Archive for category legal news

Gun show loophole legislation

In April 2009, New Jersey Senator, Frank Lautenberg, Democrat, introduced a bill to close the so-called gun show loophole.  The reasoning that he, and others like him, mainly the left wing democrats and their voice, the mainstream media, use is that the perpetrators of the Columbine shootings 10 years ago is the result of the gun show loophole.

Luckily the Virginia State Crime Commission did not fall for the reasoning given by the gun show loophole supporters and voted down the resolution that was introduced to them in January.  The anti gun show folks thought that they could use the reasoning that regulating gun shows, though unrelated to the Virginia Tech shootings, could have prevented the victims’ deaths.  However, the weapons that Cho used were not obtained via gun shows, but through the internet.

Gun shows the cause of deaths?

Gun shows the cause of deaths?

So how could closing the perceived gun show loophole have saved lives?  It couldn’t have, but facts are useless to the mainstream liberal left wing controlled media, since they usually make them up as they go along.  It basically comes down to an insane person finally giving in to their personal demons that they succomb to when they do give in to killing others.  If there was no such thing as a gun show loophole, the Columbine tragedy might have occurred in another capacity, because people with the intent to kill will find a way to do the job.  Taking away the ability for regular sane people to obtain guns doesn’t prevent violence.  Instead it creates more victims, but don’t ever count on the mainstream media taking that view.

No Comments

Gun Banning and Confiscation

If firearms are ever banned in this country, then it is assumable that existing weapons will be confiscated as has happened in other countries where gun bans are placed into effect. For some reason or another, liberals tend to not mention the aftermath of what governments do when they ban firearms, luckily Firearmsfax is here to fill you in on the bits and pieces liberals forget to tell people. Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

The Brady Bill… What Good Did That Do?

It is that time again, statistics and facts time. Left wingers are always going on about the Brady Bill this and the Brady Bill that, how it has helped America become safer, and the rest of the liberal BS. Well, as much as the liberals hate to hear them, I have a few facts to point out regarding the actual effect the bill has had on America… and yes, I have numbers, percentages, and all the other things that sends liberals running for the hills. Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

Solving Problems or Causing Problems?

I completely understand and support the idea of doing something if it works to solve a problem without causing another, and you can take that statement to the bank. Heck, I believe anyone with common sense should feel free to make that statement. How can I feel ok saying that, knowing that it can be used by a left-winger to push his or her cause? Well first of all, they never get anything to work; and secondly, their “solutions” have a nasty habit of causing more problems. Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments

Civilest of Wars - 912 Project and Glenn Beck

A very good video going over the new gun laws in Montana. I don’t ordinarily like much from Fox news, but Glenn Beck brought on the writers of the new gun law in Montana to explain their position.

Here’s part of the transcript:

BECK: OK. What would you say if I said to you, “I think a background check is not necessarily a bad idea”? You don’t want some guy and going — I was in a gun store in Pennsylvania. I’m not kidding you. Two people walked in, some, you know, 20-year-old dope and his girlfriend, and he is like, “Well, what do you want?” And she said, “I don’t know. That one’s kind of cute, the pink one. I like that one.”

I just looked at the guy behind the counter and I said, “Don’t sell them a firearm.” He did. I mean, I think we should have some standards. What do you say about standards - having some kind of standard?

MARBUT: We don’t have those kinds of people in Montana. Or at least —

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

BECK: You don’t like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Montana. You’re right. You’re right.

MARBUT: At least we have fewer of them than you do. We want to set our own standards and we should be allowed to have guns and we don’t want the federal standards. We’re not the same as New Jersey or California or somewhere else.

And if we want to put restrictions on who can possess firearms, they should be our restrictions and should fit our culture and our people.

BECK: But people will say — Kevin and judge, people will say, “We’re all part of a union. We all have to work together.” Kevin, you’re smiling like this and it doesn’t have a shot in hell of working.

KEVIN GUTZMAN, AUTHOR, “POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION”: Well, there are two levels to approach this question. One is on the theoretical level. On the theoretical level, the gentlemen are exactly right. The federal government is grabbing power to regulate these things and anything else that comes to mind that it’s not supposed to have. And so I applaud them.

And trying to figure out a way to confront the federal government and get it to rein itself in is a good idea. On the other hand, practically, the first time this matter comes into a federal court, it’s tossed.

BECK: Judge?

JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, FOX NEWS SENIOR JUDICIAL ANALYST: Well, I think the more states that do it, the more pressure there will be on the Congress to realize that the states are serious about preventing the Congress from taking power away from it.

For example, if this were extended another step further, like the state of Montana forbids all police, local, regional and state, from enforcing federal laws in Montana. The federal government simply lacks the resources and the money to enforce all of its laws without the states helping them. So the more piling on there is, the more judges will realize, hey, something is going on here.

BECK: Leo, let me go to you, because you are a representative in the state of Texas. With Texas — you guys get it. And no offense, Montana, but Texans are going to come up and kick your butts. You guys are also — are you going to be taking Gary’s amendment? Is that what you are trying to do? What are you doing in Texas?

REP. LEO BERMAN, TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: We’ve already filed his bill in Texas. But he’ll have the court case in Montana. But Glenn, I’m a 9/12er. I served 22 years in the military because I love this country, just like you do. And we say that we fought against fascism, communism.

We watched socialist countries throughout the world just languish while we prospered based on free enterprise and individual freedoms. We see this president and this administration taking us not to the far-left, but beyond that to socialism. We don’t want to go there.

So Rep. Brandon Creighton and I filed two bills in Texas. The bills don’t really need to pass because 30 other states did essentially the same thing. But what these bills do is reassert our sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

And we tell the federal government that if they mandate anything on us which is not fully authorized by the U.S. Constitution, we’re going to challenge it and not do it. That’s the only thing we can possibly do right now.

We don’t want to become a socialist state. We want to challenge the federal government and I think we can do it. If we get all the state governors together to pull their resources, and anytime the federal government comes out with a mandate that’s not authorized by the Constitution, we take it right into federal court, all of us at the same time.

Amen and Amen. It’s not about being right or wrong, it’s about state control vs. government rule. States rights people!

Tags: ,

No Comments

State Gun Rights, the next Battle

Hand Guns in a Dallas Gun Store

Hand Guns in a Dallas Gun Store

It’s the next battlefield according to Time, and it’s not going to be based on 2nd amendment rights, no sir, it’s going to be riding on the 10th amendment.

Here’s the out take:

Montana has passed a law allowing local gun manufacturers to sidestep federal regulations as long as the weapons they make are sold within the territory of the state. “It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer said, according to the AP, as he signed the bill into law in mid-April. “I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that’s made in Montana.”

In a nutshell, the 10th amendment is what Mr. Schweitzer and Montana lawmakers are leaning on. Which is sure to launch a battle like we’ve never seen before. It’s not about the right to bear arms, it’s about state rights and how far they really go.

What are your thoughts?

Tags: , , ,

No Comments

Tougher Laws or Gun Control?

patrick-administration

Well, the Patrick Administration is back at it again. Calling for tougher laws in Beantown, wanting to send people to PRISON if they buy more than one firearm in a thirty day period.

Here’s a cut from Boston.com:

Backed by Mayor Thomas M. Menino and Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, the Patrick administration asked lawmakers yesterday to allow prosecutors to hold suspects in gun cases without bail and to bar gun owners from buying more than one firearm within 30 days or face 2 1/2 years in prison.

Those proposals were offered as part of a broader attack on gun-related violence in the state and were made after the Supreme Judicial Court on Monday banned prosecutors from seeking dangerousness hearings in illegal gun possession cases.

The court, in a 4-1 ruling, said that illegal gun possession is a “passive and victimless crime.”

The proposal filed by the governor would rewrite state law to make it clear that prosecutors have legal authority to try to keep someone in custody for up to 90 days while awaiting trial, an idea that Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter has aggressively used in his jurisdiction.

It is not a victimless and passive crime, because owning a gun is NOT a crime! It irritates me gun control advocates like to brand honest, law abiding people as criminals in order to further their beliefs. It’s not right.

Tags: , ,

No Comments