Category Archives: Gun Laws

Care to Surrender your Facebook Password for a Permit to OWN a Gun?

Facebook Account Information Used by Police to Approve or Deny Gun “Permits” in New York Town

 According to a piece in thefreethoughtproject.com,  the Watervliet  Police Department and the court which issues gun permits in that New York community have been found  violating the Constitution on multiple counts.  They’re not even violating it under the provision of any statute or law.  It’s simply police department procedure that has been unquestioned until now.

The City of Watervliet requires that residents wishing to possess a handgun there must be permitted to do so. As unconstitutional as that is in itself, that’s not even the main source of outrage here.

Recently the department sent a form to an applicant who had applied for a local handgun “permit”. The application received asked the applicant supply personal Facebook account information as a condition for granting the “permit”.

This applicant rightfully complained.  The department responded by claiming that the form was sent to him in error.  They said that the form he received was the one normally filled out used in face-to-face interviews.

There were other details and you can check them out here.

This is just one example of constitutional abuses increasing at every level of government nationwide.  The real history of the American Revolution is no longer taught in public schools, and it’s showing now.

Demanding Facebook Information for Gun “Permits” is a Threefold Constitutional Violation

First, this policy violates the applicant’s 1st Amendment rights to free speech by ruling for or against the issue of a permit to exercise 2nd Amendment rights on the basis of the applicant’s political views.

It violates 2nd Amendment rights first by virtue of the very existence of a law requiring a permit to own a pistol (more on that later), and second by making it possible to deny a citizen his natural individual rights for purely political reasons.

This policy also violates the 4th Amendment by forcing the applicant to accept a warrantless search of personal property, namely, Facebook account information.

Don’t Forget the 10th Amendment.  What’s That?

Let’s look at the unconstitutionality of all state and local law.  Such law may not conflict with rights defined in the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment covers that.  The 10th Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

It is clear then, that states and localities may not pass law contrary to the supreme law of the Constitution, whose 2nd Amendment guarantees no infringement.  Issuing a “permit” to exercise what is already a right is infringement.  Therefore, every state or city law requiring the “permitting” of gun possession is infringing, and is therefore invalid on the basis on the 10th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. 

Every Gun Law is Unconstitutional! Every One!

The existence of a law, regardless of the established constitutional process it went through in order to become law, by no means establishes or creates the constitutionality of that law.  It’s a fact that unconstitutional law is passed regularly, and that consequently we live in a maze of conflicting state and federal laws, many of them constitutionally invalid.  The 10th Amendment has not been honored.

In this small town case in New York, a local government has granted itself an authority it never had constitutional grounds to possess. Government regulation of speech and behavior is not a constitutional right at any level, federal, state, or local.  The Bill of Rights was written for the people’s protection from government, and no rights belong to government.  Only the Constitution defines what it may do.  The regulation of free speech, the regulation of the individual’s right to bear arms, the right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures – these rights belong naturally to the individual.  Any claim of any level of government to act contrary to these protections is a tyrannical abuse of power.

This is getting old. The 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed”.

The primary motivation of the Founders for designing the constitutional republic that they did was to prevent the possibility of recurrence of the same tyrannical abuses they had just a decade earlier revolted against!

George Mason wrote that the 2nd Amendment was established to ensure that the people would be protected from repeating the very same tyrannical enslavement by government that King George III had inflicted upon them.  Noah Webster strongly agreed.  It’s all in the history that is no longer taught in public schools.

In the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches were prohibited, as well as standing federal armies.  Why do you suppose they mentioned that?  Could it have had anything to do with the presence of militarized police in the colonies that were directed by agents of King George III?

Running over the Constitution

The Constitution was carefully designed to provide infallible guidance which, properly applied, would suppress tyrannical government actions at all levels.  However, when the Constitution is neither respected and nor honored for its original intentions, it becomes useless.  In proportion as knowledge of the history of our founding era has diminished, so has respect for our Constitution.  As a result, Supreme Court rulings have replaced and superseded constitutional authority, and consequently the Constitution is now regularly run over by the courts.

Constitutional Infringements Running Rampant at Local Government Levels

Come to think of it, I said that the Watervliet police department was not violating the Constitution under the provision of any statute or law.  But they really were.  The very fact that their city honors an unconstitutional law is the basis of this entire set of additional infractions

Contentions that a law is constitutional and valid until its validity is overturned by the Supreme Court, are ridiculous. That position would render the Constitution of no value unless it were to be first sanctioned by the federal government  –  the very entity it was designed to protect the people against!

Read more at http://westernjournalism.com 

Facebooktwitterrss

BARR: The U.N. comes after America’s guns Barack Obama’s OK of a gun-control treaty would destroy the Second Amendment

UN comes after US Guns

The true scope of the anti-firearm crusade of the United Nations, which began more than a dozen years ago, finally is coming into clear focus, as the White House readies to sign the Arms Trade Treaty adopted with U.S. support this past April by the U.N. General Assembly. The reach of this long-term, carefully crafted agenda is truly breathtaking, going far beyond the publicly articulated goals of even the most radical of homegrown gun-control groups.

Since the first major U.N. meeting in July 2001, officially launching the so-called “Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects,” this bureaucratic behemoth on the banks of the East River in New York City has been attempting to stretch its tentacles into the domestic regulation of firearms. If the administration of President Obama signs the Arms Trade Treaty, the U.N. will have taken a major step toward its ultimate goal — regardless of whether the treaty is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification.

According to experts familiar with this process, the mere act of signing the treaty — a responsibility that would fall to Secretary of State John Kerry — would “obligate” the U.S. government as a signatory not to act “contrary to” its terms. Those “terms” are, to quote Ross Perot, the “devil in the detail” — found not only within the four corners of the document itself, but in companion, foundational documents on which it is based.

For example, a 2006 U.N. report (authored by an American academic, Barbara Frey) lays out with frightening clarity where advocates of the approach reflected in the Arms Trade Treaty are coming from. According to this Eurocentric worldview, there is no “right” to self-defense, and the national government is obligated to restrict civilian ownership of firearms, including determining which citizens properly “understand” firearms and might, therefore, be permitted to possess them.

Another important but little-known set of documents that reveal the true purposes of the treaty were crafted by the U.N. Coordinating Action on Small Arms. These include the International Small Arms Control Standard, which is developing “modules” on gun control to serve as “model legislation” for countries that sign on to the treaty. The most relevant of these is the one titled, “National controls over the access of civilians to small arms and light weapons.”

One need read no further than the introduction to this missive to understand its goal. The operative focus is strict regulation of civilian possession of firearms by the “central” or national government. This is necessary because “some civilians misuse small arms” by using them illegally or “improperly stor[ing]” them. The document bases this notion of government control of firearms and ammunition on “international law” — an inaccurate interpretation of such body of laws, but one that fits conveniently the U.N.’s agenda.

From this global perspective, the International Small Arms Control Standard module then directs, in excruciating detail, the manner in which national governments should restrict access to firearms and ammunition:

Restricting civilian possession of firearms only to those “at the lowest risk of misusing them.”

Limiting sales and other transfers of firearms only to commercial transactions at licensed “sales premises” (in other words, no transfers at gun shows).

Only persons licensed and periodically relicensed by the national government could possess firearms.

All firearms must be registered with the national government.

All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.

All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”

Only a predetermined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.

Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

Possession of a firearm may only occur after a seven-day waiting period.

No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless he first demonstrates a clear and convincing need.

Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses.

In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”

The above list is by no means exhaustive of the restrictions in the U.N. model legislation, which is designed to limit the possession of firearms and ammunition to the smallest possible number of civilians, and it provides clear insight into where this process is going. If Congress fails to take swift action to prohibit the administration from implementing any part of the Arms Trade Treaty or taking any action pursuant to it, we now know exactly where we are headed.

Bob Barr, a former member of Congress, is a board member of the National Rifle Association and a candidate for Georgia’s 11th Congressional District.

Facebooktwitterrss

Obama’s Executive Ordered Study Report On Gun Violence Slaps Him In The Face | Guns Save Lives

white house gun free zone

If you recall, back on January 16, 2013, standing with little children, Barack Hussein Obama tried to pull a fast one on the American people and issued 23 executive orders pertaining to gun control. Among those was number 14: Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. Well friends, that study did happen and it destroyed Obama’s position on guns and gun violence.

Well like all things in government, the people tasked with the study simply directed the study to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. However, many people have not heard about the report. Could it be that much of the information in the report didn’t quite “jive” with Obama and the anti-gun crowd?

Actually, that’s exactly what it did. In fact, not only did they not hold any water for Obama’s claims regarding gun violence, it poured it on him, pretty much backing every Second Amendment lover’s argument that has been made.

The report, titled Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-related Violence, which identifies the particular topics of gun violence to be researched over the next few years, made the point that the majority of deaths that take place annually by the use of a firearm are not related to crime, but to suicide.

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States,” reads the study.

That’s obviously not a good thing. However, it indicates that many Americans suffer from both a spiritual and mental health issue. With that said, let’s not then run to government to deal with mental health issues. I’ve warned before and I’ll warn you now: That would be a very bad move.

Here’s the great news in the report though. It points out that virtually every study which “assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns” discovered the same thing. Those using their guns for self-defense “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

Oh and remember how we’ve been told by the Obama administration and the socialist gun grabbers that guns aren’t used that often in self-defense? Well, the report shows that isn’t true either.

 

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a),” the study reads. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).”

 

Yeah, not as uncommon as the propagandists would have us believe.

In all fairness, the report does point out that “some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).”

While the report does maintain that this will always be a controversy in the field, the study does state that “the estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys,” while the “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”

“A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim,” reads the report.

The report does have a downside. It indicates that we have the most firearm related deaths of any western nation. However, the good news is that the study claims that is rapidly declining.

 

“Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years.” However, “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.”

Additionally, the report goes on to inform about other declines. “Firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009,” the report continues, adding that accidental shootings were declining as well.

 

The report also states that “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

While everyone recognizes that there will always be crime and violence and yes, even gun violence, the fact of the matter is that gun control is not the answer, except to make sure you control your own gun and hit your target. For sure there will be more data added as the study continues, but already what they do have from the past indicates something that is completely opposite from what this administration has presented and there is no doubt that any information that comes out of the study will be thoroughly scrutinized.

The report also referenced video game violence to see how it might contribute to gun violence, but said that more research would need to be done and no research to the present has been conclusive.

Anyone wondering why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein aren’t running to the state run media to air out this little report? It’s because they have egg on their face.

One last question that is on my mind is, how much did will this study end up costing the American taxpayer?

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/obamas-executive-ordered-study-on-gun-violence-slaps-him-in-the-face/#ixzz2YKlFOzyW

Facebooktwitterrss
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!