The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Thirdpower points to some campaign flyers for candidates in Illinois that are basically trying to scare voters into thinking machine guns are legal in Illinois (they aren’t) and that clearly we need to ban them.
At best, Representative Kathy Ryg is completely ignorant about what she proposes to regulate, and at worst is lying and deliberately misleading her constituents.
For Pittsburgh, the decision to put politics above Second Amendment rights would be a huge pain for the local economy. The last time the Steel City hosted the organization’s annual meeting, they brought in $15 million to local coffers. The NRA was the first major convention to visit the city’s new convention center in 2004 and has remained one of the largest events Pittsburgh has ever hosted. Predictions for 2011 showed that gun owners would fill approximate 9,000 room nights and draw just as many visitors to the region as the record breaking 2004 event.
Seems like a lot of money for a cash strapped and job scarce city to be throwing away over something that doesn’t even make any sense.
SayUncle has turned seven. Â I’ve been following for about 5 or 6 of those years.
We would be the first to concede that the gun provisions are legally dubious, given that in this case — regrettably — state law would seem to preempt anything Pittsburgh might enact. Empowering the police to be mind readers of intent is also troublesome. City Council should tread warily when these proposals are discussed in chambers tomorrow and a sunset provision would be reasonable.
So it’s questionably legal, but the Post-Gazette will support it anyway, because police can’t be mind readers. Â I guess that means they can’t be expected to delineate between peaceful and non-peaceful protesters too, so we might as well just tear gas them all!
I can understand Pittsburgh’s concerns about the G-20. Â These meetings attract all manner of violent, idiotic people. Â But I what I’ve failed to understand is what the City Council is trying to accomplish with this ban. Â Either someone is engaging in riotous behavior, or they aren’t. Â Police are legally permitted to use deadly force against rioters under Pennsylvania law, and I would certainly agree that use of deadly force against rioting protesters with guns would be justified. Â I’m just not sure what extra power the City of Pittsburgh thinks this will give them that they don’t already have. Â Protesting peacefully is lawful. Â Rioting behavior is unlawful. Â If there’s people planning to riot at the G-20 with guns, I’m not sure they are going to care all that much that the City of Pittsburgh says you can only riot as long as you’re not carrying 67 models of firearms.
The Pocono Record endorses the idea of denying Americans fundamental rights based on their presence on a secret government list that no one knows how to get on, or how to get off. Â Doesn’t sound so reasonably when you put it that way, does it? Â Especially when you consider if you happen to be a person unlucky enough to share a name with someone on the list, you’ll never be able to exercise your rights again. Â Shame on the Pocono Record for promoting such tripe.
It looks like Congress is moving to use their spending power to coerce state housing agencies into allowing residents to have firearms to protect themselves. Â The amendment was introduced by Tom Price (R-GA), but the article also lists A-rated Dem Joe Baca of California as one of the supporters. Â Naturally this is causing some hysterics:
“There was a time during the ’70s and ’80s when public housing developments were considered killing grounds,†said Emanuel Cleaver II , D-Mo., who grew up in public housing. “It is just foolhardy to place guns in developments of poor people, many of whom are unemployed, and place these guns around children. . . . Why would we try to put guns in the most densely populated areas in the urban core? It’s just unbelievable.â€
So as a middle-class suburban dweller, it’s absolutely fine for me to have a useful tool to protect my family, but if I’m poor, unemployed, and forced to live in public housing, well, too bad for you then. Â How’s that for equality?
We were told before the Ireland’s new laws were meant to go after handguns. Â But it looks like the true story is a lot more complicated than that.
IFA Countryside has warned that farmers are struggling to complete complicated nine-page application forms introduced by the Department of Justice under new firearms licensing arrangements.
Many gun holders must have these forms completed and cleared by local gardai by October or their existing permits will be cancelled.
This is why we fight licensing here. Â Once you have it in place, the wrench will be tightened until people don’t want to bother. Â Then once your numbers are down enough, it’s effectively over. Â You’re one tragedy away from ruin.
Man, I’m really glad we’re getting dangerous bouncers off the street. Â It’s always easier to arrest people for technicalities than go after actual hardened criminals.
Lying on an application to buy a firearm, or an application to carry a gun, has always been illegal under Pennsylvania law. The problem, explained Deputy Police Commissioner William Blackburn, was that the application used by the Police Department made it difficult to determine if the applicant was lying to illegally obtain a gun or was just confused by terminology.
Yes, it’s illegal, and has traditionally been used when you find someone who has committed a crime, and you’re looking for other things to throw at them, or throw at associates in an attempt to get them to turn witness. Â How is the City of Philadelphia making the streets safer by going after people for paperwork violations? Â Was Emmit Bethea a threat to public safety?
Why is the city wasting resources on paperwork violations, when they aren’t prosecuting real criminals who assault people, rob people, or even hardened criminals who are caught with guns? Â I’m not arguing that Abraham isn’t in the legal right. Â The law is the law. Â But her priorities are horribly out of whack if she considers going after paperwork errors a priority over going after real criminals.
Very interesting news item [from the shakedown artists over at] Las Vegas Review-Journal, about the gun record of Tarkanian, a GOP candidate looking to run against Harry Reid [here used to be a link, but I have removed it because I do not wish to promote extortion]:
[An excerpt of blah used to appear here from the sewer of a newspaper Las Vegas Review-Journal and Extortion about the Tarkanian campaign noting an e-mail campaign pointing out his “?” on his NRAÂ questionnaire, and former “F” grade from the Association]
A question mark means he didn’t answer his questionnaire. Â The F means he answered it poorly.
[Here was a statement excerpted from the rag newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that likes to sue bloggers for copyright infringements rather than try to work things out nicely first. That statement was from Tarkanian’s campaign, saying that they never received the questionnaire, so surely NRA thought they were just ignoring them.]
NRA sends a questionnaire to every candidate for office. Â In fact, NRA sends multiple questionnaires if they don’t get an answer back. Â This is what we would call a lame excuse.
[Here that rag of a newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Lawsuit was excerpted, and told of Tarkanian’s previous “C” and “F” grades, the latter of which came from a Brady endorsement Tarkanian claims he never asked for.]
Just a misunderstanding, you see. Â Harry Reid is far from perfect, and I will admit that his squirrely nature worries me in terms of what he’s going to do when he can coast for the next six years, but if gun owners in Nevada are pinning their hopes on this challenger, I think they are making a mistake.
UPDATE 7/22/2010: This article was changed from the original, because the Las Vegas Review-Journal will get no more free links from this blog. Here’s why.