is. And they want to confiscate that too.

The seven-round magazine New York got saddled with is a subarmament joke and the people responsible should be brought up on charges for infringement and violation of oath of office. They swore to uphold the Second Amendment, not to find workarounds. Small magazines endanger the innocent when peril lurks. Ask police if they would stand for that.

OF COURSE AMMUNITION IS DANGEROUS

Meanwhile, BATFE bureaucrats are deciding some ammunition is more dangerous than other types, so it should be banned. How utterly preposterous! What needs to be banned is the BATFE.

Ammunition cannot be banned based on the fact that it is dangerous! And a government agency cannot exercise power that Congress has no legitimate delegated authority to give it.

Everyone knows that ammunition is dangerous — because that’s its purpose! Not just dangerous, deadly dangerous. It is supposed to be. If it’s not dangerous, it’s flawed. What BATFE is really seeking is to have some ammo removed because it might be used against them, making them bulletproof — but they won’t ban it for themselves, and it could be used against you. Judging ammo — which is beyond the delegated power an agency can have because it infringes on our rights — is like judging which words are too dangerous to say. BATFE doesn’t want you to think about the logical angle:

Using any type of ammunition at all in any unjustifiably dangerous way is already grossly illegal many times over at every level and can carry the death penalty. Murder is illegal. Attempted murder is illegal. Planning a murder is illegal.

Using any kind of gun and any kind of ammo for any of that is criminal at the state and federal level with no wiggle room. That’s enough for this rogue agency or any other. Banning ammo is an infringement ploy.

If authorities can justify subarming the public based on ammo type, the Second Amendment will have been eviscerated, and this is intolerable. All subarmament efforts should be spotted, called out for what they are, and summarily halted. There are no excuses, no saturation “news” stories about crazed maniacs that justify taking action against the public. The responsible parties should be reprimanded, discharged from or voted out of office and publicly ostracized for acting against the interests of the United States. The jig is up.

Copyright © JPFO 1999 - 2015. All Rights Reserved.
12500 NE 10th Pl | Bellevue | WA 98005 | Phone: (800) 869-1884 | Fax: 425-451-3959
jpfo@jpfo.org

Not Infringed Enough? The NSSF Wants MORE "Prohibited Persons"

 

Why is NSSF Trying to Expand
List of "Prohibited Persons"?

By Kurt Hofmann, August 5th 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.

In the wake of high-profile mass shootings in South Carolina, Tennessee, and Louisiana, some of the calls for more "gun control" are coming from a perhaps surprising direction. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry's trade association, is calling for revisions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) that would deny more people the most effective means of defending life and liberty. What's more, they are proudly boasting of having done so in the past, and lamenting the fact that "gun control" groups won't give them any credit for their own "gun control" efforts.

Larry Keane

"Now More Voices Agree on the Need to Fix NICS," announces the title of NSSF's recent blog post, written by NSSF's Senior Vice President and General Counsel Larry Keane, and apparently we are to believe that what the voices agree on is that the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is not being infringed enough:

For the national background check system to work, all applicable records based on current law have to be entered into it at the state level. After all, any system is only as good as the accuracy and completeness of its database. This is where we all can agree that the system needs improvement.

Um, no--we cannot "all agree that the system needs" that kind of "improvement." We cannot "all agree" that in a country in which "the experts" claim that twenty percent of the population is mentally ill, that the government should be given the names of the 60 million people who are to be forcibly disarmed.

But NSSF hasn't been waiting for our agreement:

We are in the third year of our industry's national effort to ensure that the system has all the appropriate records put into it. We call the initiative FixNICS and we have been successful through our direct efforts to convince 16 state legislatures to pass legislation to ensure that there are no statutory, regulatory, administrative or procedural impediments to entering all appropriate records - criminal and mental health - into NICS.

Quite proud of their "gun control" efforts, aren't they? This is collaboration with the enemy. Whether it sinks to the level of Quisling's treason, or "merely" to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement, is perhaps academic. As Churchill said, after all, "An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." What the crocodiles of "gun control" are being fed here, of course, is the ability of millions of Americans to legally own the best tools of self-defense.

The intent, presumably, is to voluntarily give up some ground, in hopes that the gun ban zealots will be satisfied with that, and not seek more. How can anyone think that's an effective strategy? When has the forcible citizen disarmament lobby ever been satisfied that they have taken enough? Every inch of ground we surrender is an inch that they will not have to fight for--and an inch closer to total disarmament of the citizenry.

No. Again borrowing from Mr. Churchill, " . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . .." Anything less is voluntarily aiding and abetting citizen disarmament.

The only way to "fix" NICS is to do away with it, consign it to the scrap heap of the more sordid parts of our history. As David Codrea has long argued, "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." Maybe NSSF ought to redirect its efforts in the direction of recruiting a lot of custodians.

A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.

"If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns, Why Aren't The Rest of Us?"

If Retired Cops Are Safer With Unlocked Guns,
Why Aren't the Rest of Us?

By Kurt Hofmann, July 1st 2015
JPFO writer contributor, © 2015.

The Los Angeles City Council is considering implementing a more restrictive "safe storage" law, requiring all handguns to be locked in a safe or disabled with a trigger locking device when not in use. Given that this is L.A. we're talking about here, the only surprising aspect is that such a law hasn't already been on the books for years by now.

Well, no--actually, there is one more surprise to be found here--the loudest opposition is from the police union. What--L.A. cops against "gun control"? Well, they don't object to all the private citizens being required to lock up their best defense against home invaders. What they don't like is the thought that they and their families might be at the tender mercies of home invaders until they can unlock their best means of self-defense.

This opposition comes despite the fact that the proposed law includes a provision that exempts active duty and reserve officers (whose children, apparently are far safer around unsecured firearms than other people's kids). The problem, according to the union, is that retired officers are expected to deal with as many obstacles to their ability to defend themselves as are the rest of us. From the Los Angeles Times:

The proposed rules would exempt active-duty and reserve officers, but the Los Angeles Police Protective League says retired officers should be excluded as well, warning of possible dangers to former officers and their families.

Apparently, retired cops must be able to defend themselves quickly, but retired school teachers (for example) in the greater Los Angeles area are never murdered at home--oh . . . wait.

Besides, one would think that with the "Only Ones" apologists' love of the notion that cops are far better trained and capable with firearms than the rest of us, they would be able to deal with a trigger lock far more quickly than we lowly mundanes could.

But here's where it gets truly surreal:

In a letter to city lawmakers, the union argued that current and former officers needed quick access to guns for protection, citing the 2013 armed rampage by former LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner as an example of police and their families being targeted.

Yep--to bolster their argument as to why former L.A. cops need more immediate access to their firearms, they point to a former L.A. cop who went on a murderous rampage with firearms. That's like using the Hindenburg as an example of why hydrogen-filled airships are the best means of travel.

In a home invasion, the window of opportunity to successfully defend oneself and one's family can be measured in seconds, and no evidence has been presented that those criminals who target the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker move any more slowly than those who go after cops. As discussed here a few weeks ago, in the Supreme Court's Heller decision, the requirement that guns kept in the home be disabled was specifically cited as an unconstitutional burden on the right to self-defense--and not just cops' self-defense, but everyone's.

We are told that we are to lock up our guns, "for safety." We are told that cops (and retired cops) must have unlocked guns . . . "for safety." How does once having worn a badge make what's safe for one person the exact opposite of what's safe for the next?

A former paratrooper, Kurt Hofmann was paralyzed in a car accident in 2002. The helplessness inherent to confinement to a wheelchair prompted him to explore armed self-defense, only to discover that Illinois denies that right, inspiring him to become active in gun rights advocacy. He also writes the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Kurt Hofmann Archive.

Haters of Self-Defense Face Defeat Everywhere

Opponents of the Second Amendment and haters of self-defense are facing a relentless barrage of pro-Second Amendment and pro-self-defense legislation in state legislatures across the country.

It is as if the GOP took a page out of the Democrats’ book–improved, then applied it–so that just as the Democrats flooded legislatures with gun control measures in early 2013, Republicans are now flooding legislatures with bills broadening the exercise of Second Amendment rights and protecting the use of firearms for self-defense.

The move was evident on February 18 when Breitbart News reported a New York Times admission that Republican legislators from state-to-state were gaining “traction” by pushing Campus Carry as a way for women to fight rape and sexual assault. Since that time, Campus Carry has advanced in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Nevada, and is being considered in approximately 10 other states.

This was news because it marked a turning point wherein Republicans actually took away one of the Democrat’s go-to causes for gun control–domestic abuse–and turned it into a rallying cry for arming women.

And while Campus Carry was being pushed, a broad-based push for Constitutional Carry emerged wherein Republicans in the legislatures of Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and other states began pushing to abolish the need for a concealed carry permit. The legislatures in each of these states did so by arguing that having a permit requirement to carry a gun is tantamount to having a permit requirement to exercise Second Amendment rights, and therefore wrong.

In addition to continuing to advance Campus Carry and Constitutional Carry, Texas began pushing to become the 45th state in the union to have some type of Open Carry law on the books.

Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America rallied against Texas’ Open Carry legislation, and just when they appeared to have stifled it, Governor Greg Abbott (R) emerged to say Open Carry would become the law of the land in Texas as soon as legislation to carry in that fashion hits his desk.
That legislation is expected to land on his desk within weeks.

While facing these myriad defeats in state legislatures around the country, Moms Demand Action has simultaneously found it tougher and tougher to get businesses and corporations to go along with requests to disarm law-abiding citizens in their stores. Most recently, Breitbart News reported that Kroger CFO Michael Schlotman said the food retail chain rejects Moms Demand Action’s push to forbid open-carry of firearms in Kroger stores. And this announcement comes after grocer chains Fred Meyer and Harris Teeter both told Moms Demand Action the same thing.

But Moms Demand Action isn’t alone in losing big at this time. MSNBC recently reported that Everytown for Gun Safety–another pro-active, Bloomberg-funded gun control group that opposes Campus Carry–has now been relegated to the role of counting NRA victories across the country.


Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Sheriff Refuses to Enforce Unconstitutional Executive Orders in Pinal County, Arizona

From our friends at the JPFO:

Not All Anti-Gunners Willing to Wait for Slippery Slope

Not All Anti-Gunners Willing to Wait for Slippery Slope

By Kurt Hofmann, November 26th, 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

Picture, Oleg Volk

To hear most proponents of "gun control" tell it, those of us who warn that the anti-gun agenda's endpoint is a total ban of private gun ownership are "paranoid" to believe such a thing. President Obama has himself made this claim:

"Part of the challenge we confront is that even the slightest hint of some sensible, responsible legislation in this area fans this notion that somehow, 'Here it comes, everybody's guns are going to be taken away,'"Obama said.

Of course Obama's idea of "sensible, responsible legislation" includes an outright ban of the most popular centerfire rifles in the country, mandating the inclusion of "smart gun" technology (just don't even get me started) in semi-automatic handguns, banning private sales of guns, etc. Beyond that, though, every new restrictive gun law enacted becomes the beachhead from which the next infringement on that which shall not be infringed is launched--the proverbial "slippery slope" in action.

Gerald Ensley

For some gun ban zealots, though, the slippery slope simply cannot be counted upon to act quickly enough--they want their gun bans now. Gerald Ensley, writing for the Tallahassee Democrat, is just such a zealot, as he makes clear in his "Stop the insanity: Ban guns":

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm not talking about waiting periods and background checks.

I'm talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and
assault rifles by individual citizens. I'm talking about repealing or
amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Follow the link to read the rest. And a h/t to B.P. and others who brought this to my attention before the JPFO wrote about it.

JPFO: A Dispatch From the Future

Dispatch from the Future

Inspired by an encounter with a strident hoplophobe who
wanted to ban all guns and put all gun owners in prison (or worse)

A satire by Claire Wolfe, July 12th 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.

Mount Weather Complex

NOTE: The following document was found in the ruins of the Mount Weather complex in the year C.E. 2715 and has been in the keeping of the staff of the Interglobal History Museum since then. Although our scholars and scientists are still analyzing this material, it is believed to date from the era of Malia Rodham-Bloomberg (reigned C.E. 2044-2067) or her successor Mitt Kennedy Bush (reigned C.E. 2067-?).
Below is our translation.

REPORT TO THE NATION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF GUN CONTROL
By the Blue-Ribbon Panel on the Current Crisis

BACKGROUND: Following the Sunnyside Nursery School Massacre and similar disasters, Americans in the mid decades of the twenty-first century realized that "NO GUNS" signs and similarly stringent security measures were no longer sufficient to totally eliminate deadly violence from society. 

Chicago Police Chief
Gary McCarthy

Although the gun-rights movement had experienced decades of successes, Americans finally rose up and demanded sweeping reforms. Some notable pacifists called for the slaughter of all gun owners and the torture of any politicians perceived to be pro gun. Police chiefs threatened to have their officers shoot any armed person on sight. The nation was in crisis.

With Congress in its 23rd consecutive year of disarray, the president moved to calm the fury with a unilateral series of moderate but firm measures. The president issued a comprehensive series of Executive Orders targeting firearms and their owners.

It has been five years since these Orders took effect. We, the members of this impartial Blue-Ribbon Panel, are now charged with analyzing their effectiveness and making recommendations for additional measures.

THE ORDERS AND THEIR DIRECT IMPACT

E.O. 31867: BANNING ALL AUTOMATIC WEAPONS. This order had little effect for its first three years, owing to the fact that no one charged with its enforcement could decide whether an "automatic" weapon was one that fired multiple shots on a single trigger pull or one that fired only a single shot with each trigger pull but was black and had features such as a "shoulder thing that goes up." Eventually, regulators concluded that all handguns of any type and all rifles with detachable magazines, bolt actions or lever actions qualified as "automatic" weapons. A clarifying Order (E.O. 32014) was issued at that point, directing firearms owners to turn in all their now-illegal firearms.

In the two years since that second Order was issued it is estimated that the compliance rate has been approximately .003 percent nationwide, somewhat lower in the inland West and the South.
The effort to build internment camps to hold millions of resisters is underway but has been stalled due to a $26 trillion cost overrun, scandals involving 15 subcontractors and several prominent legislators, and various acts of terroristic sabotage.

E.O. 31868: ENHANCING THE UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM. Perhaps the crown jewel of the series of Executive Orders, E.O. 31868 was meant to ensure that all sales, loans, transfers (of ownership), transfers (of location) and all other movements involving firearms be recorded in real time by the federal government.

Surprisingly and somewhat mysteriously, the enhanced system went down shortly after being created, but not before being plagued by errors and targeted by the National Security Agency as a source of information on domestic terrorism. It is unknown at this point when the system will be functional again. Cost estimates for the repairs range from $1 trillion to $75 trillion.

Although it is illegal in the meantime to hand a firearm to another person (because it is impossible to enter the exchange in the Enhanced UBC system), unofficial estimates are that approximately 350 million handoffs are completed and unreported every day despite the threat of severe penalties.

E.O. 31869: ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL CHAIN OF WEAPON BUYBACK CENTERS. To encourage voluntary compliance with the ban on automatic weapons and to encourage people to turn in even such technically legal weapons as flintlocks, slingshots, letter openers, and ball-peen hammers, the president ordered that every city with a population greater than 20,000 establish a weapons buyback center.

These centers were rapidly opened and staffed (by police, National Guardsmen, and volunteers from Mayors and Moms Insist On Sensible Handgun Control Action NOW (MAMIOSHCAN)). Although many rewards were offered, and the public was promised that no questions would be asked, we must note that the centers have not been entirely successful. Their main clientele appear to be inner city gang members seeking to get rid of evidence and elderly women turning in pot-metal .25s. A suspected serial killer arrived at one buyback center to turn in an axe, seven butcher knives, two bone saws and a garrot. Due to the "no questions asked" policy, the items were destroyed as agreed and he went away with seven gift cards and $500, telling staffers, "I'll be back."

E.O. 31870: MANDATING CONFISCATION OF ILLEGAL WEAPONS. After the first 2,570 police officers were shot by residents of the homes they attempted to enter while enforcing E.O. 31870, enforcement of this Order was informally suspended via the unilateral action of police departments nationwide. One sheriff told a representative of Children, Moms, and Billionaire Mayors with Bodyguards United to Shout Real Loud for Gun Safety (CMABMWBUTSRLFGS), "You people want their damn guns, you go in there and get them yourselves."

E.O. 31871: ENDING ILLEGAL GUN MANUFACTURING. This Order mandated a crackdown on all types of illicit firearm manufacture, as well as the licensing of 3D printers and coding and tracking of all materials that might potentially be used to print or conventionally manufacture illegal firearms. Additionally, it made it illegal to sell, download, or trade any plans for manufacturing firearms.

It is estimated that the systems for licensing and tracking will be ready in approximately 15 years and that $300 trillion will be required for enforcement. In the meantime, sales of 3D printers, lathes, and related equipment and supplies are booming. While several U.S. based Internet sites have been seized for offering gun-building plans, sites based in Sweden, China, Lichtenstein, the Pacific Island nation of Tonga, the Russian Moon Base and several artificial floating "nations" continue to offer everything from 3D printing plans for pistols to schematics for making old-fashioned zip guns.

E.O. 31872: SUSPENDING THE POSSE COMITATUS ACT. Recognizing that ordinary police forces would be insufficient to confiscate all the newly illegal firearms and put down the expected resistance of gun felons, the president ordered the Posse Comitatus Act suspended for the duration of the crisis.  

Although in theory this freed millions of armed troops to participate in firearms interdiction and confiscation, in reality most of the forces of the North American Army Command were required to guard the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and the sites of the planned gun-felon internment camps, as well as statehouses, police stations, and National Guard armories throughout the land. 

Approximately 15 percent of the military personnel were assigned to patrol the homes, neighborhoods, and businesses of certain individuals known to be essential to the functioning of the U.S. corporate and political systems.

E.O. 31873: DECREEING THE NRA TO BE A TERRORIST GROUP. Initially, this order (which gun-control advocates had long agitated for) appeared to be one of the few notable successes of the series. The National Rifle Association was duly disbanded. Its headquarters were seized via civil asset forfeiture and turned over to the group Moms and Kids Demand Millions of Actions On Gun Violence Policy (MAKDMOAOGVP). The IRS, FBI, and CIA began a joint investigation into the NRA's finances and its contributors, which continues to be ongoing.

However, to the shock of the media and the gun-control establishment, it emerged that there was not just one terrorist organization pulling the strings of the nation's population of gun owners, but literally hundreds of similar, new or previously unheralded terrorist organizations at national, state, and local levels. These groups were so diverse that there was (and still is) even one rumored to be called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The long work of rooting out all these terrorist groups is complicated by the fact not only are they small and agile, but some gun terrorists actually operate as unaffiliated "cells of one," hiding in urban neighborhoods and rural redoubts alike.

INDIRECT RESULTS

In addition to the direct results, the five years since the issuance of the president's Executive Orders on gun control have seen the following results:

1. Every U.S. firearm and equipment manufacturer closed its doors or moved offshore, or is in the process of doing so, at a cost of an estimated 175,000 jobs and $133 trillion.

2. Some of these manufacturers had to move no farther than Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Alabama, Texas, or the Florida panhandle, all of which have now seceded from the Union. (While the federal government has announced plans to force these states back into the U.S. and the president has announced an "absolute red line" beyond which the rebellious states will not be allowed to go, there appears to be a temporary lack of manpower, budgets, and will for any immediate action.)

3. With the trade in illegal guns now as lucrative as the previous trade in illegal drugs, new gangs have arisen with firearms smuggling as their specialty.

4. There has been a 10,000 percent rise in bribery and corruption cases among police officers and enforcement functionaries.

5. Large swaths of Chicago, Los Angeles, Newark, Cleveland, and other cities are now "No Man's Land," taken over by armed gangs. Portions of Washington, D.C. are impassible, causing most of the federal government to relocate to Mt. Weather.

6. Residents of these cities have taken to fighting back against the gangs, but since they know they'll be subject to arrest if caught defending their homes and neighborhoods, many stressed homeowners are as likely to fire on police as on gangsters.

7. The latest opinion polls from Gallup, Zogby, and Quinnipiac University show approval of the president at between 4 and 5 percent. Approval of Congress no longer reaches measurable levels. While 11 percent still say they approve of the police and military, it's worth noting that approximately 17 percent of the current U.S. population is made up of police, the military, and their family members, so 11 percent can hardly be called impressive.

8. Violent crime has risen by 487 percent.

IMPACT ON FIREARMS OWNERSHIP.

Although the number of guns and gun owners in the U.S. has always been difficult to pin down, it was estimated that before the presidential Orders there were some 80 million gun owners and perhaps 300 million individual firearms in the country. Now, under the new restrictions and enforcement, it is estimated that some 135 million Americans own firearms, with the total number of guns being upwards of 750 million, an increase of 59 percent and 250 percent, respectively.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Observing the rise in violence and other illegal activity, groups such as Moms, Dads, Kids, Cute Kittens, and Others Against Horrible Icky Nasty Guns and the Even More Horrible Icky Nasty People Who Shoot Them (MDKCKAOAHINGATEMHINPWST) strongly recommend that the nation needs more "common sense gun control." Their suggestions include hanging, drawing, and quartering anyone found with a single bullet and placing NSA surveillance cameras in every room of every home in the nation.

Having studied the matter in great depth, we disagree.

Based on the level of success of these gun control measures, this impartial Blue-Ribbon panel makes the following recommendations:

1. Rescind all of the above Executive Orders Immediately.

2. Repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 to give all Americans broader access to legal firearms.

3. Re-examine and consider repealing every other gun law that targets or penalizes non-violent possession of weapons.

4. Apologize.

5. Devote all possible resources to rebuilding the trust, economy, and relative peaceableness of the nation. Although it may be to late to prevent a second civil war or revolution or to bridge the vast cultural gulfs created by the efforts to end gun ownership, the effort must be made.

Respectfully submitted.

NOTE: The ancient document from the ruins of Mount Weather ends here. However a scrawl at the bottom, written in an unknown hand in faded red ink, reads, "Classify. File. DO NOT RELEASE. REPEAT -- DO NOT RELEASE."

Scholars disagree on why the North American empire fell, with some citing corruption of the money supply, others believing the country exhausted its resources in wars, and yet others pointing to such problems as the welfare state, excess bureaucracy, or uncontroled immigration. Our group, however, believes that while (as the old saying goes) "America wasn't built -- or destroyed -- in a day," with the finding of this ancient report we encounter the Great Divide between America ascendent and America in collapse.

Copyright © 2014 JPFO.ORG, All rights reserved. http://jpfo.org/
Our mailing address is:  jpfo@jpfo.org
P.O. Box 270143, Hartford, WI 53027, USA 

Self-defense, or Defense Against Tyranny--Does it Really Matter?

Self-defense, or Defense Against Tyranny--Does it Really Matter?

Excerpt:

In the Supreme Court's 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, which established federal recognition of Constitutional protection for the individual's right to own firearms, the main thrust of Justice Scalia's write-up of the majority decision is that handguns are the "quintessentialself-defense weapon" of the American people, and can thus, because ofthe Second Amendment, not be legitimately banned.


... As Herschel Smith notes in his retort, "But the second amendment says nothing about self defense or hunting. It says everything about tyranny. ...

 
You really need to read the whole thing.  

Sponsor Pulls Bill To Allow Guns on UA Campuses

The Associated Press reports that Senator John Coghill (R-North Pole) has asked the Senate Finance Committee to defer further action on his bill for this legislative session.

Apparently Sen. Coghill recognized some questions that were raised during initial hearings, and didn't yet have good answers for them.

The bill would have specifically permitted the carry of firearms on University of Alaska campuses, at least in open areas and parts of buildings not specifically prohibiting such possession. While such carry is not illegal, the University's Board of Regents has instituted a "no firearms on campus" policy, leading to some minor clashes in the past.

This issue is far from over.

Read the whole thing here.

Rally in the Valley: "Day of Resistance"

In a copyright story from KTUU, Ch. 2 in Anchorage:

Day of Resistance, Wasilla

WASILLA, AK - Like most demonstrations, it included speeches and information tables, but what was unusual about the 'Day of Resistance' was those in attendance were openly carrying firearms of all shapes and sizes.

The Day of Resistance is an event among gun rights groups nationwide. It was started last year in response to gun legislation at a federal level.

... Most of the crowd of about 100 people carried some form of fire arm. From hand guns in side holsters to assault rifles slung in front, it was a place people felt comfortable carrying.

... Justin Giles explained that for him, owning guns protects his other rights too.

"It's a peaceful way we can have our fangs and be left alone," he said. They know not to take our first amendment or fifth or any of the others because we're armed, peacefully armed, but armed nonetheless."

Read the whole story at the link.

Alaska State Senator Introduces Preemption Bill Aimed at University of Alaska

Long-time readers may remember that I wrote here about the University of Alaska at Anchorage establishing their own regulations for when and where firearms (and now knives) may be carried on campus. In a nutshell, they declared the entire campus off-limits to firearms.

Our State constitution declares "Constitutional carry" the law of the State, and contains a preemption clause. For those who may not know, that means that no local government, village or whatever may enact laws or statutes more restrictive than the State constitution in the matter of firearms.

That's not been good enough for UAA, so they erected signs, a few years ago, prohibiting firearms on campus. Period.

Except they can't do that. State law allows them to put up signs on structures which prohibit carrying inside, but outside?

No.

Now State Senator John Coghill (R - Fairbanks) has introduced SB 176, specifically prohibiting the University from doing that. The bill may be reviewed here. I love this part: "the individual right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right under art. I, sec. 19, Constitution of the State of Alaska, and may not be abridged by the Board of Regents of the University of Alaska."

Heh.

Statement from Alaska's Governor

From Facebook:

"Great to be with Mat-Su Friends of NRA tonight. Spoke on our shared fight for our constitutional rights. There can be no erosion of that Second Amendment right. No slippery slope of a little gun registration here or a little ammo clip there. In our state, freedom lives. The rule of law reigns. We Alaskans stand and fight together."

~ Gov. Sean Parnell, 3/16/13

2013: Rights in Jeopardy

It seems we're facing the same enemies of freedom (legislators and their willing accomplices in the media) as always, and they're ramping up their attacks.

Let's not join the battle without proper preparation:

Click to enlarge

And they want us to give up our personal property (firearms) without complaint?  Ain't gonna happen. As Carteach says,

"Anytime some schmuck tells you that you aren't allowed to be armed for any reason, you really need to ask yourself why does said schmuck want you unarmed and defenseless? What exactly is said schmuck planning to do to you that works better when you can't defend yourself?"