Operation Fast and Furious Battle Continues – Judge Rules Against DOJ Request

Operation Fast and Furious Battle Continues – Judge Rules Against DOJ Request

President Obama asserted executive privilege to justify not handing over certain administration records related to the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal. Read the judge’s decision below. Rather than a blanket acceptance of the assertion of executive privilege, the judge wants the trial to continue. This will require the executive and DOJ to demonstrate that they do have the privilege to withhold.

By JOSH GERSTEIN

A federal judge has rejected Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to keep the courts from wading into the “Fast and Furious” documents dispute that led to him being held in contempt by the House last year.

In a ruling Monday night, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson turned down the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege to prevent some records about the administration’s response to the “Operation Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal from being turned over to Congress.

“This case presents the sort of question that the courts are traditionally called upon to resolve,” Jackson said in her 44-page decision, issued more than five months after lawyers argued the issue in her packed courtroom and more than a year after the House committee filed suit. “Dismissing the case without hearing it would in effect place the court’s finger on the scale, designating the executive as the victor based solely on his untested assertion that the privilege applies,” she wrote. . . .

Read more here.

Senate Web Site Gets Second Amendment Wrong? Yes, It Does

Senate Web Site Gets Second Amendment Wrong? Yes, It Does

Comments found on the senate.gov web site about the Second Amendment are incorrect. The following article by AWR Hawkins mentions the following.

A Senate.gov web page covering the Constitution gets the scope of the Second Amendment wrong, telling readers that it is not clear whether the amendment protects an individual right or a collective right.

Here is what the Senate’s web page on the Constitution says about the Second Amendment: “Whether this provision protects the individual’s right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated.”
This is simply not true on at least two levels. . . .

The Senate site can be found here:

See their comments on the Second Amendment here.

Read more of AWR Hawkins’s article at Breitbarthere.

UN Arms Trade Treaty – John Kerry Signed It

UN Arms Trade Treaty – John Kerry Signed It

What does this mean for the future of gun rights in the United States? What does this mean for the Second Amendment? What does it mean for our sovereignty as a nation when we sign a document giving specific gun control powers to an international body?

WASHINGTON — The latest front in the Senate battle over gun control opened Wednesday, as Secretary of State John Kerry signed the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in New York.

The treaty establishes standards for the global trade in conventional weapons, with the goal of preventing such weapons from being sold to those who would use them to commit genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

In the United States, however, the ATT has been the target of fierce opposition from the gun rights lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, which claims the treaty violates the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the treaty is necessary to help protect millions around the globe in danger of human rights abuses. “This treaty says that nations must not export arms and ammunition where there is an ‘overriding risk’ that they will be used to commit serious human rights violations,” said Amnesty International USA’s Frank Jannuzi in a statement on Tuesday. “It will help keep arms out of the hands of the wrong people: those responsible for upwards of 1,500 deaths worldwide every day.” . . .

Read more here.

Maryland’s New Gun Control Laws – Will This Reduce Criminals From Getting Guns?

Maryland’s New Gun Control Laws – Will This Reduce Criminals From Getting Guns?

The new gun control laws in Maryland, known as the Maryland Firearm Safety Act (who wouldn’t support Firearm Safety??), require fingerprinting for gun purchases. According to the article, this will keep guns from going to criminals. Will it?

By Brian E. Frosh
1:45 p.m. EDT, September 30, 2013

When the Maryland Firearm Safety Act goes into effect tomorrow, it will close a gaping hole in our gun violence prevention efforts by requiring firearm purchasers to provide their fingerprints to law enforcement. In the five other states where this policy is already in place, rates of gun-related deaths are among the nation’s lowest.

We need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. Background checks have done this so effectively that few criminals nowadays just walk into a store to purchase a gun. Instead, they ask a friend, a relative or even a fellow gang member with no prior record to buy the weapon for them. Analysis of federal gun trafficking cases shows that this “straw purchase” method is a primary means through which criminals acquire guns.

Fortunately, we are still smarter than the criminals. Research by policy experts like Daniel Webster at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Policy and Research and the experiences of law enforcement show that a licensing process that requires fingerprinting will deter straw purchases. Even a criminal’s closest associates will think twice about buying a gun that could be traced to a future crime if they must first give their fingerprints to the police. . . .

So the government will now have a database of fingerprints, identifying anyone who has purchased a gun. Will having that database really stop crime? Can these databases be misused to harass lawfully purchased guns and law-abiding citizens? Is there any chance that a law-abiding citizen’s fingerprints will now be exposed to misuse by someone who has access to the database? Is there any chance that an innocent citizen’s gun could be stolen and used in a crime, possibly before the citizen realizes it, and then will they be liable to prosecution?

I just don’t have the confidence in our government to keep us safe. I prefer the Second Amendment which allows us to keep and bear arms.

Read more here.

Armed Citizen Protects His Family And Property – Alleged Truck Thief Is Killed At the Scene

Armed Citizen Protects His Family And Property – Alleged Truck Thief Is Killed At the Scene

The armed citizen was a marine who confronted an alleged truck thief breaking into his truck. What might have happened to the truck owner and his aunt had he not been armed and able to defend himself against the thief? Read the story.

by KING 5 News
Posted on September 24, 2013 at 6:19 AM
Updated Tuesday, Sep 24 at 9:28 AM

MAPLE VALLEY, Wash. – A suspected truck thief was shot and killed in Maple Valley Tuesday morning after deputies say he was shot by the truck’s owner, a United States Marine.

It happened just after midnight in the 23600 block of 219th Place SE.

King County sheriff’s deputies say a man and a woman arrived at the scene in another vehicle that was stolen from Kent. The pair was allegedly trying to steal or prowl a pickup truck when the owner came out from a family gathering and confronted them.

Kristen Hague says the gathering was at her house and the truck belongs to her nephew, Keenan, a 24-year-old Marine. Hague says they spotted the would-be thieves and he confronted them.

“All I heard were gunshots, then I came outside and the man and woman were trying to drive away but the car wouldn’t go,” Hague gets emotional talking about what happened next. She says the male passenger stood up with a weapon.

“Keenan yelled ‘gun’, and he pushed me to the ground to protect me,” said Hague. She says that’s when shots were exchanged. “He did it to protect me. He loves his aunt.” . . .

Read more here.

Gun Control Failures? Yes, Cato Article

Gun Control Failures? Yes, Cato Article

The Cato article, “Another Failed Gun Control Experiment” By Daniel J. Mitchell, is an interesting read. It cites other articles where Gun Control legislation didn’t and doesn’t work. Some who write in favor of gun control even admit that from time to time. Check out his links to other articles on the gun control topic.

Daniel J. Mitchell writes:

It sounds strange, but my two favorite columns on gun control were authored by self-identified leftists. But they didn’t let ideology trump common sense.

Justin Cronin, for instance, explained that restrictions on gun ownership undermined his ability to protect his family. And Jeffrey Goldberg looked at the evidence and concluded that guns make people safer.

This doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate gun control columns by non-leftists. This Larry Correia piece, for instance, is must reading if you want to understand about magazine limits and so-called assault weapons.

And if you like real-world evidence, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe examines what happened after Massachusetts adopted onerous gun control legislation. He starts by explaining the law and what supporters promised. . . .

Read more here.

Media Bias Against Guns – John Lott’s Speech at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar

Media Bias Against Guns – John Lott’s Speech at Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar

The media’s bias against guns never ends, and if anything, is getting worse due to recent shooting incidents. No one who cares for gun rights wants to downplay the suffering of those who are injured or killed by criminals or deranged people using guns, but neither do we appreciate the media’s efforts to portray almost all gun owners (law-abiding) as dangerous and a threat to civil society. Lott so clearly demonstrates that the media ignores the many times someone used a gun for defensive purposes. There are numerous examples of that, but the media just doesn’t publish them. Because of the media’s failure to publish both sides of the story, there exists an unfavorable public perception of guns and violence. This leads to pressure to enact gun control laws, often draconian and unreasonable. Read Lott’s speech.

Media Bias Against Guns
John R. Lott, Jr
Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
John R. Lott, Jr a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of California at Los Angeles.He has been a senior research scholar at the Yale University School of Law, a fellow at the University of Chicago School of Law, a visiting fellow at Cornell University Law School and a Hoover Institution fellow. He has taught at the University of Chicago, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, Rice University and Texas A&M University. In 1988 and 1989, he was chief economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission. He is the author of More Guns, Less Crime and The Bias Against Guns.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on May 25, 2004, at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Seattle, Washington.

The following is “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1

***
People are very surprised to learn that survey data show that guns are used defensively by private citizens in the U.S. from 1.5 to 3.4 million times a year, at least three times more frequently than guns are used to commit crimes. A question I hear repeatedly is: “If defensive gun use occurs so often, why haven’t I ever heard of even one story?”

Anecdotal stories published in newspapers obviously can’t prove how numerous these events are, but they can at least answer the question of whether these events even occur. Here are a few examples of the 20 cases that I found reported in newspapers as occurring during the first two weeks of May 2004:

Lawrenceville, Georgia—At 3:00 a.m., an estranged former boyfriend kicked in a woman’s front door. She had received a protective order against the ex-boyfriend because of “a history of drug addiction, violent behavior and threats.” He was shot four times as he entered the apartment. Police said that the attacker, if he survived his injuries, would likely face charges of burglary and aggravated stalking. Albuquerque, New Mexico—At just after 5:00 a.m., a homeowner called police saying that someone was trying to break into his home. Police reported that while waiting for help to arrive, the homeowner defended himself by shooting the intruder in the arm. Louisville, Kentucky—As a robber tried to hold up a Shelby Food Mart, he was shot by a store clerk. The judge who heard the case said that the clerk had acted responsibly and that he “was viciously attacked by this animal.” Raceland, Louisiana—A man and his girlfriend offered two men a ride. One of the hitchhikers drew a gun and told the girlfriend to stop the car. The man then drew his own gun, fatally shooting the hitchhiker who was threatening them. Toledo, Ohio—A store employee wounded one of two men who tried to rob a West Toledo carryout. The employee had received his concealed handgun permit just three days earlier. The employee’s father said, “My son did what he had to do …Money can be replaced; lives can’t.”

These life and death stories represent only a tiny fraction of defensive gun uses. A survey of 1,015 people I conducted during November 2002 indicates that about 2.3 million defensive gun uses occurred nationwide over the previous year. Larger surveys have found similar results. Guns do make it easier to commit bad deeds, but they also make it easier for people to defend themselves where few alternatives are available. That is why it is so important that people receive an accurate, balanced accounting of how guns are used. Unfortunately, the media are doing a very poor job of that today.

Though my survey indicates that simply brandishing a gun stops crimes 95 percent of the time, it is very rare to see a story of such an event reported in the media. A dead gunshot victim on the ground is highly newsworthy, while a criminal fleeing after a woman points a gun is often not considered news at all. That’s not impossible to understand; after all, no shots were fired, no crime was committed, and no one is even sure what crime would have been committed had a weapon not been drawn.

Even though fewer than one out of 1,000 defensive gun uses result in the death of the attacker, the newsman’s penchant for drama means that the bloodier cases are usually covered. Even in the rare cases in which guns are used to shoot someone, injuries are about six times more frequent than deaths. You wouldn’t know this from the stories the media choose to report.

A Case Study in Bias
But much more than a bias toward bad news and drama goes into the media’s selective reporting on gun usage. Why, for instance, does the torrential coverage of public shooting sprees fail to acknowledge when such attacks are aborted by citizens with guns? In January 2002, a shooting left three dead at the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. The event made international headlines and produced more calls for gun control. Yet one critical fact was missing from virtually all the news coverage: The attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars.

The fast responses of Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges undoubtedly saved many lives. Mikael was outside the law school returning from lunch when Peter Odighizuwa started shooting. Tracy was in a classroom waiting for class to start. When the shots rang out, chaos erupted. Mikael and Tracy were prepared to do something more constructive: Both immediately ran to their cars and got their guns, then approached the shooter from different sides. Thus confronted, the attacker threw his gun down.

Isn’t it remarkable that out of 218 unique news stories (from a LexisNexis search) in the week after the event, just four mentioned that the students who stopped the shooter had guns? Here is a typical description of the event from the Washington Post: “Three students pounced on the gunman and held him until help arrived.” New York’s Newsday noted only that the attacker was “restrained by students.” Many stories mentioned the law-enforcement or military backgrounds of these student heroes, but virtually all of the media, in discussing how the killer was stopped, failed to mention the students’ guns.

A week and a half after the assault, I appeared on a radio program in Los Angeles along with Tracy Bridges, one of the Appalachian Law School heroes. Tracy related how he had carefully described to over 50 reporters what had happened, explaining how he had to point his gun at the attacker and yell at him to drop his gun. Yet the media had consistently reported that the incident had ended by the students “tackling” the killer. Tracy specifically mentioned that he had spent a considerable amount of time talking face-to-face with reporter Maria Glod of the Washington Post. He seemed stunned that this conversation had not resulted in a more accurate rendition of what had occurred.

After finishing the radio show, I telephoned the Post, and Ms. Glod confirmed that she had talked to both Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, and that both had told her the same story. She said that describing the students as pouncing, and failing to mention their guns, was not “intentional.” It had been due to space constraints.

I later spoke with Mike Getler, the ombudsman for the Post. Getler was quoted in the Kansas City Star as saying that the reporters simply did not know that bystanders had gotten their guns. After I informed him that Glod had been told by the students about using their guns, Getler said, “She should have included it.” But he said that he had no power to do anything about it. He noted that readers had sent in letters expressing concern about how the attack had been covered. But none of these letters was ever published.

It was not until February 28, 2004, after the preliminary hearing where testimony verified again what had happened, that the Washington Post published one brief sentence containing the truth: “[The killer] was subdued without incident by armed students.”

The Kansas City Star printed a particularly telling interview with Jack Stokes, media relations manager at the Associated Press, who “dismissed accusations that news groups deliberately downplayed the role gun owners may have played in stopping” the shooting. But Stokes “did acknowledge being ‘shocked’ upon learning that students carrying guns had helped subdue the gunman. ‘I thought, my God, they’re putting into jeopardy even more people by bringing out these guns.’”

Selective reporting of crimes such as the Appalachian Law School incident isn’t just poor journalism; it could actually endanger people’s lives. By turning a case of defensive gun use into a situation where students merely “overpowered a gunman,” the media give potential victims the wrong impression about what works when confronted with violence. Research consistently shows that having a gun (usually just brandishing it is enough) is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal assault.

Evidence of Unbalanced Coverage
I conducted searches of the nation’s three largest newspapers—USA Today, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times—for the year 2001 and found that only the Times carried even a single news story on defensive gun use. (The instance involved a retired New York City Department of Corrections worker who shot a man attempting to hold up a gas station.) Broadening my search to the top ten newspapers in the country, I learned that the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune each managed to report three such stories in a year.

During 2001, the New York Times published 104 gun crime news articles—ranging from a short blurb about a bar fight to a front-page story on a school shooting—for a total of 50,745 words. In comparison, its single story about a gun used in self-defense amounted to all of 163 words. USA Today printed 5,660 words on crimes committed with guns, and not a single word on defensive gun use. The least lopsided coverage was provided by the Washington Post, with 46,884 words on crimes committed with guns and 953 words on defensive stories—again, not exactly a balanced treatment.

Moreover, the few defensive gun-use incidents that received coverage were almost all reported locally. Though articles about gun crimes are treated as both local and national stories, defensive uses of guns are given only local coverage in the rare instances they run at all. In the full sample of defensive gun-use stories I have collected, less than one percent ran outside the local coverage area. News about guns only seems to travel if it’s bad.

This helps explain why residents of urban areas favor gun control. Most crime occurs in big cities, and urbanites are bombarded with tales of gun-facilitated crime. It happens that most defensive gun uses also occur in these same cities, but they simply aren’t reported.

The 1999 special issue of Newsweek entitled “America Under the Gun” provided over 15,000 words and numerous graphics on the topic of gun ownership, but not one mention of self-defense with a firearm. Under the heading “America’s Weapons of Choice,” the table captions were: “Top firearms traced to crimes, 1998”; “Firearm deaths per 100,000 people”; and “Percent of homicides using firearms.” There was nothing at all on “Top firearms used in self-defense” or “Rapes, homicides, and other crimes averted with firearms.” The magazine’s graphic, gut-wrenching pictures all showed people who had been wounded by guns. No images were offered of people who had used guns to save lives or prevent injuries.

To investigate television coverage, I collected stories reported during 2001 on the evening news broadcasts and morning news shows of ABC, CBS and NBC. Several segments focused on the increase in gun sales after September 11, and a few of these shows actually went so far as to list the desire for self-defense as a reason for that increase. But despite over 190,000 words of coverage on gun crimes, a mere 580 words, on a single news broadcast, were devoted to the use of a gun to prevent crime—a story about an off-duty police officer who helped stop a school shooting.

Another sign of bias is in the choice of authorities quoted. An analysis of New York Times news articles over a two-year period shows that Times reporters overwhelmingly cite pro-gun control academics in their articles. From February 2000 to February 2002, the Times cited nine strongly pro-control academics a total of 20 times; one neutral academic once; and no academic who was skeptical that gun control reduces crime.

It’s not that anti-control academics are non-existent. In 1999, 294 academics from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania and UCLA released an open letter to Congress stating that the new gun laws being proposed at that time were “ill-advised.” None of these academics was quoted in New York Times reports on guns over a two-year period.

Misleading Polls
While polls can provide us with important insights about people’s views, they can also mislead in subtle ways. In the case of weapons, poll questions are almost always phrased with the assumption that gun control is either a good thing or, at worst, merely ineffective. The possibility that it could increase crime is never acknowledged. Consider these questions from some well-known national polls:

Do you think that stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violent crime in this country a lot, a little, or not at all? (Pew Research Center/Newsweek) Do you think stricter gun control laws would reduce the amount of violent crime in this country, or not? (ABC News/Washington Post) Do you think stricter gun control laws would, or would not, reduce violent crime? (CBS News)

I reviewed 17 national and seven state surveys and found that not one offered respondents a chance to consider whether gun control might increase crime. This omission of a “would increase crime” option creates a bias in two different ways. First, there is an “anchoring” effect. We know that the range of options people are offered in a poll affects how they answer, because many respondents instinctively choose the “middle ground.” By only providing the choices that gun control reduces crime somewhere between “a lot” to “not at all,” the middle ground becomes “a little.” Second, when the possibility that gun control could increase crime is removed from polls, this affects the terms of the national debate. When people who hold this view never even hear their opinions mentioned in polls and news stories, they begin to think no one else shares their view.

There are other subtle biases in the construction of these surveys. When a survey questions whether gun control will be “very important” for the respondent at the voting booth, the media often hear a “yes” answer as evidence that the person wants more gun control. Rarely do they consider that someone might regard a politician’s position on gun control as important because he or she opposes it. This blurring of opposite positions in one question causes gun control to be ranked more highly as an election issue than it should be.

Debunking the Myth of Accidental Shootings
A final area strongly affected by the media’s anti-gun bias is that of accidental shootings. When it comes to this topic, reporters are eager to write about guns. Many of us have seen the public service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, which imply that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths of these young children.

Data I have collected show that accidental shooters overwhelmingly are adults with long histories of arrests for violent crimes, alcoholism, suspended or revoked driver’s licenses and involvement in car crashes. Meanwhile, the annual number of accidental gun deaths involving children under ten—most of these being cases where someone older shoots the child—is consistently a single digit number. It is a kind of media archetype story to report on “naturally curious” children shooting themselves or other children—though in the five years from 1997 to 2001 the entire United States averaged only ten cases a year where a child under ten accidentally shot himself or another child.

In contrast, in 2001 bicycles were much more likely to result in accidental deaths than guns. Fully 93 children under the age of ten drowned accidentally in bathtubs. Thirty-six children under five drowned in buckets in 1998. Yet few reporters crusade against buckets or bathtubs.

When crimes are committed with guns, there is a somewhat natural inclination toward eliminating all guns. While understandable, this reaction actually endangers people’s lives because it ignores how important guns are in protecting people from harm. Unbalanced media coverage exaggerates this, leaving most Americans with a glaringly incomplete picture of the dangers and benefits of firearms. This is how the media bias against guns hurts society and costs lives.
***

Copyright © 2011 Hillsdale College. The opinions expressed in Imprimis are not necessarily the views of Hillsdale College. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the following credit line is used: “Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College.” SUBSCRIPTION FREE UPON REQUEST. ISSN 0277-8432. Imprimis trademark registered in U.S. Patent and Trade Office #1563325.

John Lott’s speech is available in the archives of Hillsdale’s Imprimis publication found here.

Communists Supports Obama’s Gun Control Policies

Communists Supports Obama’s Gun Control Policies

The nonsense in the article is almost too much to bear. Common sense proposals for gun law reform? Sure. Everything Washington D.C. does these is ‘common sense’, and that is why our country is sliding into the abyss.

In the wake of the Newtown massacre, polls show the great majority of Americans are now insisting that the ability to live free from the fear or threat of gun violence is a fundamental democratic right – one that far supercedes any so-called personal gun rights allegedly contained in the Second Amendment.

In fact, the right-wing extremists opposing all efforts to curb gun violence are the same forces that rallied behind Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, hoping to undermine every other democratic right as well as the living standards of workers and ordinary Americans. It is for that reason, as well as the need to protect public safety, that the same coalition of labor and its allies that worked so hard and effectively to re-elect President Barack Obama must now go all-out to back his common sense proposals for gun law reform.

As Obama has charged, the extremists recklessly “gin up fear” that the government is coming to take away hunting rifles and personal weapons owned for legitimate self-defense. Led by the hate-mongering leadership of the National Rifle Association, they use a totally fraudulent and only very recent interpretation of the Second Amendment which they falsely claim as necessary for protecting every other freedom contained in the Bill of Rights. . . .

Read more here

Emily Gets Her Gun – The Story of Emily Miller’s Efforts to Get Her Gun in Washington D.C.

Emily Gets Her Gun – The Story of Emily Miller’s Efforts to Get Her Gun in Washington D.C.

This was originally published as a series of articles in the Washington Times. Some reviewers don’t like that (read the reviews at Amazon), but I disagree. While more could have been added, apparently, why not just accept the book on its own merits, ie, the story of Emily Miller who shares her experience to get a legally registered gun in the anti-gun environment of Washington D.C. Nothing wrong with that, and how many actually read the original series? So, the book serves a great purpose to inform and educate, although not the last word.

From Amazon

published September 3, 2013

In the wake of tragic shootings in Newtown and Aurora, the anti-gun lobby has launched a campaign of lies, distortion, misrepresentation, and emotional manipulation that is breathtaking in its vitriol and its denial of basic facts. Their goal is to take away our Second Amendment rights and then disarm law-abiding Americans.

Emily Miller tells her personal story of how being a single, female victim of a home invasion drove her to try to obtain a legally registered gun in Washington, D.C. The narrative—sometimes shocking, other times hilarious in its absurdity—gives the reader a real life understanding of how gun-control laws only make it more difficult for honest, law-abiding people to get guns, while violent crime continues to rise.

Using facts and newly uncovered research, Miller exposes the schemes politicians
on Capitol Hill, in the White House, and around the country are using to deny people their Second Amendment rights. She exposes the myths that gun grabbers and liberal media use to get new laws passed that infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

The gun rights debate isn’t just about firearms. It’s about protecting a fundamental right that is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. It’s about politicians who lie, manipulate, and outright break existing laws to get what they want. It’s about President Obama wanting a bigger federal government to control you. Not just your guns—you. The fight for gun rights is the fight for freedom. Emily Miller says stand up and fight back now because your Second Amendment will only be the first to go.

Get it on Amazon. Be informed.

Stephen Halbrook’s “Darker Side of Gun Control” – When the Nazis Disarmed the Jews

Stephen Halbrook’s “Darker Side of Gun Control” – When the Nazis Disarmed the Jews

Stephen Halbrook’s “Darker Side of Gun Control” was published in the National Law Journal, May 24, 2004. It is a short, disturbing account of what happened to the Jews in Germany. And of course, disarming the Jews was for their ‘good’ and the safety and welfare of the country. No, the Nazis were preparing to harm the Jews, and to do so the Jews were first disarmed.

Halbrook’s short article provides the context and background for how and when the Jews were disarmed.

What supreme irony on the Opinion page: “An Infamous Date,” Harry Reicher’s worthy reminder about Nazi laws against Jews, juxtaposed with “Reasonable Regulation,” Amitai Etzioni’s diatribe against the Second Amendment [NLJ, April 5]. Ironic, because Nazi laws against Jews denied them any right to keep and bear arms.

After the Nazis took power in 1933, they immediately made use of two laws passed by the liberal Weimar Republic: a law authorizing the suspension of civil liberties [the Reichstag fire being the pretext] and the Gun Control Act of 1928. They executed massive search-and-seizure operations for subversive publications and unlicensed firearms, ostensibly to repress “Communists” but in fact to disarm political opponents and Jews.

The Weimar law allowed police to deny firearm ownership to any “unreliable” person. Dr. Werner Best, chief legal advisor and second in command in the Gestapo, directed on Dec. 16, 1935, that Gestapo permission must be obtained for issuance to a Jew of a permit to carry a weapon. Hitler signed an amended Gun Control Act in March 1938, broadening exemptions to include Nazi party members and barring Jews from the firearms industry.

Just one day before Kristallnacht in November 1938, police announced a campaign “to disarm Berlin’s Jewish population,” claiming to have seized 1,702 unlicensed firearms from Jews. The actual pogrom entailed breaking into Jewish homes on a massive scale [ostensibly to search for weapons] and the torching of synagogues. . . .

Read more of The Darker Side of Gun Control here.