MikeMcDaniel's Blog

115 1
ApplaudNo VotesCriticize

While the Heller and McDonald decisions established the Second Amendment as a fundamental Constitutional right and applied that right to the states, those decisions focused almost entirely on the “keep” concept of “keep and bear.” Recognizing the common law right of self defense as the foundation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that individuals do indeed have a right to the arms most commonly in use for lawful purposes, including self defense, and specifically mentioned handguns.


The decisions left no doubt that one may possess firearms in the home and on one’s own property, but left unsettled whether one may carry firearms outside the home. If there is no such right, how one might manage to get a firearm to their property or home is an open question. In most states, such concerns are on the back burner, for most recognize the Second Amendment in their own constitutions, and the majority (39 at last check) have “shall issue” concealed carry laws, laws that require the state to issue a permit to any citizen not otherwise disqualified by mental illness, having been convicted of a felony, etc. Several states are “constitutional carry” zones where qualified citizens need no permit or permission from government to carry concealed weapons.

A number of states such as California, New York and the District of Columbia theoretically allow concealed carry, but in practice, only the wealthy or politically favored can obtain a license. Illinois remains the only state that absolutely prohibits the overwhelming majority of citizens from protecting their lives outside their homes or property. That changed in December of 2012 with a ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Moore v. Madigan case. ABC News has the story:

“A federal court ruling tossing out Illinois’ ban on concealed weapons might end the last such gun prohibition in the country, but not without a fight.

The question is whether the battle will be an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has been silent on the issue of concealed weapons, or a legislative confrontation over the court’s order that Illinois adopt a law allowing concealed carry with “reasonable limitations” as in other states.

Gun control advocates urged Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan to quickly appeal Tuesday’s ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Illinois’ ban is unconstitutional. Madigan’s office said she is studying the issue. But the ban’s defenders said they were more certain of fireworks over a second part of the ruling — an order for the Illinois Legislature to come up with a law legalizing the concealed carry of weapons within 180 days.

‘I expect a battle,’ said Barbara Flynn Currie, the House Majority Leader and a longtime gun control advocate. ‘The proponents of concealed carry have not yet carried the day.”

Illinois is much like New York State and several other states. Chicago essentially rules the state and the democrat machine imposes its priorities on the rest of the state, which often does not share its political leanings. It’s common knowledge that despite having among the strictest gun prohibitions in the nation, Chicago also has a stratospheric crime rate, including murder. As is always the case where law-abiding citizens are denied the right to self defense, criminals have no difficulty whatever obtaining illegal guns.

Judge Richard Posner, a nationally recognized legal authority, had a significant role in the court’s opinion:

“In the appellate ruling, Judge Richard Posner, author of the majority opinion, suggested that there was no excuse for the state not to join the rest of the nation when it comes to concealed weapons. He wrote, ‘There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state’s taking a different approach than the other 49 states.”

Judge Posner is correct. It is Chicago’s Progressive politicians ignoring the reality of the rest of America that dooms Chicago to resemble an active war zone on any given day. Posner continues:

“But the majority included the 180-day stay of its ruling to ‘allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public,’ Posner wrote. The fight in the Legislature would be over what constitutes ‘reasonable limitations.”

The battle for Second Amendment liberties in Illinois exactly mirrors the battles that have been fought and won in the other states. On one side is an entrenched Progressive political machine, usually centered in a large city. Progressive political machines generally feel any limitation on this particularly fundamental is perfectly allowable. When one starts from the position of absolute bans and confiscation, any lesser limitation might seem reasonable, even a compromise, by comparison.

On the other is the rest of the state, trending conservative and independent. All of the same old, discredited arguments are being recycled. Concealed handguns will result in old west-like shootouts whenever there is a traffic accident or an argument among neighbors. Crime rates will increase, murders will be as common as pennies, and blood will run in the streets. In every state where shall-issue concealed carry is in effect, the same arguments have been hysterically tried. None have come to pass. In fact, crime rates have decreased, and continue to decrease across the nation despite the skyrocketing number of firearms in private, law-abiding hands.

The only mystery over the last several months has been whether Illinois anti-gun forces would do down shooting, or, if they recognize reality and at least pretend to honor the rule of law, to what degree they would try to limit gun rights. Now we know. The Chicago Tribune, on May 31, reports:

“The Illinois Senate is debating a new version of legislation to give Illinoisans the right to carry concealed weapons as lawmakers try to get a bill to the governor’s desk before today’s midnight adjournment deadline.

Chicago’s ban on assault weapons would be kept intact, and concealed weapons would be banned from numerous sites, such as CTA and Metra buses and trains, casinos, government buildings and stadiums. The bill moved to the full Senate on an 8-6 vote of the Executive Committee….”

This is deviously clever. Banning guns on busses and trains would have the effect of essentially banning all handguns for anyone working in downtown Chicago, which is, of course, one of the gun banners primary goals. It would also have the effect of disarming the poor, a group Progressives pretend to care about.

“Under the proposal, a five-year concealed weapons permit would be issued to applicants. Law enforcement could object, and an applicant could appeal to a seven-member board designed to have people with such credentials as former judges or FBI agents. A person would have to complete 16 hours of training before getting a gun.”

A substantial issue still unresolved is preemption. Virtually every shall-issue state has a preemption law, preventing cities within the state from writing gun laws, particularly those more stringent than state law. This is rationally necessary to prevent the kinds of abuses that would be inevitable if citizens had to worry about laws fundamentally changing from city to city, or even block to block. Of course, progressive-ruled cities see a lack of preemption laws as a feature, not a bug.

“Attempts were made to allow gun owners to carry through different communities without getting hung up on a patchwork of local laws.

But Forby got peppered by lawmakers who worried that the legislation opened up the potential to allowing a person with a firearm owners identification card to have as many as 100 guns in his car trunk without violating laws.

Forby said he saw nothing illegal, prompting some lawmakers to shake their heads in disappointment.”

Again, we see the remnants of progressive thinking. It’s the state’s business to regulate how many guns a citizen is allowed to own or carry and under which circumstances. Consider these additional, restrictive views:

“Democratic Sen. Tony Munoz, a Chicago policeman, also questioned why the legislation would allow people to carry concealed weapons in places where more than half of the sales are for food.

Forby said a restaurant or bar owner also can put up a sign that says no guns are allowed, but Sen. Ira Silverstein, D-Chicago, said the option is ‘ludicrous’ because it would be hard to know who was complying with the sign unless there were a metal detector at the door.

Forby parried that somebody always will break the law ‘no matter what you do.’

Democratic Sen. Kim Lightford of Maywood contended the bill fails to give ‘enough protections in violent situations.”

Why should citizens lose their right to preserve their lives in restaurants? What does dining out have to do with the exercise of fundamental liberties? Should any citizen trust a police officer determined to deny fundamental liberties to those he supposedly serves?

For those who have remained informed over the years, reading of the debate in Illinois is like reading historical documents and reliving outdated ideas that have been entirely discredited. How could anyone imagine that such ideas were even remotely rational?

It appears that Illinois will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into modernity. However, the issue of concealed carry is far from completely resolved. In February, Fox News reported on a ruling by another appeals court:

“A federal appeals court has ruled that permits allowing people to carry concealed weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.

The ruling by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was issued Friday in a case involving Washington state resident Gray Peterson.

A federal judge in 2011 tossed out Peterson’s lawsuit filed against Denver and the state’s Department of Public Safety. Peterson claims that being denied a concealed weapons permit because he was not a Colorado resident violated his Second Amendment rights to bear firearms….

In its ruling, the three-judge panel cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.’

‘In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizen’s freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections,’ the judges ruled.”

Under the 10th Circuit’s reasoning, American’s right to bear arms extends only to their homes and possibly their property. Under this thinking, the state could theoretically prohibit citizens from carrying weapons to their home from a gun store, and otherwise limit their ability to protect themselves, making the Second Amendment a right with no practical application. What good is a fundamental freedom that only applies under highly restrictive circumstances? Such a freedom is neither fundamental nor a freedom, rather, it’s a state regulated privilege.

Conflict between appeals courts makes a Supreme Court hearing of the issue more likely. It is unlikely that Illinois Democrats will appeal to the Supreme Court, at least with its current composition. They know it would be unlikely to rule their way. However, if Barack Obama, steeped in the Chicago Way, should be able to change the balance of the Court, establishing a majority that will decide cases not on the Constitution, but on their progressive whims, we can expect Chicago’s political machine to rush a case there before the ink is dry on the filing.

The battle to force those that would rule us to recognize our right to preserve our very lives never ends. Despots can never be satisfied.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a
369 6


In the aftermath of the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, some have learned valuable lessons. Others, not so much. Kansas reports that on February 15, President Obama gave the Presidential Citizen’s Medal, posthumously, to the family members of the six adults killed in the attack. Mr. Obama said:

“They could have focused on their own safety, on their own well-being. But they didn’t. They gave their lives to protect the precious children in their care. It defines our way our life. It captures our belief in something bigger than ourselves - our willingness to accept certain obligations to one another and to embrace the idea that we’re all in this together.”

The actions of the murdered educators were heroic, yet tragically, unnecessarily futile:

“Two of the educators honored, principal Dawn Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Sherlach, are believed to have lunged, unarmed, at the gunman to try to stop him. Another, teacher Victoria Soto, reportedly hid children in a closet. Lauren Rousseau read to her students as a gunman invaded the school, doing her best to keep them calm. Rachel D’Avino and Anne Marie Murphy were said to have wrapped their arms around the children as chaos ensued.”

The principal and school psychologist died because they were forced, by Connecticut law and school district policy, to attack the armed killer utterly unarmed. Others were forced to do their best to hide children and try to keep them calm while doing nothing more effective to save lives than hope the killer would not find and kill them. Sadly, their hopes were in vain. And of course, Mr. Obama had only rhetoric for them and bits of cloth and metal for their surviving families.

His solution? Disarm the law abiding by laws that, if in full force before the attack, would have done absolutely nothing to prevent it, or to have lessened the death toll, as even Vice President Joe “Double Barreled Shotgun” Biden has admitted. And when the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre suggested that every American school should have armed security, the White House reflexively dismissed it. Unfortunately, even the NRA has not embraced—at least not publically—the arming of school staff—the only truly effective preventative and safety measure–as I recently proposed at PJ Media.

Others have been more rational. NBC reports that the parents of Newtown are demanding that the school board provide full-time Newtown police officers at every Newtown elementary school.

“Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year’s budget. Today, members of the board will be meeting with state and federal officials about obtaining additional funding for security. ‘Our parents are demanding of us that things are made safe and secure and certain measures are put in place,”’Chairwoman Debbie Leidlein said. ‘So we’re being very thoughtful...’

Parents said security means more than a police presence.

‘My main concern is with accessibility to these schoosl, said Neil Johnson, a parent of two Newtown students. ‘On December 14th, that was the main bare-boned reason that occurred.’ ‘After what happened in our community, I just think we should go over and above and provide a shining example for the rest of the world and protect our kids,’ said resident Donna Lorenz.”

The Washington Examiner reports that security in schools is not the only apparent concern of Newtown residents:

“Gun permit applications in Newtown, Conn., have more than doubled since the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in December, mirroring a nationwide trend of increased gun sales. Newtown, a city of about 27,000, typically issues about 130 applications each year, but police say they’ve received 79 applications in the three months since December 14, according to the Associated Press.

The city attributes the surge in applications to worries over gun control laws.

‘A good percentage of people are making it clear they think their rights are going to be taken away,’ said Robert Berkins, records manager for Newtown police. The applications aren’t just coming from the usual crowd of hunters and sportsmen, either. Berkins told AP some of the applicants said they never thought about getting a gun until their right to own one was threatened.”

Anti-freedom activists have striven mightily to used the Newtown murders to enact their previously below the radar anti-gun agenda, but even in Connecticut, more and more law-abiding citizens are learning the real lessons of Newtown.

Among those lessons:

(1) No one can rely upon the police to protect them.

(2) Every school in America is vulnerable to attack.

(3) Inconveniencing and disarming the law abiding does nothing to protect anyone.

(4) Putting educators in the position of making empty-handed attacks on armed killers can end only one way.

(5) Gun free school zones are free fire zones for deranged killers.

(6) The only thing that can stop armed killers when and where they attack is armed good guys, preferably many armed good guys.

(7) While having armed security guards in schools is not a bad idea, it is far too expensive, particularly in these demanding economic times.

(8) Arming and training willing teachers is the single most practical, effective and cost effective policy.

Despite the recent defeat of Mr. Obama’s anti-gun agenda in the Senate, he has sworn to enact gun control within the year:

“On gun control, Biden said it’s never been a simple issue, but that Congress has miscalculated how deeply the public feels about it and has failed to stand up to groups like the National Rifle Association, particularly after the shootings in Newtown. He said the public is looking to Congress to be mature enough to figure out a way to diminish the chance it will happen again.

‘For the first time ever, you have people who are for gun safety, for increasing background checks,’ Biden said. ‘Two out of three of them say it will be a major determining factor in how I vote. That’s the political dynamic that has changed. So I think we’re going to get this anyway. I think this will pass before the year is out, within this Congress.’”

But that’s not Mr. Obama’s only approach. Bookworm at Mr. Conservative writes that imposing executive orders are among his anti-freedom plans:

“Obama’s DHS has been buying up all the weapons and ammunition in sight. It won’t say why, but that’s what it’s doing. As a result, shelves are empty, and even police departments are going begging for bullets. Obama himself is issuing a variety of executive orders to make it harder for people to get guns. He’s ordering more stringent background checks. He’s also pouring scarce government funds into anti-gun research and propaganda. He’s even attempting to ‘shame’ everyone into going along with his gun grab agenda…

Worst of all, though, is the way in which the Obama administration actively encouraged the United Nations to pass an Arms Trade Treaty (‘ATT’). Obama’s crew did this by foregoing the usual ‘consensus’ requirement, enabling the ATT to pass without United States participation. The fact that Obama kept the U.S.’s name off the treaty doesn’t lessen its effects. With the treaty in place it will be difficult, if not impossible, to bring legal weapons (such as the media’s hated Glock) into the country, and it will be expensive, if not impossible, for American manufacturers to get legal guns out of the country.”

Instead of handing out medals and spouting trite rhetoric, Mr. Obama and legislators across the nation should be acting on the real lessons of Newtown. Above all, arming willing teachers and advertising that fact but keeping secret the numbers of armed teachers at a given school will provide the great benefit of deterrence for every school in a school district, even if some schools have not a single armed teacher.

Never again should an American teacher have to rush an armed killer with nothing more deadly in their hands than a pencil. Never again should teachers be forced to hide children in closets and rely on hope and luck to preserve their very lives.

Let every willing American teacher be armed and ready to protect their lives and the lives of their students. After all, are their lives of less value on school grounds than elsewhere? Why should teachers that can carry concealed weapons virtually everywhere else be denied the ability to save their—and their student’s—lives at school? Let killers face the muzzles of handguns wielded by multiple teachers ready and able to actually save lives. This, not “gun free school zone” signs, will provide actual deterrence and protection.

When that day comes, when any prospective school shooter knows he will almost certainly face death rather than find cowering, unarmed victims, Mr. Obama can keep the rhetoric—and the medals; the survivors would rather have their loved ones than be props in yet another Obama photo op.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a
375 3

The post-Newtown anti-gun hysteria has done at least one significant service for American citizens: it has revealed which elected representatives have no understanding of the Constitution, and which have no intention of honoring their oaths to uphold and defend it. It now appears that a majority of Connecticut legislators fall into that dishonorable company. Their recent efforts, not yet signed into law, are but a taste of the intentions of those who would, on a national scale, render the Second Amendment null and void and who would, through that vehicle, establish their preferred utopia.


Their proposed legislation contains most of the usual anti-gun wish-list provisions, but with a number of particularly inventive–and constitutionally offensive–provisions. Fox6 Now reports:

“A bipartisan legislative task force in Connecticut has agreed on a major overhaul of the state’s gun laws in the aftermath of December’s deadly attack on an elementary school, lawmakers announced Monday.

The draft legislation would add more than 100 types of guns to the state’s list of banned assault weapons; limit the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds; ban armor-piercing bullets; require background checks for all weapon sales, including at gun shows; establish safety standards for school buildings; allow mental health training for teachers; and expand mental health research in the state.

‘Nobody will be able to say that this bill is absolutely perfect, but no one will also be able to say that this bill fails the test when it comes to being the strongest in the country and the most comprehensive bill in the country,” Connecticut Senate President Don Williams, a Democrat and a member of the task force, said Monday.”

In Connecticut, there is apparently little difference between Democrats and Republicans:

“A Republican member of the task force, House Minority Leader Larry Cafero, tried to reassure gun owners.

‘No gun owner will lose their gun, no gun owner will lose their magazine they will not lose the use of said gun or magazine, so long as they follow our rules and register… Are there tighter restrictions on their use, etc.? Absolutely. We also were able to see as part of this legislation the repeal of early release for violent criminals.”

This is reassuring? The Legislature can’t prevent the early release of violent criminals without infringing on the rights of the law abiding? And Cafero is a Republican? Is there no one in the Connecticut Legislature looking out for the Constitution? Many of the provisions of the bill are plainly unenforceable:

“The legislation would immediately ban any further sale, purchase or importation of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, but would allow current owners of larger-capacity magazines to keep them.

However, those magazines would have to be registered with the state by January 1, and even legally registered magazines could not be loaded with more than 10 rounds outside of the owner’s home or a gun range, no matter what permits the gun owner may hold.”

Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy appears to have a rather peculiar idea of what the legislation is capable of accomplishing:

“I have been clear for weeks that a ban on the possession and sale of high-capacity magazines is an important part of our effort to prevent gun violence… Simply banning their sale moving forward would not be an effective solution.”

Establishing an impossibly unenforceable law is an effective solution? To what, pray tell? A lack of employment for useless and abusive state bureaucrats? Human Events Blog reports that despite the blatantly restrictive nature of the legislation, gun grabbers are hardly satisfied:

“Those on guard for ‘slippery slopes” should know that Connecticut gun control activists are openly promising one. From another Associated Press report:

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said his group will live with the lawmakers’ decision not to ban them as other states have done. He said the leaders made their decision based on what was politically feasible.

‘We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we’ll be back for in later sessions,’ he said. ‘But for now, it’s a good thing.”

And Connecticut lawmakers want their laws to serve as a national model:

“In Connecticut, we’ve broken the mold,’ [Senate President Donald E. Williams, Jr.] said. ‘Democrats and Republicans were able to come to an agreement on a strong, comprehensive bill. That is a message that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress.”

The Connecticut Constitution has an arms provision (about which the Legislature is apparently blissfully unaware):

“[Article 1] SEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”

Notice that it does not have the exact language of the Second Amendment, however, bearing arms in defense of oneself obviously requires the right to keep them, not that this would appear to be a concern of the Connecticut Legislature.

The Heller and McDonald decisions made clear that the Second Amendment embodies a fundamental individual right to keep and bear those arms in common use, expressly mentioning handguns. That the legislature has apparently not specified banning various handguns is an indication of their awareness of this text. However, the legislation’s ban on “assault weapons” surely includes a significant number of AR-15-type rifles, the most popular and common rifles in contemporary America, the magazines for which are a standard 30 rounds. The magazine legislation also violates the Constitution and common sense.

Magazines–small bits of metal and plastic–have no serial numbers, and cannot be described with sufficient specificity to make registering them anything but an exercise in wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer money while building another corrupt and useless bureaucracy. No doubt these bureaucrats will want to glue or otherwise affix serial number plates to each and every magazine. Considering the fact that metal magazines must be oiled, and that glues don’t well adhere to plastics, to say nothing of such plates actually interfering with the use of magazines, such schemes are destined to fail, and to make criminals of the law abiding, which seems to be the idea.

Other than bureaucratic empire building, what could be the point of a magazine registry? Apart from harassment of the law abiding with the goal of making gun ownership so difficult that most will abandon the idea in disgust, any registry is a necessary prelude to confiscation, which is no doubt one of the goals of Mr. Pinciaro and his allies in the Legislature. And what happens to a hapless citizen who throws away a damaged or worn magazine, or who forgets to register a forgotten magazine? I suspect the Legislature will have no difficulty keeping such “criminals” in jail so long early release won’t be a concern.

How will the ten round limit be enforced? Does the mere possession of a firearm fed by a detachable magazine provide probable cause for the police to detain gun owners and search them and their magazines? How else could such a provision possibly be enforced? And under the law, the owner of a Glock 26 with a ten round magazine, cannot place an 11th round in the chamber of his weapon, being always restricted to 10 rounds.

The magazine provisions go much farther, as do the other anti-gun provisions of the bill. In effect, law-abiding firearm owners are, from now on, treated as criminals, and there are a bewildering variety of laws–most felonies–waiting to trip up the unwary and uninformed. It will be difficult for any honest gun owner to avoid becoming a felon. The Legislature’s brag list can be found here.

In order to buy a rifle, shotgun or any ammunition, residents must obtain “eligibility certificates,” which require a firearms safety course, fingerprinting, a national criminal background check and an involuntary commitment/voluntary admission mental health check. The same or more stringent requirements apply to the purchase of ammunition or magazines.

Connecticut residents will be required to have the permission of the state, and leap a variety of hurdles to exercise a fundamental constitutional right in even the smallest way. No doubt, state bureaucrats will have unfettered authority to delay and deny any citizen’s exercise of their rights for any or no reason, and of course, the brag list says nothing about rights of appeal of such decisions.

Armor piercing ammunition will be banned. I suspect this provision will have everything to do with ammunition capable of piercing bullet resistant vests such as the kind commonly worn by police officers. Genuine armor piercing ammunition has been banned for civilian use since 1986,however, most common rifle ammunition and some kinds of handgun ammunition can pierce such vests. This provision is probably intended to allow the banning of all of these common, unremarkable cartridges, which is a long-time tactic of gun banners.

“Universal background checks” will be required for all “sales” of firearms under any circumstance. There are no listed exemptions for family members, or for transfers other than “sales,” which would cover such things as allowing a friend to shoot a firearm on a hunt or on a range, or gift giving within families or between friends. Of course, such “sales” would be illegal.

If the rifles and shotguns in common use can be banned or their sale so restricted as to make ownership impossible, the Second Amendment means nothing. Even though handguns are apparently not specifically mentioned, if the purchase of ammunition and magazines is made all but impossible, they too are effectively banned.

If arbitrary capacity limits can be imposed on the standard magazines of firearms in common use, what possible restraints on the legislature exist? If ten rounds is good for public safety, why not five? And if five is better, why not near-perfect public safety and allow only one? What then would be the justification for allowing ammunition and firearms at all when public safety perfection was within the grasp of the Legislature?

It’s obvious these legislators seek to play a long game, a game that will allow them, over time, to essentially remove most, if not all, firearms and ammunition from Connecticut. What else could be their ultimate goal? Surely they understand that the laws they write will be obeyed only by the law abiding (and considering this law, that’s highly unlikely)? Surely they understand that criminals, including those planning assaults on schools–people planning mass murder–will not hesitate for a second to violate gun laws, particularly if they, like most such killers, do not plan to survive the attack?

They almost certainly understand. They just don’t care.

One wonders if the Connecticut Legislature has ever heard of Haynes v. U.S., the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision that established a very interesting point of law: those prohibited from gun ownership cannot be prosecuted for failing to register guns or accessories. That’s right; criminals can’t be prosecuted for violating any gun registration law because such registration violates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. In other words, these laws affect only the innocent and law-abiding, never the people politicians claim they want to prevent from having firearms. On the other hand, perhaps Connecticut politicians do know Haynes.

Absent absolute prohibition of guns, ammunition and accessories, it’s hard to imagine a more punitive and restrictive law than that being proposed in Connecticut. It is also hard to imagine a law more at odds with the rights of the law abiding, and one that provides more obvious evidence of the utter lack of honor of those legislators who neither care about the oath they took or the state or federal Constitutions.

Connecticut legislators may be among the first to cross a very dangerous line. Legislatures exist only with the permission of citizens who loan legislators certain limited powers. Americans have often debated the conditions under which it would be necessary for the citizenry to rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government–and all those who comprise and abet it. The Connecticut Legislature may be close to establishing the parameters of that particular Constitutional trip wire.

After all, that’s what the Second Amendment is for.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a
347 1

Let’s take a few minutes to review some of the recent trends in the Second Amendment war. War? Now that Mr. Obama has put the power and prestige of the office of the presidency behind the never-ending anti-gun and anti-freedom desires of his party, the cold war against the Second Amendment has once again heated up, and will not be likely to die down in the foreseeable future.


A recent conservative rising star has been revealed to be, rather, a shooting star. Neurosurgeon Dr. Benjamin Carson, lauded for a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast attended by President Obama where he unexpectedly made sense by touting solid conservative principles, provided an object lesson in the politics of momentary celebrity.

During a March 1, 2013 interview by Glenn Beck, Carson responded to whether people should be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons:

“It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it.”

Dr. Carson appears to be an accomplished, decent man, but a conservative, particularly a conservative supportive of the Constitution? Not so much.

Allahpundit, at Hot Air, provides a bit of background information:

Statistics further suggest that urban areas, such as the District, have different experiences with gun-related death, injury, and crime, than do less densely populated rural areas. A disproportionate amount of violent and property crimes occur in urban areas, and urban criminals are more likely than other offenders to use a firearm during the commission of a violent crime… Homicide appears to be a much greater issue in urban areas; from 1985 to 1993, for example, ‘half of all homicides occurred in 63 cities with 16% of the nation’s population.’… One study concluded that although the overall rate of gun death between 1989 and 1999 was roughly the same in urban than rural areas, the urban homicide rate was three times as high; even after adjusting for other variables, it was still twice as high… And a study of firearm injuries to children and adolescents in Pennsylvania between 1987 and 2000 showed an injury rate in urban counties 10 times higher than in nonurban counties…”

Does geography determine the value of a life? Are the lives of those living in more rural areas worth more than those of urban dwellers? That’s the obvious implication of Dr. Carson’s thinking. Either human beings have an unalienable right to self defense–and the most efficient and usual means thereof–or they do not. Of what value is an unalienable right dependent on GPS coordinates? Those living in cities often consider themselves superior beings compared to the God and gun clinging denizens of the red states, yet their self-appointed elite leaders would deny them the ability to protect their lives, and so would Dr. Carson. Do they really think red stater’s lives are worth more than theirs?

Rational people reading the information provided by Allapundit should come to two inescapable conclusions: (1) urban area have much higher crime rates because those who live there are mostly disarmed, thus easy pickings for criminals who don’t bother to obey any laws, including anti-gun laws, and (2) Those who live in urban areas would be much safer, and crime rates much lower, if they were armed and criminals had to fear for their lives.

And I hate to have to say this, but the Second Amendent is a fundamental, unalienable right. Sorry, Dr. Carson. We don’t infringe on those on whims, even well-intentioned whims.


Colorado Democrats are desperately trying to pass gun control bills that reflect those being pushed in Congress. Among them: magazine capacity limits, “universal” background checks, gun bans on college campuses, and even a bill that would hold “assault weapon” owners liable for damages caused by their firearms.

Fox News reports on some of the commentary by politicians involved in the debate:

“I’m a gun owner, and I have been since I was 12 years old,’ said Democratic Sen. Mike Johnston of Denver. ‘What is before us is not a constitutional question but a policy question.’

Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper has said he would sign into law a magazine limit and a background-check expansion.

Talking to a group of high school journalists Thursday, Hickenlooper said he’s keeping his options open.

‘I’m not in any way an anti-gun person,’ the governor said.”

Hmm. Aren’t political policies bound by the Constitution? Shouldn’t legislators actually know that and avoid proposing unconstitutional laws? And the Governor would ban magazines and impose equally unconstitutional laws on the purchase of firearms, and that’s not anti-gun? Colorado Democrats seem to have an odd way of interpreting these issues. They also have odd ideas about women, as the PJ Media Tatler reports:

“Despite the state’s reputation as a frontier state, Colorado’s Democrats are hell-bent on disarming law-abiding citizens and, in particular, women, from being able to defend themselves with a firearm. The latest is state Sen. Evie Hudak who, at a hearing on banning concealed carry on college campuses, told rape survivor Amanda Collins that having a gun would not have done her any good. Collins had just shared her story of survival. Democrat Hudak berated her in response.

‘I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. You said that you were a martial arts student, I mean person, experience in taekwondo, and yet because this individual was so large and was able to overcome you even with your skills, and chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get than from you and possibly use it against you …”

Hudak is not alone in her desire to keep women helpless victims:

“Hudak is the third Colorado Democrat to make insane remarks regarding firearms and rape in the past few weeks. In February, state Sen. Paul Rosenthal argued that women should use the ‘buddy system’ or judo to defend themselves from rape. Judo is a fine idea, but Amanda Collins’ experience suggests that martial arts may not be enough. A day before that, state Rep. Joe Salazar argued that women should rely on whistles and call boxes if they’re under attack from a rapist. Salazar further suggested that women should not be trusted with a firearm, because they might shoot even if they are not under attack.”

Dana Loesch, who has the very great advantage in this argument of being a woman, and a very smart woman at that, quoted Collins:

“As I live with the memory, weighted with the question of my life: ‘What would have been different if I had been carrying the weapon I was licensed to carry that night?’ I would like to leave you with a question: ‘How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?’”

Loesch closed:

“Quite a dangerous thing to disarm women and create more rape victims based on a dangerous, baseless assumption.”

PJ Media adds a fitting conclusion:

“Salazar’s and Rosenthal’s comments both came during a debate on allowing concealed firearm carry on college campuses. Here’s a basic question that no one seems to be asking: Why should anyone have to surrender their Constitutional rights just because they’re on a college campus? That’s what disallowing concealed carry does — it deprives people of their rights. Democrats are defending that, and saying the most asinine things to make their case.”

And the Republicans are waging a war on women? Really? Is this that reasonable, common sense conversation about gun control Democrats have been touting? Apparently.


Colorado’s Democrats are also apparently not concerned about the economy, at least not as it relates to the firearm industry. The Longmont, Colorado Times-Call reports on Colorado firearm magazine and accessory manufacturer, Magpul:

“Gov. John Hickenlooper should visit Magpul Industries Corp. and see for himself the impact that passage of gun-control measures would have on the families of about 200 people working for a manufacturer here, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner said Thursday.

Gardner, R-Yuma, and state Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, toured the company’s Erie plant Thursday morning, watching as Magpul employees prepared and assembled high-capacity magazines, firearms accessories and other products ranging from military dog leashes to smartphone cases.

Magpul has threatened to leave Colorado if the Legislature passes, and Hickenlooper signs, gun bills that limit the capacity of ammunition magazines that can be sold and possessed in Colorado.

An amendment to a recently passed House bill would allow high-capacity magazine manufacturers to make them in Colorado and sell them elsewhere.

But Magpul officials told Gardner, Marble and state Rep. Lori Saine — a Dacono Republican who joined the others after the plant tour — that the amendment wouldn’t be enough to prompt the company to stay if the bill becomes law.

‘We want to continue to be a Colorado company,’ said Duane Liptak Jr., Magpul’s director of product management and marketing.

Magpul’s chief operating officer, Doug Smith, said, however, that ‘our company was founded based on a set of values that resonate with our customer base.’ If Magpul continued to manufacture its ammunition magazines in a state whose own residents couldn’t own them, ‘our customer base would feel betrayed.’

Introduction of the magazine-capacity bill also prompted the company to put on hold its expansion plans, which include a new 200,000-square-foot facility that was to be built on a site near Interstate Highway 25 on Baseline Road, Magpul officials said.

A Magpul pullout could jeopardize the livelihoods of many of the 200 Coloradans who work directly for the company, as well as about 400 people who work for Magpul’s Colorado-based suppliers, Gardner said after the tour…

‘The bottom line,’ Gardner said, is that the magazine-capacity-limits bill and other gun-control measures that have received House approval won’t prevent gun violence. He said they’d wind up ‘making criminals out of innocent people.”

Quite right, Mr. Gardner; quite right.


I stopped by the local gun shop today and found a single AR-type rifle on display, as well as a single Glock handgun. Ammunition in every caliber was in similarly short supply. There was not a round of .22LR ammunition to be found. The AR was the first the store has had in three months and was priced at twice the normal, pre-Obama ban campaign price. The proprietor had no idea when–or if–supplies of the firearms and ammunition that were once plentiful and common would be available. And so it is around the nation.

I recently addressed the issue of the federal government buying up unbelievable quantities of ammunition, which may be having a significant effect on civilian shortages, at my home blog. It may be worth your time.


Fox News reports that South Dakota has taken a significant step in support of not only school safety, but in support of the Constitution:

“South Dakota Gov. Dennis Daugaard on Friday signed a bill allowing teachers to carry guns in school, making his state the first to enact such a law since the Newtown shooting tragedy.”

Not only does the law make schools truly safer, it addresses real problems in a time of diminishing budgets:

“In South Dakota, main bill sponsor Rep. Scott Craig, R-Rapid City, said earlier this week that he has received messages from a growing number of school board members and administrators who back it. Craig said rural districts do not have the money to hire full-time law officers, so they are interested in arming teachers or volunteers.

South Dakota doesn’t stand alone on this issue. For a dozen years, Utah has allowed teachers and others with concealed carry licenses to wear a gun in a public school. A couple of school districts in Texas have been given written authorization to allow guns in schools. And legislatures in other states, including Georgia, New Hampshire and Kansas, are working on measures similar to South Dakota’s.

The measure does not force a district to arm its teachers and would not force teachers to carry a gun.

On Monday, the South Dakota House voted 40-19 to accept the Senate version of the bill, which added a requirement that a school district must decide in a public meeting whether to arm teachers and others. Another Senate amendment allowed school district residents to push a school board’s decision to a public vote.”

Good for the state of my birth. Mt. Rushmore–the “Shrine of Democracy”–is there, you know. And on another battlefield in the education front, Fox News reports:

“A Maryland lawmaker has introduced legislation after a 7-year-old boy in his district was suspended for shaping a pastry into what his teacher thought looked like a gun.

The Star Democrat reports that Republican Sen. J.B. Jennings introduced a bill that would prohibit schools from suspending students for seemingly harmless childish acts, such as playing games with fingers pointed like guns or chewing food into the shape of a firearm.

‘These kids can’t comprehend what they are doing or the ramifications of their actions,’ Jennings told the paper. ‘These suspensions are going on their permanent records and could have lasting effects on their educations.”

Jennings also addresses the idiocy of adults who can’t tell the difference between a pastry and a weapon:

“Jennings’ bill would prevent minor incidents, such as the pastry ‘gun’ suspension, from being entered into a students’ permanent academic record, according to The Star Democrat.

He told the paper the legislation includes counseling and disciplinary procedures for school administrators who violate the guidelines on school punishments.”

Who would have thought sanity could exist in a legislature so close to Washington D.C.?

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a



More than a month ago, I posted an article titled “Forward to the Past With Joe ‘The Sheriff’ Biden. It turns out I’ve been forced to continually update that initial article, each time due to the spouting of more firearm and tactical advice from the Vice President.

“Wait just a minute,” you say. “What are Mr. Biden’s qualifications to issue such advice? Is he a special forces veteran? A veteran of any kind? Perhaps he was a SWAT team member? Perhaps he has had years of firearms and tactical training?”

The answer to all of these questions is no. Mr. Biden is an attorney and a life-long politician.

“Ah! Then surely Mr. Biden knows the law!”

Only if one has a hankering to experience prison life firsthand–for many, many years.

The updates alone are essentially new articles, so I’ve decided to post this update to the updates in the hope you’ll revisit–or visit for the first time–the article and updates. Why might this be worthy of your time and attention? Because we often learn best by observing through others what not to think and do. I can think of no one more qualified than VP Biden to teach those sorts of lessons.

Taking those lessons to heart could very well save your life, the lives of your family and neighbors, and keep you out of prison.

Mr. Biden is exactly that clueless.

Take the link and see for yourself.

So... what do you think? Please leave me a comment or give me a

Related Posts:

By entering this site you declare you are 18 or older, you read and agreed to its Terms, Rules & Privacy and you understand that your use of the site's content is made at your own risk and responsibility.
Copyright © 2006 - 2015 Gun Values Board