Gun Stories of the Week: Washingtonians Told They Don’t Need Guns to ‘Take Out’ Terrorists
TOP STORY Obama Thanksgiving menu: Dyspeptic delusion Hopefully, as you passed the cranberry sauce and slathered gravy on your stuffing,...
Obama Thanksgiving menu: Dyspeptic delusion
Hopefully, as you passed the cranberry sauce and slathered gravy on your stuffing, you were a good American this Thanksgiving and regaled family and friends with your views on gun control.
It’s okay. You were only following the President’s orders, as conveyed by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Nov. 23 when he encouraged righteous blowhards to turn Thanksgiving into a table-pounding forum of divisive rhetoric.
Yes, Earnest said, President Obama wanted every American to sit around the Thanksgiving table and, instead of counting blessings, ask each other why Congressional Republicans won’t pass the ”Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2015.”
“As people are sitting around the Thanksgiving table talking about these issues—as they should and I’m sure they all will across the country—I hope that is a question that will be raised and asked by members around the table,” Earnest said in reference to a bill to ban people who are on the terror watch list from purchasing guns, The Blaze reports.
According CNSNews.com, Republicans should go along with a Democrat demand to bar people on a secret government list from buying guns, he said.
“One obvious thing that Congress can do is pass a law that prevents somebody who is on the terror watch list from—from being able to buy a weapon. That— that—there’s no reason—I’m not sure why that’s even controversial. I’m not sure why it hasn’t been done so far.”
One reason why it hasn’t been done yet is that tricky problem with “secret lists” and the Constitution. And especially secret “terrorist” lists. As noted by Susan Jones of CNS News, even the late Sen. Ted Kennedy ended up on a terrorist watchlist in 2004—and he’s not the only American to be surprised by their inclusion on a secret government list of “known or suspected” terrorists.
On the other hand, Jones continues, the man who tried to detonate an underwear bomb on a U.S.-bound airplane on Dec. 25, 2009, was not on the list —even though the government had been warned about him.
“That’s the problem: It’s not always clear why people are nominated for inclusion on the terrorist watchlist or if their name is ever removed from it,” she writes. “Just having the same name as a terror suspect apparently can land a person on the list.”
The bill was proposed earlier this year by—who else?—Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).
According to Sean Davis in the Federalist, the proposed law would allow the attorney general to deny a criminal background check clearance to any individual whose name appears on the national terror watch list.
“The huge problem with this expansive new power is that there are precisely zero statutory criteria for inclusion on this massive list. In fact, when statutory authority for the centralized government database was first codified into law via the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress gave all authority for determining criteria for inclusion in the watch list to unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats,” Davis writes. “If some faceless Beltway bureaucrat decides you might be a terrorist, then you’re a terrorist. End of story.”
If you can do away with due process in the legal system, doing away with due process legislatively is a snap. That is why 24 Senate Democrats urged Obama on Nov. 23 to circumvent Congress by using executive action to expand background checks to cover private gun sales.
The effort is being pushed by Sens. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tim Kaine (D-Va), Chris Coon (D-Del.) and Tom Carper (D-Del).
“This is an insidious way to secure all the new regulations on gun shows that Democrats have pursued, but failed to secure, for nearly two decades,” writes AWR Hawkins in Breitbart.com. “It is also a devious way to take another step toward a national gun registry, which would have to exist for all new gun purchases in order to know whether a private gun owner keeps a firearm for longer than a year before selling it.”
Not to be outdone, Sen. Chuck “Chucky Cheeze” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Nov. 20 that he would be proposing a boatload of go-nowhere gun control bills in 2016.
“We are going to bring the universal background check bill to the floor of the Senate early next year,” he vowed, “and with your help we’re going to win!”
For more, go to:
Washingtonians told they don’t need guns to ‘take out’ terrorists
You live or work in Washington, D.C. The city’s crime rate already makes it scary to be in certain places at certain times. Now ISIS re-iterated threat to attack you in the wake of the Paris massacre makes it a bit spookier.
Therefore, it’s good to know Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Chief Cathy Lanier has given you the green light to “take out” Paris-style terrorists or criminals if you have the chance.
Of course, you really won’t have much of a chance because the city’s strict gun control laws make you a sitting duck, but it’s good to know the police chief wants you to know it’s OK to defend yourself even if you’ve been disarmed.
“If you’re in a position to try to take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there,” Lanier told Anderson Cooper on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Nov. 22.
Of course, the district has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and very few people are legally allowed to carry guns. Lanier has the final say on who gets to carry guns in the city, and only 48 people have been approved for concealed carry permits in the past year, according FOX News reports.
The department began accepting permits Oct. 23, 2014, and of the 233 applications, 185, or roughly 80 percent, have been denied.
Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said Lanier’s suggestion to “take out” terrorists is “sound advice” only if there are sound gun laws in place.
“Considering the draconian gun laws in the District, it will remain difficult, if not impossible, for most private citizens to do what the chief is suggesting,” Gottlieb said. “Millions of honest Americans are licensed to carry all over the country. But in the District of Columbia, they’ve written laws to discourage citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and especially bear arms. That prevents people from defending themselves and their families outside of the home, which is where such an attack would happen.”
In mid-November, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced legislation that would require D.C. to acknowledge concealed carry permits issued by other states and begin issuing concealed carry permits to residents.
It will also eliminate existing local laws that severely restrict the ability to own firearms and ammunition and allow for the carrying of firearms on some federal property not considered to be a “sensitive area.”
Until then, Washington residents, good luck.
“Your options are run, hide, or fight,” Lanier said. “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, to take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there.”
For more, go to:
Michigan Democrats demand stand-down from ‘Stand Your Ground’
Michigan Democrats want to scrap the 2006 Self Defense Act—or “Stand Your Ground” law—and limit armed self-defense within the scope of the Castle Doctrine, which allows for defense inside the home against an aggressor there illegally but not off one’s own property.
The Michigan 2006 Self Defense Act withstood a 2012 repeal attempt in the state House by urban Democrats from the Detroit area. Michigan is one of more than 20 states that have enacted similar laws in the decade since Florida’s model law was adopted.
The Michigan ‘Stand Your Ground’ law passed in 2006 with significant bipartisan support and was signed by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat who had before served as the state’s attorney general. It extended legal protections to those who use deadly force when threatened by death or severe injury without having an obligation to retreat if possible.
Now, Democrats say, individuals are using the law as a reason to take someone’s life and say the law is dangerous.
“Emergency room physicians and folks are just honestly worried about the prevalence of gun violence in our communities and frankly pretty nervous about the fact that there is no duty to retreat and substantial immunity from both criminal and civil liability under these statutes,” Sen. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) sponsor of the proposal to repeal the law, told the Associated Press.
Three other Democrats, including Senate Democratic Leader Jim Ananich, have signed on as co-sponsors of the legislation. Warren told the AP that high-profile court cases such as that of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin in Florida are among the reasons why Michigan needs to rethink stand your ground.
“People are using this lack of duty to retreat as a reason to inflict harm and are sometimes not held liable for taking someone’s life. And I want to set that right in Michigan,” she said.
Warren’s legislation, SB 611, was introduced earlier this month.
For more, go to:
IN THE COURTS
Alabama Supreme Court upholds ruling that open-carry ban was unconstitutional
The Alabama Supreme Court in mid-November refused a request by the City of Jacksonville to revise its ruling that declared state law banning open carry of a gun on someone else’s property is unconstitutional.
The Alabama Supreme Court in September overturned the state law when it upheld an appeal by Jason Dean Tulley, who had been convicted in Jacksonville for violating a law that prohibited “carrying a pistol on premises not one’s own or under his control.”
Tulley was arrested for openly carried a pistol on his hip while inside the First Educators Credit Union on March 31, 2011.
In overturning his conviction and declaring the law unconstitutional, the Alabama Supreme Court found that there was not a punishment provision for the crime under state law.
Cities can adopt state laws as part of their city codes and prosecute them as municipal violations. However, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled, because state law was unconstitutional, the prosecution by the city under that law is improper.
The City of Jacksonville asked the Alabama Supreme Court for a rehearing on the case. The city, in a written brief to the court, agreed with the justices that the law is unconstitutional. But the city still wanted Tulley’s conviction upheld in a somewhat bizarre twist of logic.
For more, go to: