3 Boxes of BS

Hey you anti-rights cultists protesting the N.R.A. convention; I have a suggestion for you.

Gun control advocates were determined to have a presence outside the convention hall. Across the street Friday, the No More Names vigil read the names of gun violence victims since the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre

Instead of reading the names of the victims, why don’t you read the rap sheets and/or mental health records of the people committing committing violent crimes using firearms?
Probably would take you a little longer then the weekend.

* Thirty-six percent of violent felons had an active criminal justice status at the time of their arrest. This included 18% on probation, 12% on release pending disposition of a prior case, and 7% on parole.

* Seventy percent of violent felons had a prior arrest record, and 57% had at least one prior arrest for a felony. Sixty-seven percent of murderers and 73% of those convicted of robbery or assault had an arrest record.

* A majority (56%) of violent felons had a prior conviction record. Thirty-eight percent had a prior felony conviction and 15% had a previous conviction for a violent felony.

And after you are through, you might spend the time needed to get your voice back by listening to the millions of people who have used firearms to stop crime. Of course, that might be too much for you since it would require you to actually have an open mind about the issue.

H/T to Pistolero

Via The Redneck Engineer** via Texas Fred

  Congress may be ramping up to consider gun restrictions in the wake of the Connecticut school shooting, but Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott says the proposals being discussed now are unconstitutional, and he says he will ask the courts to throw them out if they are approved, 1200 WOAI news reports.

 

  “I’ve been to the Supreme Court twice,” Abbott said in an interview with 1200 WOAI’s Joe Pags..  “I can tell you that these laws that try to restrict our gun rights violate the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.  The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken on this issue twice.”

FORT WORTH – A crowd waiting to buy sneakers outside Hulen Mall early Friday morning was doused with pepper spray after authorities received reports of fighting at the scene in Fort Worth.

“People got hit with night sticks, it was really crazy,” said shoppper Julio Lomeli. “You couldn’t go anywhere, you would be squished in, stepped on. “

Police were called to the mall as a group of shoppers waiting to buy a pair of Nike Air Jordan Retro 11 shoes grew outside. Authorities received reports that the crowd of about 350 to 400 shoppers was “getting out of control” and that several physical fights had broken out.

Upon arriving at the scene, several officers went to the front of the crowd, standing between the doors of the mall and the crowd. At one point, one of the officers yelled out a few words before dousing the shoppers with pepper spray. At least two people were treated at the scene

That is one culture….now compare it to the culture that is filling the gun stores.

Have you heard of a single incidence of violence at a gun store, much less fighting that needs pepper spray to be used?

So tell me again Mr./Ms. Anti-rights  cultist where we need to focus our attention to reduce violence?

Did you know that firearms can act on their own?

“It is very important to us to tax guns because we know that guns are the sources of the incredible violence we have in our neighborhoods,” Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle told a news conference. She said 29 percent of guns used in crimes in Chicago were purchased legally in suburban Cook County. (emphasis mine- BS)

I didn’t know that the guns are the source of the problem; silly me thought that people were.

Under the plan, the county would impose a $25 tax on the purchase of firearms. The tax is expected to raise $600,000 in revenue in 2013. Preckwinkle abandoned a proposed tax of 5 cents a bullet because the tax in some cases would have exceeded the price of ammunition.

If approved by the board, the nation’s third most populous county with nearly 5.2 million residents could be the first major U.S. metropolitan area to impose a tax as a form of gun control, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

There have been 440 murders in Chicago so far this year, surpassing last year’s total of 435 and 22.2 percent more than in the same period a year ago, according to Chicago police.

Hey Chicago, People wear clothes to commit crimes (even those unarmed crimes) so why don’t you impose a ‘violence tax’ on sneakers, pants, shirts -can’t tax hoodies that would be racist, right?

Preckwinkle proposed dedicating $2 million to a violence prevention program, which would primarily provide grants to non-profit organizations with proven experience in violence prevention or community outreach.

Oh….I get it now. Preckwinkle must not expect Obama to win the election either and wants to make sure he has a job waiting for him. Just exactly how is providing money, more money to these organizations going to reduce crime?

And while you are at it Ms. Preckwinkle, could you tell me how this is constitutional?
I mean we hear all the time requiring people to pay money to get an Photo ID is disproportionally harmful to the minority community, right? So wouldn’t a $25 tax (close to the cost of a Texas Driver’s License) be disproportionally harmful to those who want to effectively defend themselves in a city with so many murders?

Please join the discussion.

Over at Common Gunsense, Joan Peterson Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete — says in comments

japete  October 3, 2012 12:41 PM

Reasonable gun laws don’t restrict the second amendment.

So help me out here Joan — what do “reasonable” and “restrict” mean in your  world?
Because the list of things you want to implement certainly don’t seem to fit either definition to me.

SENSIBLE LAWS. NO CONFISCATION-JUST LAWS TO STOP DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM GETTING GUNS. BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES. LIMITING INTERNET AMMUNITION SALES. LIMIT TYPES OF AMMUNITION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS. SENDING RECORDS OF DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE TO THE FBI’S NATIONAL INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. SAFE STORAGE OF GUNS. REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS SALES OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION. COMMON SENSE ABOUT GUN POLICY. And much more.

That is what you said — so let’s break it down a little and examine how “reasonable” some of them are.

First “JUST LAWS TO STOP DANGEROUS PEOPLE FROM GETTING GUNS.” –

Okay; looks like we need another definition “dangerous” now doesn’t it? Help me out with that.

And just who gets to determine when and if a person meets that definition can be a little tricky. Our court systems are already backlogged with cases. Our mental health system has been gutted by laws turning people out onto the streets instead of treating them in hospitals and asylums.

And that doesn’t even include the fact that criminals are already the ones committing most of the crimes:

A majority (57%) of violent felons had been arrested previously for a felony. The percentage with a felony arrest record ranged from 40% of rapists to 63% of robbers. Fifty-nine percent of those convicted of assault and 58% of those convicted of murder had at least one prior felony arrest. Forty-four percent of violent felons had more than one prior felony arrest charge, and 22% had at least five. About half of those convicted of robbery (51%)had more than one prior felony arrest, as did nearly half of those convicted of assault(46%)or murder (44%). Twenty-eight percent of robbers had 5 or more prior felony arrest charges and 12% had at least 10. Among murderers, 21% had 5 or more prior felony arrest charges, and 10% had 10 or more. Rapists (12%) were least likely to have five or more prior felony arrest charges.

We already have a system to prevent “dangerous” people from getting firearms — but the ‘justice system’ lets them go instead of keeping them in prison.
So what is your ‘reasonable’ law?

Next – BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES.

How are you going to enforce this without a national registry of firearms?Canada had registry of long guns; how did that work out? How many states have registries and what is their crime rate ? How are you going to know who owns firearms without an invasive search of each and every home — that is really reasonable isn’t?
There are over 280 MILLION firearms in America. Estimates put the number of firearm owners between 50 to 85 MILLION people. And out of that less then 500,000 firearm related crimes occur each year. Even if we say that every crime is committed by a different person we are talking about less then 0.06% of the people being part of the problem?

And then there is the fact that many gun owners already undergo multiple background checks. When I joined the gun club – Background check, When I obtained my CHL – background check. What is a reasonable number of background checks ?

LIMITING INTERNET AMMUNITION SALES.

Right — so people can buy as much ammunition from a brick and mortar store but we are going to limit how much a person can buy online. How does that make sense much less qualify as ‘reasonable’.

The Aurora theater murderer possessed over 6,000 rounds but didn’t come close to firing that many. I can’t find any definite numbers on how many rounds were fired but let’s assume he fired off 5 times as many shots as people were hit – 70 x5 = 350.

That is only 7 -50 round boxes of ammunition. 7! Are you saying that buying more then 7 boxes of ammunition is ‘unreasonable’?

LIMIT TYPES OF AMMUNITION AND ASSAULT WEAPONS

How is it any different if a person is shot with a hollow point, a jacketed hollow point or standard ball round? This is one of the most inane proposals yet. It makes no sense at all.

And using the made up term “assault weapons”, really reasonable there — isn’t any weapon used to hurt someone an assault weapon?

So looks like we need yet another definition — ‘assault weapon’. What does that bring us up to – 4 or 5 terms with no legal meaning? Really reasonable argument there Joan.

One of the main points about “assault weapons” is the size of the magazine they can use – so how is it reasonable to say a person can shoot 10 people but not 11 before he has to reload?

SENDING RECORDS OF DANGEROUSLY MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE TO THE FBI’S NATIONAL INSTANT CHECK SYSTEM.

Hmm, still waiting on that definition of ‘dangerous’ aren’t we?
And now we get into a really sensitive subject — our mental and medical health. So does it take one doctor saying “You are a menace to society; therefore you lose your right to keep and bear arms” or does it take a panel?
Is there an appeal process before or after?

Or will this be like the “Terror Watch List” where anyone can put you on it, the process is kept secret and it is nearly impossible to get removed from it?

Yeah, I can see how reasonable this is.

And if you feel it is reasonable for hundreds of people or more to have access to my medical and mental health records; are you going to lead the way and release yours?

You are a gun owner right?

SAFE STORAGE OF GUNS.

If it is common sense; why do we need a law for it? And how are you going to enforce it? Will this be in addition to the laws already on the books such as Texas’ law against child access?

How do you define “safe storage”? Looks like the count is up to 6?
And what is your goal with this requirement? To prevent accidents, to prevent firearms from being stolen?

Guess you feel it is reasonable to punish people for letting their firearms be stolen.

REPORTING OF SUSPICIOUS SALES OF GUNS AND AMMUNITION.

Yeah this makes a lot of sense — I’m going to call the police and tell them I just sold a gun to a person I consider suspicious.
Or do you want neighbors spying on neighbors “Hello 911. This is Gladys Kravitz, my neighbor who puts his trash out an hour early each day and looks like a drug dealer just bought a gun. Could you come check it out?”

Or do you think we should be calling in reports like this “Hi, This is Joan. I just sold some ammunition. It said it was 9 mm but I really think it was lying to me.”

So in addition to the laws for universal background checks, no privacy for gun owners, laws against straw purchasing you want another law to cover anything you might have missed. Let’s take a vote and see if anyone thinks that is reasonable, shall we.

And much more.

And there we have it folks. While Joan and her ilk claim they aren’t out to ban firearms –just ban cheap guns, small guns that can be hidden, large guns that hold a lot, guns that look scary, etc — they will continue to push for more and more and more restrictive laws.

Please join the discussion.

Hey Joan Peterson  Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete — once again you prove how little you really know or understand what you are talking about:

That is what the judicial system is doing, for the most part, in many states where legislatures are trying to disenfranchise voters. See Texas, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin.

Let’s look at the word – disenfranchise and how it applies to voting and the right to keep and bear arms in the state of Texas

: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote

While it ‘especially’ applies to voting — it is the deprivation of a legal right. So what does it look like when we compare voting and firearm laws in Texas?

Not good

Voting

To be eligible to register to vote in Texas, a person must be:

• A United States citizen;
• A resident of the Texas county in which application for registration is made;
• At least 18 years old on Election Day;
• Not finally convicted of a felony, or, if so convicted must have (1) fully discharged the sentence, including any term of incarceration, parole, or supervision, or completed a period of probation ordered by any court; or (2) been pardoned or otherwise released from the resulting disability to vote; and
• Not determined by a final judgment of a court exercising probate jurisdiction to be (1) totally mentally incapacitated; or (2) partially mentally incapacitated without the right to vote.

Concealed Handgun License  or CHL (PDF Alert)

GC §411.172. ELIGIBILITY. (a) A person is eligible for a license to carry a concealed handgun if the person:
(1) is a legal resident of this state for the six-month period preceding the date of application under this subchapter or is otherwise eligible for a license under Section 411.173(a);
(2) is at least 21 years of age;
(3) has not been convicted of a felony;
(4) is not charged with the commission of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense, or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense, or of a felony under an information or indictment;
(5) is not a fugitive from justice for a felony or a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense;
(6) is not a chemically dependent person;
(7) is not incapable of exercising sound judgment with respect to the proper use and storage of a handgun;
(8) has not, in the five years preceding the date of application, been convicted of a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or equivalent offense or of an offense under Section 42.01, Penal Code, or equivalent offense;
(9) is fully qualified under applicable federal and state law to purchase a handgun;
(10) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in making a child support payment administered or collected by the attorney general;
(11) has not been finally determined to be delinquent in the payment of a tax or other money collected by the comptroller, the tax collector of a political subdivision of the state, or any agency or subdivision of the state;
(12) is not currently restricted under a court protective order or subject to a restraining order affecting the spousal relationship, other than a restraining order solely affecting property interests;
(13) has not, in the 10 years preceding the date of application, been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and
(14) has not made any material misrepresentation, or failed to disclose any material fact, in an application submitted pursuant to Section 411.174.

Identification

Voting

A federal court on Thursday blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to show photo identification, ruling that the legislation would impose “strict, unforgiving burdens” on poor minority voters.

…

The panel at the U.S. District Court in Washington ruled that Texas had failed to show that the statute would not harm the voting rights of minorities in the state. In addition, the judges found that evidence indicated that the cost of obtaining a photo ID to vote would fall most heavily on African American and Hispanic voters.

…

The federal court agreed with the Justice Department. The court’s opinion said that among residents who lack other forms of acceptable identification, the burden of obtaining a state voter-ID certificate would weigh disproportionately on minorities living in poverty, with many having to travel as much as 200 to 250 miles round trip.

Under the Texas law, the minimum cost to obtain a voter ID for a resident without a copy of a birth certificate would be $22. The “election identification certificate” is free, but the legislature rejected a proposal to allow people to obtain the necessary supporting documents at no cost.

None of the travel and financial burdens associated with the new law “had ever before been imposed on Texas voters,” Tatel wrote in the opinion. (Emphasis Mine  throughout- Bob)

CHL

(a) An applicant for a license to carry a concealed handgun must submit to the director’s designee described by Section 411.176:
(1) a completed application on a form provided by the department that requires only the information listed in Subsection (b);
(2) one or more photographs of the applicant that meet the requirements of the department;
(3) a certified copy of the applicant’s birth certificate or certified proof of age;
(4) proof of residency in this state;
(5) two complete sets of legible and classifiable fingerprints of the applicant taken by a person appropriately trained in recording finger-prints who is employed by a law enforcement agency or by a private entity designated by a law enforcement agency as an entity qualified to take fingerprints of an applicant for a license under this subchapter;
(6) a nonrefundable application and license fee of $140 paid to the department;
(7) evidence of handgun proficiency, in the form and manner required by the department;
(8) an affidavit signed by the applicant stating that the applicant:
(A) has read and understands each provision of this subchapter that creates an offense under the laws of this state and each provision of the laws of this state related to use of deadly force; and
(B) fulfills all the eligibility requirements listed under Section 411.172; and
(9) a form executed by the applicant that authorizes the director to make an inquiry into any noncriminal history records that are necessary to determine the applicant’s eligibility for a license under Section 411.172(a).
(b) An applicant must provide on the application a statement of the applicant’s:
(1) full name and place and date of birth;
(2) race and sex;
(3) residence and business addresses for the preceding five years;
(4) hair and eye color;
(5) height and weight;
(6) driver’s license number or identification certificate number issued by the department;
(7) criminal history record information of the type maintained by the department under this chapter, including a list of offenses for which the applicant was arrested, charged, or under an information or indictment and the disposition of the offenses; and
(8) history, if any, of treatment received by, commitment to, or residence in:
(A) a drug or alcohol treatment center licensed to provide drug or alcohol treatment under the laws of this state or another state, but only if the treatment, commitment, or residence occurred during the preceding five years; or
(B) a psychiatric hospital.
(c) The department shall distribute on request a copy of this subchapter and application materials.

and

GC §411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT. (a) The director by rule shall establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency and shall develop a course to teach handgun proficiency and examinations to measure handgun proficiency. The course to teach handgun proficiency must contain training sessions divided into two parts. One part of the course must be classroom instruction and the other part must be range instruction and an actual demonstration by the applicant of the applicant’s ability to safely and proficiently use the applicable category of handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate, at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a handgun of .32 caliber or above. The department shall distribute the standards, course requirements, and examinations on request to any qualified handgun instructor.
(b) Only a qualified handgun instructor may administer a handgun proficiency course. The handgun proficiency course must include at least 10 hours and not more than 15 hours of instruction on:
(1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
(2) handgun use, proficiency, and safety;
(3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
(4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.

(Even if the person seeking a CHL only plans to carry a pistol in .22LR, they either have to own or borrow one in .32ACP or greater to qualify for the license)

With all due respect Judge Tatel and Joan Peterson; you have no clue as to what you are talking about. The state has imposed greater burdens then a photo id on its citizens. The state does discount it’s cut of the license racket 50% for the indigent or veterans (who often qualify for the first ) to $70. The photos normally cost around $10 at a pharmacy, the finger prints — from only one approved company in the entire state — costs $10. The required class starts around $25 dollars but generally runs from $75 to $200 per person. And the CHL is required to be renewed every 4 or 5 years !

Nor is there an education or proficiency requirements in order. So tell me just who is being disenfranchised under what law?

I know I shouldn’t be but I am continually amazed at the hypocrisy that anti-rights cultists like Joan Peterson display and how warped their ‘logic’ has to be — it is okay to impose costly, time consuming restrictions that disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of people from their right to effective self defense but a less costly, less burdensome requirement that simply proves a person is eligible to take part in the governance of our country is not acceptable.

So Joan Peterson Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence board Member, co-president of the Northland Chapter of the Brady Campaign, President of  Minnesota Million Moms March, Spokesperson for Protect Minnesota ; aka Japete  — could you explain how that makes sense?

Seriously, I really really want to know.

Investigators say seven people have been charged with fishing fraud in a South Texas tournament.

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department game warden Jason Duke said Thursday that the suspects allegedly submitted a 2.6 pound flounder not caught during the contest.

The South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce sponsored the Aug. 10-12 Ladies Kingfish Tournament. Duke says the defendants won a $5,000 second-place prize.

If people are willing to cheat to win a few thousand dollars in a fishing competition; what makes you think they won’t do the same thing when someone asks them to purchase a firearm from a dealer?

The idea that registration (like that stops cars from being stolen), background checks, ‘outlawing private sales’ (right….overworked cops are going to take time out to start checking to see if Aunt Ethel really owns that AR-15 she bought last month) would do anything to stop or even slow done the illegal transfer of firearms is more then inane, it is a complete denial of reality.

Stop trying to perfect human beings through legislation.