Tag Archives: Liberal Incrementalism

Governor ‘Moon Beam’ Signed AB 144 Into Law

Yes, over the weekend, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill that removes Californian’s right to openly carry a firearm.  AB 144, the confusing bill authored by Anthony Portantino (D. – La Cañada), will now become the law of land in California in January, unless it is struck down as ‘unconstitutional’ before then.

Make no mistake, this bill will eventually be struck down by the Court as it is a blatant “infringement” of our Constitutional right guaran-teed by the Second Amendment.  We just don’t know how quickly that will come about. It’s probably not going to happen before January 1st when the bill will actually become law.  Californians will then have no means by which they can legally “bear arms” short of a carry concealed weapon permit, and it is nearly impossible to obtain a CCW permit in California as the law is now.

The only way that the Court may leave this new law in place is if the State changes its CCW law from a “may issue” to a “shall issue” methodology.  Currently, concealed carry permits are issued by the Sheriff of each county at his discretion.  They are rarely granted except in extreme need cases, or as the law states, where a “determination of good cause” is made.  The Sheriffs of more rural counties are usually a little more liberal in the grants than are those of high population counties with major urban cities where they are the strictest in their standards for granting a permit.  Funny thing is, politicians are usually granted a CCW permit without question – the same people who are telling us that they don’t want us to be able to carry a firearm.

If the State does change their stance on concealed carry permits, then the Court may leave the new law banning open carry of unloaded firearms in place, as the ability to carry a firearm will be satisfied if we simply obtain a permit.  Only thing is, the liberals are never going to change their oppressive CCW law either.  As arrogant as they area, they’ll just wait until the court tells them just how wrong they are.

GE

9 Comments

Filed under News, The Fight for Our Rights

Further Update on AB 144

Well, they did it. The California State Senate passed AB 144 and it has moved on to the Governor. I just don’t see him not signing it either, unless there is a big enough push from the voters overwhelming his office with opposition to the bill that he has to veto it. So write the Governor, call him, or email him. Swamp his office. I have.

Also, he has to actually veto the bill for it to not become law. There is no “pocket veto” in California as there is at the federal level. If he does not sign it, it automatically becomes law in 30 days.

That may be how he decides to handle it too. Just leave it alone, and in 30 days it becomes law, and he can say that he didn’t sign it – the weasel that he is.

This bill will without a doubt be overturned in the Courts, but it may take some time for that to happen. So in the mean time, we, the law abiding citizens, we the people, pay the price and become more vulnerable in the public arena. The bill is so obviously unconstitutional that it’s amazing that the liberals in Sacramento couldn’t see it. But then, they don’t care anyway. The Constitution just gets in the way too much for them, so why not try and see if they can get away with it.

However, if the State decides to change their policy on concealed carry from “may issue” to “shall issue”, then the court may uphold the law. If the courts see that mechanism as a means to satisfy the Constitution by allowing us to “bear arms” if we just obtain a permit, then they may uphold the law. But I don’t see the liberals changing their minds on that one either.

So, in the mean time, we’re screwed. Welcome to the Left Coast.

GE

Leave a comment

Filed under News, The Fight for Our Rights

Liberal Dems Introduced H.R. 2554 Before Congress

As they announced on Friday that they would, they did.  Several Democrats, with marching orders from President Obama, introduced new gun Control legislation into Congress, Monday, July 11, 2011.   H.R. 2554, the “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act of 2011” has been officially introduced.  This is spawned by Project Gunrunner, President Obama’s experiment that spent millions of dollars of Stimulus money on new weapons for the Mexican Drug Cartels.  Of course this legislation, as is turns out, is just what Obama’s motive was in the first place.

The liberals wanted new gun control legislation and the Obama administration promised that he was working “under the radar” to get them some.  He claims it was an attempt to trace the gun traffic into Mexico so the FBI and ATF could get a handle on how guns were being trafficked into Mexico.  Unfortunately, ATF agents lost track of the weapons within hours of them crossing the border. Some of them, however, did show up when they were used to kill two federal agents on two separate occasions.  A few of them also show up occasionally in random traffic stops by police, but for the most part, the guns are gone, supporting the Mexican Drug industry and Drug Lords.

Obama needed a good cause to get Americans fired up enough to support new gun legislation.  So he and members of the BATFE devised this scheme to show how our current gun sales policies were allowing the Drug Lords to freely buy guns here in the United States and transport them across the border.  To that end, they had to virtually force the federally licensed gun dealers to complete transactions that they knew shouldn’t be done.  In addition, the Justice Department has found evidence the Obama administration funded the illegal act with Stimulus money.

Most of the guns seized don’t even come from the US. These are Russian.

The problem with this scheme is that they had to force gun sellers to do it in the first place.  Also, the US is not the Drug Lords first choice as the supplier of their hardware.  The best they can get from the US is semi-automatic weapons.  Their weapons of choice are fully automatic “machine guns” that are easily available from illegal gun dealers in Central America.  Truck loads of illegal weapons stream north from Central America every day.  Yet President Calderon of Mexico and President Obama claim that most guns are coming from the United States.  Together, they blame the availability of firearms in this country for the proliferation of guns in the hands of Mexican drug runners.  Hence the need for more gun control laws here in the United States.

Now liberal anti-gun Democrats have introduced HR 2554, the “Stop Gun Trafficking and Strengthen Law Enforcement Act of 2011”, pointing to the guns that went south as the reason we need more gun control laws.  They are also hoping this will “smoke screen” the scrutiny and news coverage of the Project Gunrunner scandal that is now unfolding in Congress.  They, of course, want to look like they are looking out for us so this kind of egregious activity does not continue.

How about allowing our current laws work as they would have if the ATF and FBI had not stepped in to create this scandal.  More gun laws will not do anything to keep guns out of the hands of the Mexican gangs.

Please contact your congressional representatives and express your distaste for this underhanded attempt to enact unwarranted legislation that further works to undermine our Second Amendment Rights.

GE

Leave a comment

Filed under News, The Fight for Our Rights

Update on Connecticut SB 1094

Note:  For the most recent news on this bill, see Further Update on Connecticut SB 1094

Earlier this month, we reported on a gun control bill that had been introduced into the Connecticut Judiciary Committee, that if passed, would make thousands of law abiding Gun Enthusiasts living in Connecticut, criminals, if they did not turn-in to authorities, their previously legal gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition.  This bill, which is yet another knee jerk reaction to the January shooting in Arizona that killed six people, follows the ever present liberal agenda that wants to lead us to an outright ban on gun ownership across America.

On March 23, 2011, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee held a hearing that encouraged comments from any persons interested in the pending gun control bills now proposed. There was an overwhelming amount of testimony opposing SB 1094 presented to the committee. Today, I watched a replay of some of that testimony that went before the Connecticut Judiciary Committee last week and it is obvious that there is little support for this bill among the citizenry. All of the testimony I saw was from antagonists encouraging rejection of the bill.  But the committee now has until April 15th to decide if the bill should progress further, and send it to the floor for debate and vote.  Keep in mind that liberal minded legislators are rarely swayed by compelling common sense testimony from the other side.

One of the comments proffered by a senator on the committee referred to some contradictory email that he had received on this bill.  He noted that some of the emails suggested that the bill should be rejected on the notion that it takes little time to change out a spent magazine with a fully loaded magazine, thereby nullifying the 10 round restriction.  Other email argued that having a larger magazine was important so that the shooter would not be required to spend the time it takes to reload with another magazine.  He could not understand how or if both could be true, or if they cancel each other out.  The truth is, both arguments have merit but are totally dependent on the context of the shooting.

Take for example, someone who is contemplating committing a criminal act using a handgun.  His intent is likely to provide himself with as much ammunition as he (or she) feels he may need to complete the criminal act.  If he is limited to using only ten round magazines, he will likely have available to him, as many magazines as it will take to keep himself loaded for as long as he needs.  Since dropping a spent magazine and reloading a gun with another full magazine can take less than a second in experienced hands, he will simply reload as much as needed to complete his task.  But the irony here is that, if someone is intent on committing a criminal act with a hand gun, that person is highly unlikely to be concerned with the legality of the magazine he possesses.  Most likely, he is going to find large, illegal magazines to keep his gun loaded as much as possible.  The legality of the magazine he possesses is going to be of no consequence to him, since the overall violent act will, no doubt, be more egregious than the magazine offense.

On the other hand, if someone – some law abiding citizen, finds himself in a self defense situation, that person’s ability to defend himself is going to depend on the gun that he is able to get his hands on.  If that law abiding citizen is only able to grab his hand gun that has a “legal” 10 round magazine, his ability to successfully defend his life is going to depend on those ten rounds available to him.  Even if he is able to have at his disposal, more magazines, he is going to have to take the time to drop the spent magazine and reload the gun with another.  Most average citizens in a panic situation such as this are not so skillful as to be able to reload in under one second.  The time it takes to reload his gun, may cost him his life.

Both of the above scenarios are uncommon instances of gun use but no less germane to the argument against limiting the size of ammunition magazines.  What is more common is the daily use of guns by sportsmen, target shooters and weekend plinkers who enjoy recreational target shooting or even practice shooting to make themselves better qualified shooters.  Most hand guns these days come equipped with magazines that hold more than ten rounds, by design. Most recreational shooters are accustomed to shooting larger magazines.  Many competition shooters rely on larger magazines to be competitive in their sport of choice.  Limiting magazine size relegates these recreational shooters to cumbersome reloading of many more magazines than should be necessary.  The competition shooters suddenly become less competitive.  Both classes of shooters will have to spend more money on additional magazines just to keep enough ammunition available for their immediate use.

Let’s face it. The various legislative bills currently being considered in State Legislatures around the Country, and in Congress, are no more than knee jerk reactions attempting to satisfy liberal’s appetites for more gun control in the wake of the Arizona shooting incident.  Liberal anti-gun extremists will not sit by and allow an opportunity, borne out of the recent horrific action of a crazed lunatic with a gun, slip through their fingers and be wasted.  Their need to capitalize on a trajedy overwhelms them, so they ramp up the drum beat.  They are compelled to try and take advantage of the deaths of six innocent people, including a federal judge, and the shooting of a member of Congress, to advance their liberal agenda.  It is despicable.

Their feeble use of the flimsiest of excuses to try to limit the size of gun magazines is simply another notch they are attempting to carve out of the Second Amendment.  It is incumbent on each of us to contact our representative(s) and urge them to reject these gun control bills.

Leave a comment

Filed under News, The Fight for Our Rights

Our Second Amendment Rights May Be In Jeopardy

Liberal Incrementalism Creeps Into Our Lives

As a Gun Enthusiast, it’s hard to imagine this country ever actually becoming a socialistic state, living in this great country that we do, but I sometimes wonder how far we will allow our elected officials to go.  It just seems that we may take our Freedom, or what we call Freedom, way too much for granted, the way we keep giving it up more and more.  Take, for example, what we have allowed to happen to smokers, and compare that with what is now going on with the new calls for more gun legislation.  Now, I am not a smoker, do not like smoking, and do not like being around someone who is smoking, but just the same, we have all but made it illegal to smoke in America.  Also, I recognize that smoking is not a right granted to us by God or the Constitution as is our right to own a gun.  It is merely a choice, freely made every day, by millions of people in America.  But let’s review the smoking issue for a minute.

Originally, many people in this country enjoyed smoking, unaware of the health risks.  I grew up in a home where both of my parents smoked quite a bit, with no ill effects, although, one of my brothers did suffer from asthma as a child.  As the health risks became better known, we began to look down on smoking to the point that the government started placing warning labels on cigarette packages.  Finally, in the 90’s the first of the laws was passed banning smoking in restaurants.  Government officials knew that it would not be possible to outlaw smoking all together, so they started with a small restriction to which most people could agree.  Gradually, and incrementally, more and more laws and restrictions were passed banning smoking in bars, and public buildings, as we became more complacent about giving up just a little bit more of our liberty.  After all, it was for our own good.

Now more recently the City of L.A. enacted a law that bans smoking even at outdoor dining establishments.  One would think that if you were outdoors it would be alright to light up.  But the mayor of L.A. explained that, “L.A. and California have always led the way when it comes to anti-smoking”.  He just as well could have said that L.A. and California have always led the way in limiting our Freedoms.  Last month, the city of Laguna Beach, CA banned smoking on residential patios – one’s own home – outside no less.  The slippery slope gets steeper and steeper.  The more success liberals have, the more outrageous the ideas they produce to further restrict our liberties.

But this not so much about smoking as it about the attempts to remove our rights as gun owners.  The techniques described in restricting smoking, are the same techniques they are using to legislate against law abiding gun owners, with the ultimate goal of banning guns outright.

This is supposed be America where we are Free.  People from all over the world are clamoring to come this country to experience Liberty, which we all seem to take for granted.  Freedom is the one thing of which we are most proud.  Yet we continually allow liberal factions of our country to chip away at those freedoms, taking them away, incrementally, one at a time, under the guise of compassion or enlightened thinking.  And they have a more than willing accomplice in the main stream media to help them, who will pick up a story on the latest complaint du joir, and popularize it through emotional news stories that are designed to make you feel like you are not ‘with it’ or not compassionate if you don’t agree with the story.

Now in the wake of the Arizona shooting that critically wounded a United States Representative, and killed six others including a Federal judge and nine year old child, the liberals and the media have resumed the chant for more gun control and restrictions on the size of magazines.  But here again, if we allow these types of legislation to be passed, we will be giving up some more of our Freedom.  Only this time they are attacking a right given to us by our Founding Fathers and guaranteed us by the Constitution.  Granted, the Constitution says nothing about the size of magazines our guns can have, but it is implicit that our right to bear these arms is for us to be able to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.  If that tyranny ever comes at us with machine guns, how effective will we be with six shooters, or even ten rounds?

To many liberals, the Constitution is merely an obstacle to them – it gets in their way of imposing their will on the rest of us.  Thank God it is in their way, but make no mistake, if ever they think they can side step the Constitution, they will try it.

He Would If He Could and Will If He Can

This administration is already trying to side step the Constitution with executive orders, and decisions to outright ignore enacted laws, simply because they feel it is ‘unconstitutional’.   Excuse me, but isn’t that up to the Judicial branch to decide.  How unconstitutional is that?

So the drum beat continues.  And it is especially loud now as the anti-gun extremists seek to exploit the Arizona tragedy to resurrect and advance their political agendas.  Today, it is smaller gun magazines.  Tomorrow it could be ballistic fingerprints, or licensing gun owners, or banning mail-order ammunition sales (the latter has already been tried in California), all the way out to banning guns altogether.  The ‘enlightened ones’ won’t be happy until their ultimate goal is achieved.  In the mean time, they will incrementally chip away at our freedom with what seem to be small, innocuous regulations and restrictions that they hope nobody will notice.  Already we have a ten day wait period and ten round maximum in California.  They have a whole wish list of them already prepared and they’ll simply pick the next one on the list.

We all knew that when they banned smoking in restaurants, that bars would be next, then public buildings, then all workplaces.  We scoffed at the idea that they would eventually ban smoking at home, but even that has happened in Laguna.  They have a plan mapped out for gun control and think we won’t notice the little attacks if they make you think that it’s for your own good.  However, unlike smoking, banning guns is not for our own good.  It only works to make us less safe.

In every jurisdiction that has less restrictive personal carry laws, violent crime is down.  Take the guns away from law abiding citizens, and the crime goes up.  When criminals don’t need to fear the possibility of being shot themselves, they are freer to commit crime, and do so.  As it is now, U.S. gun owners use firearms for protection as frequently as 2.5 million times a year.  While it’s impossible to know how many lives it saved out of those incidents, it still equates to a lot of innocent lives saved because a gun was in the right place at the right time.

An earlier Federal ban on assault rifles and large gun magazines that expired in 2004 was an abject failure.  Additionally, a congressionally mandated study released in March 1997 found that the banned weapons and magazines “were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”  The study also “failed to produce any evidence that the ban reduced the number of victims per gun homicide incident” and found that “the average number of gunshot wounds per victim (about two) did not decrease” after the ban.

Liberal incrementalism is a slippery slope that keeps us sliding away from Freedom as a way of life.  It is incumbent upon us all to be aware of our shrinking Liberties and fight to maintain them.  If ever we allow ourselves to lose the right to keep and bear arms, we will no longer be Free.

GE

9 Comments

Filed under General, The Fight for Our Rights