RSS feed
NRA – ILA
Charlotte, NC --(Ammoland.com)- Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco now trying to ban and confiscate more so-called “assault weapons.”
Originally, Senate Bill 249 was a quiet agriculture bill that passed in the California Senate back in May.
With sneaky back-door tactics, Senator Yee turned the bill into a gun ban monster.
SB 249, as amended, would make a small but profound change to the definition of what constitutes a detachable magazine for a semiautomatic firearm. By doing so, hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic rifles, which were legally sold in California over the last decade, would become illegal on July 1, 2013.
The existing definition of detachable magazine was used by Governor Brown’s administration for the four years he served as Attorney General.
Senator Yee’s bill has no provisions to allow permitting, licensing or reimbursement for the loss of valuable property. Worse yet, the bill doesn’t require a public notice program to advise owners of this change in state law.
Thousands of owners could be arrested for inadvertent violations. If you own an affected firearm, your only choices would be to destroy it, surrender it to a law enforcement agency, sell it out of state or have it confiscated at the time of your arrest! Which option would you prefer?
Call AND E-mail your state legislators TODAY and urge them to OPPOSE SB 249
- Contact information for your state Senator can be found here.
- Contact information for your state Assembly Member can be found here.
Also, contact Governor Jerry Brown and urge him to tell the state Legislature that he stands by the existing definition of detachable magazine,just as he did when he was Attorney General.
Governor Brown can be reached at 916-445-2841 and by e-mail at: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
Please forward this alert to your family, friends and fellow gun owners across California and urge them to do the same.
California is going to need EVERYONE to help fend off this attack!
About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
[...] Worst Gun Confiscation Threat in 20 Years GA_googleFillSlot("marlinowners-300P"); Warning – SB 249 is California's Worst Gun Confiscation Threat in 20 Years "Senator Leland Yee of San Francisco now trying to ban and confiscate more so-called 'assault [...]
What our founding fathers and others, had to say about gun control and freedom…
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
“They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
“The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” -Thomas Jefferson.
“(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” -James Madison.
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self defense…” -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
“…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them.” -Thomas Paine.
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.” -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
“To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them…” -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” -Patrick Henry
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
“The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
“…the people have a right to keep and bear arms.” -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age…” -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
“The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
“If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…”-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States…Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America.” -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
“If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.” -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.
Statements of The Enemies of Liberty:
“Government begins at the end of the gun barrel.” – Chairman Mao
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.” –V.I. Lenin.
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” –Joseph Stalin.
“We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns.” – Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …” Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
In closing, don’t these SCOTUS libs know history, or are they really anti-American plants, making way for a hugely different America? An America where “We the people” really means “some of the (privileged) people.” Very few people in actuality. Check out “Oathkeepers” on the web. Live long and prosper, my friends.
Gun Bans Only Disarm the Law-Abiding
By John C. Eastman and John R. Lott[i]
830 Words
This week, after the tragic attacks in Colorado and Wisconsin, State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris and State Senate Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) announced a push for more restrictions on guns. They propose to ban detachable magazines on so-called “assault weapons.” Their hope is to limit the number of bullets that can be shot in quick succession.
This might at first glance appear as a very logical solution. But it has already been tried. After January 1990 and again in January 2000, California’s assault weapons ban made it a crime to own assault weapons with detachable magazines.
But there is no evidence that these bans reduced crime. After the 2000 ban, California’s murder rate rose, even while its overall violent crime rate fell. It wasn’t until 2008—after gun manufacturers developed a detachable magazine that complied with the California restriction—that the murder rate fell back below its 2000 level. And no academic study by a criminologist or economist has shown that the restriction had any beneficial impact on crime rates.
Only in government are actions that fail greeted with calls to double-down on those actions. That if the original restriction didn’t work, the solution must be even stricter regulations. And so it goes with gun control.
For ten years, from 1994 to 2004, the federal Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacture of magazines that could hold more than 10 bullets. When it expired, Senator Diane Feinstein was among the prominent gun control politicians warning that there would be an “open season for criminals who want the most dangerous types of military-style assault weapons” and that there would be “deadly consequences on the streets of America.”
Well, that didn’t happen. Since the federal ban expired, murder, robbery, and overall violent-crime rates have actually fallen. In 2003, the last full year before the law expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people. Initial data for 2011 shows that the murder rate has fallen to 4.7 per 100,000 people.
California itself has had a long experience with assault weapons bans. Its first ban went into effect in January 1990, was struck down by the California State Supreme Court in March 1998, and then was put back into effect in January 2000.
With all these changes in the law, academics have had plenty of data from which to assess the impact of the bans. Yet studies published in peer-reviewed journals, whether by criminologists or economists—and even those funded by the Clinton administration— have not found that either state or federal bans reduced violent crime.
Some studies even find negative effects of these laws. The bans cut the number of gun shows by over 20%, thus making it more costly for law-abiding individuals to get guns for self-defense.
Much of Europe has already adopted every gun control law being proposed over the last few weeks and more in the US, but they haven’t prevented multiple-victim public shootings in Europe. In last year’s shooting near Oslo, 69 people were killed and an additional 110 injured. Germany, a country with some of the strictest gun control in the world — it requires not only extensive psychological screening but also a year’s wait to get a gun — has been the site of three of the worst five multiple-victim K-12 public school shootings in the world, all in the past decade. During just the last few years, there are more examples of attacks in countries with strict gun control, like in Austria, Britain, France, Finland and Italy.
Over the last decade, Europe has had as many mass public shootings as the US. The guns used for the attacks in Germany and Norway were obtained illegally. When individuals plan these attacks months or even years in advance, it is virtually impossible to stop them from getting whatever weapons they need.
The one common feature in all these European attacks and virtually all the ones in the US has been that they keep on occurring where guns are banned.
Californians need only look south to Mexico to see whether extremely strict gun control laws are keeping criminals from getting everything from real machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers. And these aren’t weapons that they are picking up from US gun dealers.
National surveys of police administrators and street officers show they doubt that assault weapons and other gun bans work. It is the same in California. A 1997 survey conducted by the San Diego Police Officers Association found that 82% of its officers opposed an “assault weapons” ban, 82% opposed a limitation on magazine capacity, and 85% supported letting law-abiding private citizens carry concealed handguns.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals. But gun control proponents face a simple problem: bans are obeyed law-abiding individuals, not criminals. Laws that disarm the law-abiding relative to criminals make crime easier to commit.
Politicians may feel better claiming that they are doing something when crime occurs, but, unfortunately, laws that disarm law-abiding citizens can all too often make the problem worse.
[i] Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University School of Law; Lott is a former chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission and the author of expanded 3rd edition of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010).
Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest American Militias?
Could Obama use NDAA To Arrest Militias on the Premise members are Militants and Belligerents that pose a threat to National Security?
Recently the Obama administration stated to Federal Judge Katherine Forest that under (NDAA) The National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 the President had authorization to lock up belligerents indefinitely. That they (were justified) to lock belligerents up indefinitely—because cases involving belligerents directly-aligned with militants against the good of America—warrants such punishment.) Pres. Obama could use NDAA provisions to order U.S. Military Forces to round up without evidence, millions of Americans including militias by alleging they are belligerents or a threat to National Security. Many observers believe Obama intends to extend NDAA to imprison U.S. Citizens in Indefinite Detention not involved with or associated with enemy forces.
Hitler included similar provisions in his fascist (Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933). Almost immediately after the German Parliament passed Hitler’s laws, the Reich Government ordered the arrest of German Citizens and confiscated their guns without probable cause or evidence; delegated powers to German Police and other authorities to arrest anyone Nazi authorities claimed attempted or incited public unrest: arrested among others were outspoken Germans, writers, journalists, peaceful protestors and artists. After World War II the East German Secret Police (Stasi) used the threat of Indefinite Detention to forcibly recruit thousands of informants.
The U.S. 2012 NDAA legislation Obama signed 12-31-11 is similar to Hitler’s 1933 fascist laws the SS and Gestapo used to target persons in Germany for arrest, imprisonment and execution without probable cause; and confiscate millions of dollars of property. Hitler used his laws to suspend Parliament and the Supreme Court insuring his laws could not be rescinded.
During the Obama Administration’s recent request for a (stay) to stop U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest blocking enforcement of vague NDAA provisions, the Obama Administration—never clarified what constitutes a (belligerent); or militant; or what belligerent activities (directly aligned with a militant) to order a belligerent’s arrest or indefinite detention; or what is against the good of America. Under vague provisions of NDAA, the President could accuse anyone of being (directly aligned with militants by way of any political or other association; activity, statement, writing or communication with an individual or group government deemed (militant) to arrest and indefinitely detain Americans. Writers, journalists, Americans that disagree with or question U.S. Government or its allies—may under NDAA be subject to arrest and indefinite detention.
NDAA 2012, like Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees enforces censorship; refers to the Patriot Act e.g. warrant-less searches of private property and forfeiture of property from persons not charged with crime. Provisions in NDAA 2012 keep the door open for corrupt U.S. police; government agents and provocateurs which there are many, to falsify reports and statements to target any American, group or organization for arrest, indefinite detention, complete disappearance; civil asset forfeiture of their property.
You may have noted NDAA referred to the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act lends itself to Government / police corruption; the Federal Government may use secret witnesses and informants to cause arrests and civil asset forfeiture of Americans’ property. Witness(s) and informants may be paid up to 50% of assets forfeited. Federal Government under 18USC may use a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay to Civilly Forfeit Private Property. Under the Patriot Act innocent property owners may be barred by government knowing the evidence federal government uses to forfeit their property.
Sections of NDAA 2012 are so broad, it appears U.S. Government or the President could (retroactively) deem an American’s past 1st Amendment activities prior to passage of 2012 NDAA—supported hostilities, terrorism or (Belligerents) to order the arrest and Indefinite Detention of any U.S. Citizen, writer, group or organization.
Under NDAA 2012 it should be expected that indefinitely detained U.S. Citizens not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings when interrogated, not allowed legal counsel or habeas corpus may be prosecuted for non-terrorist (ordinary crimes) because of their (alleged admissions) while held in Indefinite Detention.