Saturday, March 29, 2014

Update in Leland Yee arrest: illegal arms deal connected with Islamic terrorists

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., March 28, 2014 – The Leland Yee arrest continues to develop with ironic and disturbing twists. Brenner Brief reported Yee, a top California gun control advocate with an A+ rating from the Brady Campaign, was arrested in an illegal firearms trafficking scheme in connection with an Asian crime syndicate operating in San Francisco. Charges include murder-for-hire, bribes, wire fraud, and corruption of public office. It is now clear authorities charge that Yee’s illegal arms deals involved obtaining fully-automatic machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles from Islamic terrorists.

Leland Yee

The allegations, if true, bring to light the depths of depravity in the longtime California politician who was praised for his efforts to make government more transparent and who authored strict gun control legislation. Last year, Yee introduced legislation banning 3D printed weapons and detachable magazine conversion kits, called “bullet buttons,” in an effort to tighten some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Yet, FBI affidavits state Yee repeatedly offered to broker illegal firearms sales in exchange for campaign contributions.
According to the FBI affidavit, Yee repeatedly offered to broker illegal firearm sales, telling undercover FBI agents he’d known an arms dealer for years. The affidavit states Yee offered to provide $500,000 to $2.5 million worth of fully-automatic M-16 type rifles and missiles from Islamist terrorists located in the Philippines, where Yee was also reportedly considering relocating. It is not clear whether Yee was also offering to obtain weapons for Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, head of Chee Kung Tong, or CKT, an Asian gang operating in California.

The level of hypocrisy in publicly sponsoring legislation to further restrict California draconian gun laws under the pretense of fighting crime, while privately working to supply criminal gangs with money and possibly weapons, is staggering. But profiteering for political gain while consorting with Islamic terrorists to obtain machine guns and shoulder-fired missiles is a new level of disgusting abuse of Yee’s public position. Presumably, these Islamist terrorists would benefit at least financially from such transactions. This would be no less than treason, which is defined, in part, as “providing aid and comfort” to the enemy. Islamic terrorism has officially been the enemy of the United States since the horrible and tragic events of September 11, 2001.

As noted previously by Brenner Brief, most liberal mainstream media outlets have completely ignored the story so far. The LA Times and FOX News have covered it (although even FOX’s headline merely states he was arrested, but does not indicate that charges include firearms trafficking) in addition to local news outlets, like ABC and San Jose Mercury News. But nationally, liberal media is currently ignoring this story. A search on MSNBC’s website turns up no results on this current story, only a mention in connection with another public office corruption story and an article from a year ago about Leland Yee. Twitchy notes that CNN has a complete blackout on this breaking story. A CNN site search today uncovered just an iReport post by a user and is notated “not vetted by CNN” at the top. Given the hot-button issue that both gun control and Islamic terrorism are, the silence by liberal media outlets is itself hypocritical. It seems protecting one of their own, and their narrative about guns trumps concerns of integrity in reporting or in keeping the public informed.






By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication March 29, 2014).

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Leland Yee, top California gun control advocate, arrested for gun trafficking

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., March 27, 2014 – In a stunning example of liberal hypocrisy, Leland Yee, a top California gun control advocate, was arrested in an illegal firearms trafficking scheme along with other charges, including pay for play kickback schemes, bribes, wire fraud, corruption of public office, and raising money for an Asian crime syndicate.

The longtime California politician was praised for his efforts to make government more transparent and authored strict gun control legislation. Last year, Yee introduced legislation banning 3D printed weapons and detachable magazine conversion kits, called “bullet buttons”, in an effort to tighten some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

Leland Yee -02b

Now Senator Yee is accused of consorting with notorious felons and accepting money for his cash-strapped political campaigns in exchange for favors, and promising undercover FBI agents he could deliver connections to international gun runners. The indictment was unsealed in federal court in downtown San Francisco after FBI and other law enforcement officials carried out multiple raids early Wednesday. Yee was arrested at his home and FBI agents also searched Yee’s Sacramento office. The San Francisco investigation connects Yee with Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow, who federal authorities said is the leader of Chee Kung Tong, or CKT, a Chinese “criminal enterprise” syndicate federal investigators have been trying to crack since the late 1980′s.

The 137-page FBI affidavit states Yee repeatedly offered to broker illegal firearms sales in exchange for campaign contributions. Yee is charged with seven felonies from money laundering to murder-for-hire. According to the FBI affidavit, Yee told an undercover FBI agent about an arms dealer he’d known for years. It says, “According to Senator Yee, the arms dealer is ‘low key’ and has been trafficking weapons for quite a while… the arms dealer sourced weapons from Russia.”

At one meeting, agents pressed Yee for shoulder-fired weapons–including M-16-type automatic rifles–and shoulder-fired missiles. The affidavit states that Yee asked the undercover agent if he wanted automatic weapons, which the agent confirmed he did–about $500,000 to $2.5 million worth. Yee told the agent “he saw their relationship as tremendously beneficial.” According to the affidavit, the agent told Yee he would pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars over time with the promise of $100,000 immediately for the first arms deal.

The level of hypocrisy is staggering. California’s gun laws only allow for rifles with a special device called a “bullet button” that is only compatible with special 10-round magazines. Retail gun dealers commonly refer to these rifles as “California compliant.” Yee publicly worked to make these draconian gun laws even stricter by making even rifles with “bullet buttons” illegal, effectively banning rifles with detachable magazines in California. Yet behind closed doors, he privately promised to deliver fully automatic machine guns–actual military rifles–and missiles. He also publicly advocated for more transparent government while brokering backroom deals, taking bribes, and corrupting his public office.

To add more to the liberal hypocrisy fire, most mainstream media outlets have ignored the story so far. The L.A. Times and FOX News have covered it (although even FOX’s headline merely states he was arrested, but does not indicate charges include firearms trafficking) in addition to local news outlets, like ABC and San Jose Mercury News. But nationally, liberal media is currently ignoring this story. Last night, MSNBC devoted 16 minutes to the “racism” of the NFL team mascot, the Redskins. Given that gun control is a current political hot-button issue, the silence is deafening.







By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication March 27, 2014).

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Nullification: Federal gun laws may soon not apply in Idaho



BOISE, Idaho, March 17, 2014 – Federal gun laws may soon not apply in Idaho, which could become the latest in a series of states acting to nullify federal gun laws within its borders. Both the Idaho House and Senate have unanimously passed the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or S.B. 1332, which would effectively nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any federal act related to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition. Idaho’s legislation follows similar moves by Arizona, Florida, and Missouri.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 68-0 and the Senate by 34-0. It is now confirmed delivered to Idaho Governor Butch Otter for a signature. This bill, if passed into law, would:
Protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.
The legislation also stipulates penalties on anyone attempting to enforce nullified laws within Idaho:
Any official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision thereof who knowingly and willfully orders an official, agent or employee of the state of Idaho or a political subdivision of the state to enforce any executive order, agency order, law, rule or regulation of the United States government as provided in subsection (2) of this section upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition shall, on a first violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) which shall be paid into the general fund of the state.
Of note is the language that stipulates “on or after the effective date of this act”, because this differentiates S.B. 1332 from other legislation proposed in states such as Arizona and Florida to resist all federal infringement on the right to bear arms. Idaho’s bill would apply to future as well as existing federal gun laws.
The Tenth Amendment Center asserts that the legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. That means the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations — constitutional or not.
The anti-commandeering doctrine rests on four Supreme Court cases: Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) New York v. United States (1992) , Printz v. United States (1997 ) and Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012). According to the Tenth Amendment Center, Printz v. United States (1997) serves as the lynchpin for the anti-commandeering doctrine. The case specifically addressed state enforcement of federal gun laws. At issue was a provision in the Brady Gun Bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program. Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack sued, arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling:
We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.
The Tenth Amendment Center says the blueprint for the anti-commandeering doctrine comes from Founding Father James Madison in the Federalist 46 of the Federalist Papers. Madison wrote:
Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.
Judge Andrew Napolitano last year urged states to pass this type of non-compliance legislation, saying that a single state passing such a law would “make federal enforcement of tighter federal gun laws nearly impossible.” Supporters of the Second Amendment Preservation Act, S.B. 129, view the legislation as protecting the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens. Supporters also note that other states have enacted or are in the process of enacting similar laws to stop federal legislation in violation of the Second Amendment and other protected rights.
Last year, Kansas passed a law that “bars the federal government from regulating guns and ammunition manufactured and stored within Kansas state lines.” The Kansas law criminalizes federal law enforcement, making any attempt to enforce federal laws a felony if the gun is made in Kansas, stamped “Made in Kansas”, and has not crossed states lines. Missouri is also considering a bill that nullifies federal gun laws within state borders. Florida is also considering a bill to prevent any “agent of the state or its political subdivisions [from participating] with or [assisting] federal agents in the enforcement of federal firearms laws.”







By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication March 18, 2014).

Sunday, March 16, 2014

ATF raids Ares Armor despite restraining order


OCEANSIDE, Calif. –  The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) raided Ares Armor, a gun parts supplier, despite a court order granting a temporary restraint until March 20, 2014. On Saturday, March 15, Ares Armor Chief Operating Officer Jeremy Tuma posted this photo on Instagram:


 Ares-Armor-550x550.jpg.pagespeed.ic.oyUjuWgkHl

On Tuesday, March 11, the United States District Court in Southern California granted a temporary restraining order against the ATF, staying a planned raid on Ares Armor to seize its inventory and customer records. The planned action was due to the company offering heretofore legal so-called “80 percent lower receivers,” or unfinished gun parts that must be further processed by the purchasers into what is legally classified by the ATF as a “firearm.” The temporary restraining order is supposed to stay any raid until at least after a preliminary hearing scheduled for March 20.

Ares Armor filed a motion Tuesday claiming that “The ATF’s planned seizure violates the Fourth Amendment” and that the “ATF mischaracterizes ‘EP 80 percent lower receivers’ as firearms as a pretense to seize customer information.” They further stated that “Ares Armor has standing to sue on behalf of itself and its customers,” and that if the planned raid were allowed to go forward, “Ares Armor will suffer irreparable harm.” Along with the motion for a temporary restraining order, Ares Armor filed a complaint for deprivation of civil rights, stating that the receivers they carry cannot legally be defined as firearms according to ATF’s own determinations. They say the ATF clearly specifies several machining operations that must be performed in order for the 80 percent receivers to become 100 percent receivers and legally classified as firearms.

On Friday, March 14, YouTube personality, product reviewer and gun rights advocate Nutnfancy posted an interview with Ares Armor CEO and USMC Iraq combat veteran Dimitrios Karras:




Karras said he met with ATF agents and discussed how the ATF’s new finding contradicts every previous finding and is based on information which the ATF knows is faulty. The ATF agent’s response, according to Karras, was that he didn’t care and it didn’t matter because his superiors gave him his orders. Karras said it was “comparable to talking to a prison guard at Auschwitz who’s just doing his job.” Karras agreed with interviewer Nutnfancy who asked if he would characterize the ATF as an agency that “make the rules up as they go along and doesn’t care about the rule of law.”

According to Karras, the ATF had been specifically asking for the Ares Armor customer list for many months and told him “no one will know we have the list.” Karras told a local Fox affiliate, “They said either give us these 5,000 names or we are coming in and taking pretty much anything – which is a huge privacy concern and something we are not willing to do.” Karras says he believes turning over his customer list would violate their privacy rights and would be morally wrong. He says his refusal to turn over his customer list led to increased “strong arm tactics” in an effort to force him to give them his customer list.

Karras says the ATF is now threatening to file criminal charges against him and confiscate inventory, in addition to what Karras believes is a very real threat to business that may even cause Ares Armor to close its doors permanently. Karras said people that could otherwise be customers may be reluctant to purchase from Ares Armor out of fear of being harassed themselves by the ATF. He also estimates Ares Armor has spent over $20,000 in legal fees in the first week alone so far.
Also, on Friday, March 14, the United States District Court in Southern California issued a clarifying order to prevent Ares Armor from divesting itself of inventory and records subject to the temporary restraining order the court issued Tuesday. The court order did not prohibit lawful criminal proceedings. The ATF appears to be ”working around” the temporary restraining order by accusing Ares Armor of illegally selling guns, rather than honoring the court ordered date of March 20 to obtain resolution without a raid. Despite the temporary restraining order and the clarifying order issued Friday, the ATF apparently raided all Ares Armor locations Saturday. This video was also posted Saturday, which clearly shows the Ares Armor storefront, the front door lock damaged and door ajar, and law enforcement agents visible inside the store:




The ATF’s response, and apparent justification for the raid, states that
while this Court’s order prevents ATF from taking ‘any steps’ to deprive Ares Armor of this contraband, the order DOES NOT RECIPROCALLY PROHIBIT ARES ARMOR FROM destroying, transferring, selling, or otherwise divesting itself of this evidence and contraband, and, further, allows Ares Armor to remain in possession of this contraband (emphasis added).
However, this claim is false, according to the court’s order clarifying the temporary restraining order, dated March 14, which states:
Ares Armor (“Plaintiff”) and its owners, officers, managers, employees, and agents ARE HEREBY PROHIBITED from taking any steps to destroy, transfer, sell, or otherwise divest themselves of the items that are the subject matter of the Court’s March 11, 2014 Temporary Restraining Order.
The court clearly states Ares Armor is prohibited from getting rid of the evidence, which is what the ATF claims the company is free to do under the temporary restraining order. At this time it is not clear if any charges have been filed against Dimitrios Karras or anyone else. This story will continue to develop as more details emerge.







By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication Marh 16, 2014).

Monday, March 10, 2014

Moms Demand Action fails to pressure Facebook to ban gun sales

MENLO PARK, Calif., March 8, 2014 — Moms Demand Action have failed in their effort to pressure Facebook (and Instagram, owned by Facebook) to “ban gun sales and trades on their platforms”. Facebook’s announcement this week represents Moms Demand’s third straight loss in their fight to push for inane gun control policies that would actually do nothing to reduce crime. Moms Demand also failed to get what they “demanded” from Starbucks, and was kicked off of Staples headquarters property when trying to deliver a petition.


Moms Demand is, of course, claiming victory, but this is simply more lies and public relations spin. Moms Demand’s founder, Shannon Watts, far from being the stay-at-home mom who sprang to action in response to the Sandy Hook shooting, is actually a very experienced public relations executive. So it should be no surprise that Moms Demand has taken to PR tactics, deception and outright lies as their primary means of attempting to move their zealous anti-gun agenda forward. However, a look at the facts clearly shows that their claim of “victory” could not be further from the truth.

Moms Demand campaigned for months to get a complete stop to gun sales on Facebook and Instagram. This is evident on their page “It’s Time to #EndFacebookGunShows”, which clearly says, “Join us in urging Facebook and Instagram to immediately enact a policy prohibiting all gun sales and trades—especially those among private sellers—on their platforms” (emphasis added). Further, their “How To Take Action” page encourages activists to sign a petition “prohibiting private sales”, to “Post comments on the Facebook pages of Facebook and Instagram demanding that they ban gun sales and trades on their platforms”, and tweet via Twitter pre-formatted messages demanding to “Ban gun sales & trades”.

But Facebook didn’t ban gun sales at all. Instead their announcement indicates it will remind people to comply with the law. Facebook specifically lists these points to their “Enforcement Measures for Commercial Activity”:
  • Any time we receive a report on Facebook about a post promoting the private sale of a commonly regulated item, we will send a message to that person reminding him or her to comply with relevant laws and regulations. We will also limit access to that post to people over the age of 18.
  • We will require Pages that are primarily used by people to promote the private sale of commonly regulated goods or services to include language that clearly reminds people of the importance of understanding and complying with relevant laws and regulations, and limit access to people over the age of 18 or older if required by applicable law.
  • We will provide special in-app education on Instagram for those who search for sales or promotions of firearms.
  • We will not permit people to post offers to sell regulated items that indicate a willingness to evade or help others evade the law. For example, private sellers of firearms in the U.S. will not be permitted to specify “no background check required”, nor can they offer to transact across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer (emphasis added).
Facebook clearly indicates that it will not ban gun sales. Instead, Facebook will merely remind people to comply with existing laws regulating gun sales. Facebook went out of its way to state that no one can actually sell anything via Facebook, saying that “people can’t use our services to actually sell things to each other”. This is a complete fail for Moms Demand to get what they “demanded”.
It’s also their third straight loss.

They previously lost in their attempt to pressure Staples to ban guns in their stores. When Moms Demand showed up at Staples headquarters, there weren’t met by anyone significant in the company – no PR, no Marketing executives. Instead, they were met by a security guard who told them to leave. They handed the security guard the petition and tucked tail.

Starbucks is yet another loss they claimed as a “victory”, about which this author had previously written (here and here and here). Again, Moms “demanded” a total gun ban in stores. Instead CEO Howard Schultz merely asked people not to openly carry guns. Again, no gun ban. Concealed carry – far more prevalent – is completely kosher, and Schultz went out of his way to state that even customers that didn’t comply with the request to not openly carry would still be served in their stores. If gun ban was your objective, and it was for Moms Demand, that’s total failure.

Moms Demand Action recently announced they will target McDonald’s to ban guns in their establishments. If the last three losses are any indication, this petition will also fail miserably. They apparently have yet to discern that many companies want to be left out of their inane politics. More to the point regarding their pleas for “safety” is that most shootings occur in “gun free zones”. The CDC found that citizens carrying guns is actually a deterrent to crime. Pressuring organizations to create more “gun free zones” is antithetical to actually achieving safety. People have the right to defend themselves. Maybe the rest of us should “demand” that Moms Demand Action do some actual research and leave the rest of us alone.





By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication March 10, 2014).

Friday, March 7, 2014

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013

Last year was an epic year of fail for gun control advocates. The anti-gun bullies
thought they sensed sea change in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting – that sweeping gun control restrictions were all but a done deal. In retrospect, nothing was further from the truth. They relied on lies and deception to sell their case, pushed an agenda in defiance of the people’s desires, and policies that would have done nothing to make the public safer.
Ultimately, liberal, anti-gun zealots lost in nearly every arena in which they attempted to force new restrictions: whether it was a national assaults weapon ban that died in the Senate or gun control measures that stalled in state legislatures.

Gun control advocates made at least five significant mistakes in the gun control debate in 2013:

1 Colorado recall

Though at first, it seemed the anti-gun lobby won in Colorado, they ended up suffering a significant loss in the state. Initially, state Democrats successfully pushed through two gun control measures. But the people of Colorado responded by recalling the two state lawmakers that spearheaded the legislation.  The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions. Particularly noteworthy is that anti-gun organizations outspent pro-gun groups by a margin of 6-to-1 ($3 million by anti-gun activists compared to $540,000 by recall proponents) and still lost the recall. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation.” The recall results seem to confirm that assessment.

If the recall effort is truly a referendum nationally, then the message is that gun control is a losing policy for liberals. Colorado Democrats arrogantly pushed their own agenda, in defiance of strong opposition from the people they represent, and from the Colorado Sheriff’s association warning that the bill was not enforceable. They paid for their mistake with their seats in the legislature.

2 Throwing a Fit about Good Guys with Guns

The NRA’s response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was to recommend more armed good guys at schools – whether police officers or teachers and other school staff. Liberal politicians, media and school officials went ballistic over the suggestion. The executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, said the NRA comments hit her “like a punch in the stomach.” Talking heads had a heyday, trying to spin the NRA as insensitive monsters ‘out of touch’ with the rest of America. Wasn’t it obvious, they mused, that the last thing we need was more guns near children?

It turns out the NRA’s critics were the ones out of touch.

America already makes ample use of armed good guys in schools. According to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from police and sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following the tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding through the ‘COPS in Schools’ program to do exactly as the NRA suggested following Sandy Hook.

And it turns out, these armed good guys do in fact stop and minimize harm to our children. In February, a 14 year old student was non-fatally shot in the back of the neck at an Atlanta Middle School. However, “an armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the shooting,” resulting in zero loss of life. Had there been no armed guard able to respond within moments, the incident could have been very different. Likewise, in December, an armed SRO stopped a school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, where one student was shot and later died. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” The officer’s quick response meant the incident was over “in less than 80 seconds.” By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted almost an hour. The shooter, a student, clearly intended more harm, bringing a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails with him. It likely would have been much worse without an ‘armed good guy’ to respond.

These real-life stories drive home the point to regular people whose children attend public schools It makes a difference in policy. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed for school staff to be armed while at school as well. Even Newtown’s school board unanimously voted for more armed security, clearly demonstrating the public believes the anti-gun lobby is on the wrong side of this issue.

3 Background checks falsehoods

President Obama and others falsely claimed “40% of guns were bought without a background check at gun shows”. He was given three Pinocchio’s by the Washington Post Fact Checker, meaning there are “significant factual errors and/or obvious contradictions” The measures, which reportedly enjoyed support of 90% Americans, failed to get out of the Democrat-controlled Senate. They would have surely failed in the Republican-controlled House even if they had passed in the Senate.

The President’s claim rested on falsely citing a 20 year old study of 251 people that was taken from before Federal law even required dealers to run background checks on all sales. Even the study’s authors confirmed the range President Obama cited is false. Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.

Second, it was a myth that 90% of Americans supported “universal” background checks. Multiple articles in the Washington Post cited this as though it were ‘fact’. Given that the public was misled about the truth about the percentage of guns bought at gun shows “without background checks”, this response might have been understandable. But digging into the survey questions revealed that people were only asked if they would support background checks “at gun shows” – not universally. So the surveys didn’t show what they were claimed to show. This was ultimately evident in the failure to get the amendment out of committee in the Senate.

Finally, there are actually no gun show or online gun sale loopholes. According to the ATF, Federal law requires FFL’s to run background checks on all sales, even at gun shows. Online sales are subject to all Federal law requirements as well. Any firearm shipped over state lines must ship to a FFL who must then run a background check. It is pure myth that one can go to “GunsRUs.com” and have a gun shipped to their doorstep.

The fact that anti-gun advocates lost so decisively – even on this issue that was supposedly had almost total public support, shows what a mistake it was to pursue this grossly misguided policy.

4 Obsessing on the “evil” AR-15

Liberal anti-gun organizations, politicians and media love the ‘evil’ AR-15 narrative; that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”, meant only for soldiers and mass killing. Any news story featuring an AR-15 gets ample airtime; shootings without one quickly fade from headlines. For example, following the Navy Yard shooting, media immediately exploited the supposed role of the AR-15 rifle, prominently displaying images of AR-15 rifles on the front page, and showing computer simulations of how the shooter reportedly “used” an AR-15 – until the FBI confirmed there was no AR-15 used in the shooting.

Anti-gun politicians routinely lie about the AR-15′s capabilities, calling it a a military weapon (it isn’t), designed for close-quarters combat (it’s not), and claiming it can fire “.30 caliber clip in a half-second”, which isn’t even a grammatically – much less technically – accurate sentence. The AR-15 rifle has similar cosmetic appearance to the military M4 rifle. This makes it easy for unscrupulous agenda-pushers to make sound scary to the general public who may be unfamiliar with them.

Appearances aside, the facts reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that rifles are used to kill very little in the U.S. – just over 300 out of nearly 13,000 murders in both 2011 and 2012, and so-called “assault rifles” are a subset within that category. Even if these anti-gun bullies were to get their way on this issue, there would be almost no reduction in our murder rate. Handguns, not rifles, are used far more often in homicides, accounting for nearly 70% of murders in 2011 and 2012. Mass murder, though sensational, is responsible for less than 100 out nearly 13,000 annual homicides. Focusing on “evil” rifles may be sensational, drive ratings and sell media advertising, but they aren’t responsible for very much homicide in the U.S. Ultimately, anti-gun politicians and lobbyists lost on their renewed push for a so-called “assault weapons ban”, which didn’t even make it out of committee in Congress.

5 Lying to inflate “gun deaths”

Lying is key to the liberal anti-gun agenda, which including lying about the number of “gun deaths” that occur each year. Mainstream media outlets, politicians, and anti-gun organizations all routinely cite “30,000 annual U.S. gun deaths.” when hyping the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control. The truth is 20,000 of these “gun deaths” are self-inflicted suicides with a gun (approximately half of the 40,000 annual suicides). While gun homicides are less than 9,000 in each of the last 3 years, which represents nearly an all time low in the U.S. murder rate.

Suicide is a genuine public health issue, but it is not related to crime, homicide and gun control policy. Magazine capacity, banning certain models of guns (particularly rifles), gun shows and background checks have no bearing on suicides. Mental health professionals confirm a person determined to die will find a way. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser found that gun availability had no effect on suicide rates. Many nations with low gun availability have higher suicide rates than nations with higher gun availability. Many nations with strict gun control and almost no legal guns available have significantly higher suicide rates than the U.S. Does. In fact, though gun sales are setting records in the U.S., the suicide rate is declining and is lower today than it was in the 1950′s, 60′s, 70′s or 80′s.

Anti-gun zealots conveniently leave out the truth that a full two-thirds of the deaths they cite have nothing to do with murder and crime. More importantly, the gun control legislation they propose does nothing to address suicide deaths. They resort to conflating suicide data with homicide crime data to make the case for gun control seem like it’s a bigger problem than it really is.

So what does this all mean?

These five mistakes share some common factors: they almost all involve lies and deception to sell the problem. In the lone exception – Colorado – they skipped selling it altogether and went straight to instituting policy without popular support. This is the second shared characteristic: they all involve attempts to push policy without broad support from ‘We the People’. Finally, each of the proposed policies do nothing to make people legitimately safer. While outside the scope of this article, they all, in fact, are counter-productive. Professors Kates and Mauser’s study found that gun control was counter-productive to reducing crime, homicide and suicide.

But in short, good guys with guns do stop bad guys, background checks at gun shows might stop less than 1% of criminal purchases at best, AR-15 rifles are rarely used in murder, and our murder rate is near an all-time low. Any public policy must be subject to interest-balancing: is the cost of adopting the policy worth the benefit received from doing so. All of these measures fail this test miserably.


As an added bonus that didn’t make it into the original article:

6. Record Gun Sales in 2013

The effect of the anti-gun Left’s rabbid mouth-frothing is to boost gun sales to record-breaking 23 million NICS checks in 2013. The record was previously set in 2012 in the run-up to the election. Gun dealers reported at least a quarter of the sales were to first-time buyers. Naysayers may note that not all NICS checks pass – meaning a sale may be prohibited. That’s true, but it’s an insignificant percentage. And of note is that more than one firearm may be purchased at the same time and the entire transaction will get one single NICS check. So in all probability, more than 23 million firearms were bought in 2013. Special Thanks to Obama, Feinstein, Jumpin’ Joe Biden, Moms Demand Stupidity, Mayors Who’ve Broken the Law, and others.






By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.
https://twitter.com/2AFighthttp://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight


Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 





This article also appears on The Bell Towers (Original publication March 6, 2014).

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013

Top 5 Gun Control Failures of 2013
2013 was an epic year of fail for gun control advocates. The anti-gun bullies thought they sensed sea change in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting – that sweeping gun control restrictions were all but a done deal. In retrospect, nothing was further from the truth. They relied on lies and deception to sell their case, pushed an agenda in defiance of the people’s desires, and policies that would have done nothing to make the public safer.
Ultimately, liberal, anti-gun zealots lost in nearly every arena in which they attempted to force new restrictions: whether it was a national assaults weapon ban that died in the Senate or gun control measures that stalled in state legislatures.
Gun control advocates made at least five significant mistakes in the gun control debate in 2013:
1 Colorado recall
Though at first, it seemed the anti-gun lobby won in Colorado, they ended up suffering a significant loss in the state. Initially, state Democrats successfully pushed through two gun control measures. But the people of Colorado responded by recalling the two state lawmakers that spearheaded the legislation.  The Colorado recall election garnered attention, money, and input nationally as a broad referendum on gun control. The special elections were widely seen as a test of whether swing-state voters would accept gun restrictions. Particularly noteworthy is that anti-gun organizations outspent pro-gun groups by a margin of 6-to-1 ($3 million by anti-gun activists compared to $540,000 by recall proponents) and still lost the recall. The Colorado Republican Party said the vote sends “a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation.” The recall results seem to confirm that assessment.
If the recall effort is truly a referendum nationally, then the message is that gun control is a losing policy for liberals. Colorado Democrats arrogantly pushed their own agenda, in defiance of strong opposition from the people they represent, and from the Colorado Sheriff’s association warning that the bill was not enforceable. They paid for their mistake with their seats in the legislature.
2 Throwing a Fit about Good Guys with Guns
The NRA’s response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was to recommend more armed good guys at schools – whether police officers or teachers and other school staff. Liberal politicians, media and school officials went ballistic over the suggestion. The executive director of the Connecticut Association of Schools and the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, said the NRA comments hit her “like a punch in the stomach.” Talking heads had a heyday, trying to spin the NRA as insensitive monsters ‘out of touch’ with the rest of America. Wasn’t it obvious, they mused, that the last thing we need was more guns near children?
It turns out the NRA’s critics were the ones out of touch.
America already makes ample use of armed good guys in schools. According to the Department of Justice, nearly 17,000 officers from police and sheriff departments serve as School Resource Officers (SRO’s) in roughly half of all schools. Following the tragedy at Columbine High School in 1999, President Clinton signed a bill that provided millions in additional funding through the ‘COPS in Schools’ program to do exactly as the NRA suggested following Sandy Hook.
And it turns out, these armed good guys do in fact stop and minimize harm to our children. In February, a 14 year old student was non-fatally shot in the back of the neck at an Atlanta Middle School. However, “an armed guard disarmed the shooter moments after the shooting,” resulting in zero loss of life. Had there been no armed guard able to respond within moments, the incident could have been very different. Likewise, in December, an armed SRO stopped a school shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, CO, where one student was shot and later died. Arapahoe County Sheriff Grayson Robinson said: “The rampage might have resulted in many more casualties had it not been for the quick response of a deputy sheriff who was working as a school resource officer at the school.” The officer’s quick response meant the incident was over “in less than 80 seconds.” By contrast, the Columbine incident lasted almost an hour. The shooter, a student, clearly intended more harm, bringing a pump-action shotgun, 125 shotgun shells, a machete, and three molotov cocktails with him. It likely would have been much worse without an ‘armed good guy’ to respond.
These real-life stories drive home the point to regular people whose children attend public schools It makes a difference in policy. Following Newtown, some districts have also allowed for school staff to be armed while at school as well. Even Newtown’s school board unanimously voted for more armed security, clearly demonstrating the public believes the anti-gun lobby is on the wrong side of this issue.
3 Background checks falsehoods
President Obama and others falsely claimed “40% of guns were bought without a background check at gun shows”. He was given three Pinocchio’s by the Washington Post Fact Checker, meaning there are “significant factual errors and/or obvious contradictions” The measures, which reportedly enjoyed support of 90% Americans, failed to get out of the Democrat-controlled Senate. They would have surely failed in the Republican-controlled House even if they had passed in the Senate.
The President’s claim rested on falsely citing a 20 year old study of 251 people that was taken from before Federal law even required dealers to run background checks on all sales. Even the study’s authors confirmed the range President Obama cited is false. Department of Justice studies show that less than 1% of criminals obtain guns from gun shows.
Second, it was a myth that 90% of Americans supported “universal” background checks. Multiple articles in the Washington Post cited this as though it were ‘fact’. Given that the public was misled about the truth about the percentage of guns bought at gun shows “without background checks”, this response might have been understandable. But digging into the survey questions revealed that people were only asked if they would support background checks “at gun shows” – not universally. So the surveys didn’t show what they were claimed to show. This was ultimately evident in the failure to get the amendment out of committee in the Senate.
Finally, there are actually no gun show or online gun sale loopholes. According to the ATF, Federal law requires FFL’s to run background checks on all sales, even at gun shows. Online sales are subject to all Federal law requirements as well. Any firearm shipped over state lines must ship to a FFL who must then run a background check. It is pure myth that one can go to “GunsRUs.com” and have a gun shipped to their doorstep.
The fact that anti-gun advocates lost so decisively – even on this issue that was supposedly had almost total public support, shows what a mistake it was to pursue this grossly misguided policy.
4 Obsessing on the “evil” AR-15
Liberal anti-gun organizations, politicians and media love the ‘evil’ AR-15 narrative; that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”, meant only for soldiers and mass killing. Any news story featuring an AR-15 gets ample airtime; shootings without one quickly fade from headlines. For example, following the Navy Yard shooting, media immediately exploited the supposed role of the AR-15 rifle, prominently displaying images of AR-15 rifles on the front page, and showing computer simulations of how the shooter reportedly “used” an AR-15 – until the FBI confirmed there was no AR-15 used in the shooting.
Anti-gun politicians routinely lie about the AR-15′s capabilities, calling it a a military weapon (it isn’t), designed for close-quarters combat (it’s not), and claiming it can fire “.30 caliber clip in a half-second”, which isn’t even a grammatically – much less technically – accurate sentence. The AR-15 rifle has similar cosmetic appearance to the military M4 rifle. This makes it easy for unscrupulous agenda-pushers to make sound scary to the general public who may be unfamiliar with them.
Appearances aside, the facts reported by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports show that rifles are used to kill very little in the U.S. – just over 300 out of nearly 13,000 murders in both 2011 and 2012, and so-called “assault rifles” are a subset within that category. Even if these anti-gun bullies were to get their way on this issue, there would be almost no reduction in our murder rate. Handguns, not rifles, are used far more often in homicides, accounting for nearly 70% of murders in 2011 and 2012. Mass murder, though sensational, is responsible for less than 100 out nearly 13,000 annual homicides. Focusing on “evil” rifles may be sensational, drive ratings and sell media advertising, but they aren’t responsible for very much homicide in the U.S. Ultimately, anti-gun politicians and lobbyists lost on their renewed push for a so-called “assault weapons ban”, which didn’t even make it out of committee in Congress.
5 Lying to inflate “gun deaths”
Lying is key to the liberal anti-gun agenda, which including lying about the number of “gun deaths” that occur each year. Mainstream media outlets, politicians, and anti-gun organizations all routinely cite “30,000 annual U.S. gun deaths.” when hyping the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control. The truth is 20,000 of these “gun deaths” are self-inflicted suicides with a gun (approximately half of the 40,000 annual suicides). While gun homicides are less than 9,000 in each of the last 3 years, which represents nearly an all time low in the U.S. murder rate.
Suicide is a genuine public health issue, but it is not related to crime, homicide and gun control policy. Magazine capacity, banning certain models of guns (particularly rifles), gun shows and background checks have no bearing on suicides. Mental health professionals confirm a person determined to die will find a way. A Harvard-published study of 36 developed nations by professors Don Kates and Gary Mauser found that gun availability had no effect on suicide rates. Many nations with low gun availability have higher suicide rates than nations with higher gun availability. Many nations with strict gun control and almost no legal guns available have significantly higher suicide rates than the U.S. Does. In fact, though gun sales are setting records in the U.S., the suicide rate is declining and is lower today than it was in the 1950′s, 60′s, 70′s or 80′s.
Anti-gun zealots conveniently leave out the truth that a full two-thirds of the deaths they cite have nothing to do with murder and crime. More importantly, the gun control legislation they propose does nothing to address suicide deaths. They resort to conflating suicide data with homicide crime data to make the case for gun control seem like it’s a bigger problem than it really is.
So what does this all mean?
These five mistakes share some common factors: they almost all involve lies and deception to sell the problem. In the lone exception – Colorado – they skipped selling it altogether and went straight to instituting policy without popular support. This is the second shared characteristic: they all involve attempts to push policy without broad support from ‘We the People’. Finally, each of the proposed policies do nothing to make people legitimately safer. While outside the scope of this article, they all, in fact, are counter-productive. Professors Kates and Mauser’s study found that gun control was counter-productive to reducing crime, homicide and suicide.
But in short, good guys with guns do stop bad guys, background checks at gun shows might stop less than 1% of criminal purchases at best, AR-15 rifles are rarely used in murder, and our murder rate is near an all-time low. Any public policy must be subject to interest-balancing: is the cost of adopting the policy worth the benefit received from doing so. All of these measures fail this test miserably.

An added bonus that didn’t make it into the original article:


6. Record Gun Sales in 2013
The effect of the anti-gun Left’s rabbid mouth-frothing is to boost gun sales to record-breaking 23 million NICS checks in 2013. The record was previously set in 2012 in the run-up to the election. Gun dealers reported at least a quarter of the sales were to first-time buyers. Naysayers may note that not all NICS checks pass – meaning a sale may be prohibited. That’s true, but it’s an insignificant percentage (historically less than 2%). And of note is that more than one firearm may be purchased at the same time and the entire transaction will get one single NICS check. So in all probability, more than 23 million firearms were bought in 2013. Special Thanks to Obama, Feinstein, Jumpin’ Joe Biden, Moms Demand Stupidity, Mayors Who’ve Broken the Law, and others.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Mar 6, 2014. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Disqus