In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
No Peace For Gun Owners
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
No Peace For Gun Owners
by Michael Powers
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., the events of September 11, 2001 are still etched firmly in the minds of many Americans. Sadly, the post-9/11 era has become a statist's wet dream as the President and Congress continue their reckless expansion of the federal bureaucracy. Legislators on Capitol Hill have been engaged in an unprecedented flurry of spending and lawmaking, all justified as being necessary to combat the "War on Terror." The result is an alphabet soup of new federal bureaucracies and programs that sound benign, but pose a serious threat to the freedoms of every American. The Office of Homeland Security. Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS). USA Patriot Act. It's no coincidence that the warmer and fuzzier the name, the greater its threat to liberty. I'm sure the "Women and Children Act" is not far behind.
Eventually, the politicians had to return to their traditional pre-terrorist freedom-stealing ways, and they've done it with unabashed fervor. John McCain--the cantankerous senator from Arizona and noted anti-self defense advocate--and socialist co-sponsors Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy introduced legislation last week to further restrict the ability of peaceful citizens to purchase weapons.
Aptly titled the "Our Lady of Peace Act" (I just love these names!), the bill requires states to tattle to the Feds on anyone who is disqualified from buying a gun during a background check. The reasons for disqualification are many. Any history of mental illness gets you an automatic lifetime ban. Illegal aliens are prohibited from buying guns for self-defense. Anyone convicted of felony drug possession is out of luck, no matter how small the amount of illicit substance involved. Anyone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order is denied the ability to purchase a firearm--despite the fact that some local jurisdictions throughout the country automatically issue restraining orders when couples file for divorce, even if there is no previous evidence of domestic abuse. The bill is simply another step towards abolition of private gun ownership in the United States.
As an "incentive" for states to abide by the new regulations, the bill imposes noncompliance penalties that include withholding of federal funds for crime prevention. Additionally, the bill will lighten the wallets of taxpayers to the tune of $250 million annually for the next three years--chump change in the Beltway world of multi-billion dollar subsidies and multi-trillion dollar national debts.
Why do so many members of Congress harbor such a deep fear and animosity regarding the individual's ability to keep and bear arms? One would assume that they would be just as concerned about their own safety and the well being of their families as ordinary Americans are. Yet, closer inspection reveals the hypocrisy of the Capitol Hill Mafia.
Like most Americans, Congressional members spend much of their day at work. But the Capitol building is unlike any other workplace in the country. In fact, it is probably one of the most heavily guarded places in the world. Even prior to September 11, the building resembled a fortress. Nonetheless, Congress and the President passed a $20 billion anti-terror bill that included extensive funding for a massive security overhaul of the Capitol soon after the terrorist attacks.
The transformation included a $600 million security plan to protect Congress members, employees, and visitors; the installation of an anti-vehicle perimeter around the 276-acre Capitol complex; the addition of 151 officers to the 1,300 member Capitol police force; a new police command center and headquarters; the addition of 72 agents in a new chemical and biological response team whose duties include increasing protection for Congress members and their families; and $65 million for anthrax testing, decontamination efforts and new mail handling procedures.
The latest indulgence--on the taxpayer dole, of course--is the stockpiling of 25,000 special gas masks designed to provide immediate protection to members and staff in the event of a chemical or biological weapons attack at the Capitol. The cost? $100 apiece.
It is no wonder that these elitist bureaucrats are not concerned about any individual responsibility for self-defense. They have ensured themselves a level of protection that is far beyond that of any ordinary American. Yet, their endless crusade to deprive citizens of their own right to defend themselves should serve as a grim reminder of the oppressive nature of those who seek power through government.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Powers/powers3.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Michael Powers
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., the events of September 11, 2001 are still etched firmly in the minds of many Americans. Sadly, the post-9/11 era has become a statist's wet dream as the President and Congress continue their reckless expansion of the federal bureaucracy. Legislators on Capitol Hill have been engaged in an unprecedented flurry of spending and lawmaking, all justified as being necessary to combat the "War on Terror." The result is an alphabet soup of new federal bureaucracies and programs that sound benign, but pose a serious threat to the freedoms of every American. The Office of Homeland Security. Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS). USA Patriot Act. It's no coincidence that the warmer and fuzzier the name, the greater its threat to liberty. I'm sure the "Women and Children Act" is not far behind.
Eventually, the politicians had to return to their traditional pre-terrorist freedom-stealing ways, and they've done it with unabashed fervor. John McCain--the cantankerous senator from Arizona and noted anti-self defense advocate--and socialist co-sponsors Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy introduced legislation last week to further restrict the ability of peaceful citizens to purchase weapons.
Aptly titled the "Our Lady of Peace Act" (I just love these names!), the bill requires states to tattle to the Feds on anyone who is disqualified from buying a gun during a background check. The reasons for disqualification are many. Any history of mental illness gets you an automatic lifetime ban. Illegal aliens are prohibited from buying guns for self-defense. Anyone convicted of felony drug possession is out of luck, no matter how small the amount of illicit substance involved. Anyone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order is denied the ability to purchase a firearm--despite the fact that some local jurisdictions throughout the country automatically issue restraining orders when couples file for divorce, even if there is no previous evidence of domestic abuse. The bill is simply another step towards abolition of private gun ownership in the United States.
As an "incentive" for states to abide by the new regulations, the bill imposes noncompliance penalties that include withholding of federal funds for crime prevention. Additionally, the bill will lighten the wallets of taxpayers to the tune of $250 million annually for the next three years--chump change in the Beltway world of multi-billion dollar subsidies and multi-trillion dollar national debts.
Why do so many members of Congress harbor such a deep fear and animosity regarding the individual's ability to keep and bear arms? One would assume that they would be just as concerned about their own safety and the well being of their families as ordinary Americans are. Yet, closer inspection reveals the hypocrisy of the Capitol Hill Mafia.
Like most Americans, Congressional members spend much of their day at work. But the Capitol building is unlike any other workplace in the country. In fact, it is probably one of the most heavily guarded places in the world. Even prior to September 11, the building resembled a fortress. Nonetheless, Congress and the President passed a $20 billion anti-terror bill that included extensive funding for a massive security overhaul of the Capitol soon after the terrorist attacks.
The transformation included a $600 million security plan to protect Congress members, employees, and visitors; the installation of an anti-vehicle perimeter around the 276-acre Capitol complex; the addition of 151 officers to the 1,300 member Capitol police force; a new police command center and headquarters; the addition of 72 agents in a new chemical and biological response team whose duties include increasing protection for Congress members and their families; and $65 million for anthrax testing, decontamination efforts and new mail handling procedures.
The latest indulgence--on the taxpayer dole, of course--is the stockpiling of 25,000 special gas masks designed to provide immediate protection to members and staff in the event of a chemical or biological weapons attack at the Capitol. The cost? $100 apiece.
It is no wonder that these elitist bureaucrats are not concerned about any individual responsibility for self-defense. They have ensured themselves a level of protection that is far beyond that of any ordinary American. Yet, their endless crusade to deprive citizens of their own right to defend themselves should serve as a grim reminder of the oppressive nature of those who seek power through government.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Powers/powers3.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
by Michael Powers
As we approach the one-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., the events of September 11, 2001 are still etched firmly in the minds of many Americans. Sadly, the post-9/11 era has become a statist's wet dream as the President and Congress continue their reckless expansion of the federal bureaucracy. Legislators on Capitol Hill have been engaged in an unprecedented flurry of spending and lawmaking, all justified as being necessary to combat the "War on Terror." The result is an alphabet soup of new federal bureaucracies and programs that sound benign, but pose a serious threat to the freedoms of every American. The Office of Homeland Security. Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS). USA Patriot Act. It's no coincidence that the warmer and fuzzier the name, the greater its threat to liberty. I'm sure the "Women and Children Act" is not far behind.
Eventually, the politicians had to return to their traditional pre-terrorist freedom-stealing ways, and they've done it with unabashed fervor. John McCain--the cantankerous senator from Arizona and noted anti-self defense advocate--and socialist co-sponsors Charles Schumer and Ted Kennedy introduced legislation last week to further restrict the ability of peaceful citizens to purchase weapons.
Aptly titled the "Our Lady of Peace Act" (I just love these names!), the bill requires states to tattle to the Feds on anyone who is disqualified from buying a gun during a background check. The reasons for disqualification are many. Any history of mental illness gets you an automatic lifetime ban. Illegal aliens are prohibited from buying guns for self-defense. Anyone convicted of felony drug possession is out of luck, no matter how small the amount of illicit substance involved. Anyone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order is denied the ability to purchase a firearm--despite the fact that some local jurisdictions throughout the country automatically issue restraining orders when couples file for divorce, even if there is no previous evidence of domestic abuse. The bill is simply another step towards abolition of private gun ownership in the United States.
As an "incentive" for states to abide by the new regulations, the bill imposes noncompliance penalties that include withholding of federal funds for crime prevention. Additionally, the bill will lighten the wallets of taxpayers to the tune of $250 million annually for the next three years--chump change in the Beltway world of multi-billion dollar subsidies and multi-trillion dollar national debts.
Why do so many members of Congress harbor such a deep fear and animosity regarding the individual's ability to keep and bear arms? One would assume that they would be just as concerned about their own safety and the well being of their families as ordinary Americans are. Yet, closer inspection reveals the hypocrisy of the Capitol Hill Mafia.
Like most Americans, Congressional members spend much of their day at work. But the Capitol building is unlike any other workplace in the country. In fact, it is probably one of the most heavily guarded places in the world. Even prior to September 11, the building resembled a fortress. Nonetheless, Congress and the President passed a $20 billion anti-terror bill that included extensive funding for a massive security overhaul of the Capitol soon after the terrorist attacks.
The transformation included a $600 million security plan to protect Congress members, employees, and visitors; the installation of an anti-vehicle perimeter around the 276-acre Capitol complex; the addition of 151 officers to the 1,300 member Capitol police force; a new police command center and headquarters; the addition of 72 agents in a new chemical and biological response team whose duties include increasing protection for Congress members and their families; and $65 million for anthrax testing, decontamination efforts and new mail handling procedures.
The latest indulgence--on the taxpayer dole, of course--is the stockpiling of 25,000 special gas masks designed to provide immediate protection to members and staff in the event of a chemical or biological weapons attack at the Capitol. The cost? $100 apiece.
It is no wonder that these elitist bureaucrats are not concerned about any individual responsibility for self-defense. They have ensured themselves a level of protection that is far beyond that of any ordinary American. Yet, their endless crusade to deprive citizens of their own right to defend themselves should serve as a grim reminder of the oppressive nature of those who seek power through government.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Powers/powers3.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
_____What's Your Opinion?_____
Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards
About Message Boards
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Version
Subscribe to The Post
Monday, August 5, 2002; Page A14
ON JUNE 2 D.C. police were called to the 400 block of K Street NW, where shots had been heard. Police found four men in a parking lot, frisked them and allegedly recovered a loaded 9mm handgun from a man named Bashaun Pearson. Mr. Pearson appeared to be on drugs and later allegedly tested positive for PCP. Carrying a handgun in Washington is illegal under almost all circumstances, so his case should have been a routine gun prosecution. But thanks to Attorney General John Ashcroft, it isn't. In fact, Mr. Pearson has a compelling argument -- now before the D.C. Court of Appeals -- that the Justice Department has no business charging him at all. Mr. Pearson's gun was licensed in Maryland, and he has no prior convictions or other pending charges. He is charged, in other words, with nothing more than having a gun -- which, according to the attorney general, is a constitutional right.
Mr. Ashcroft has insisted that he will defend this country's gun laws, even as he has contended that the Second Amendment to the Constitution creates an individual right to own a gun -- subject only to reasonable regulation to keep guns from criminals. But cases such as Mr. Pearson's demonstrate that the circle cannot be squared. Some gun laws -- Washington's notably among them -- sweep more broadly than any individual right can reasonably be read to permit.
The Justice Department has, so far, gotten around this problem by playing legal games. The D.C. Court of Appeals, it has argued in several cases, has held that there is no individual right to own a gun. And while the attorney general may disagree with this holding, it is binding law in Washington; hence, gun prosecutions here may proceed. But it is hard to see why the government should be locking people up for conduct it has plainly said -- before the U.S. Supreme Court, no less -- is constitutionally protected.
The Justice Department's answer is that the D.C. statute is constitutional as applied to Mr. Pearson because he was "visibly under the influence of drugs" and because it is "well settled that the individual right to bear arms is . . . not violated by statutes that . . . prohibit the possession of firearms by those who are intoxicated." In fact, nothing about the limits of the purported individual right to bear arms is well established. And Mr. Pearson, in any event, is not charged with drug offenses. So how could his alleged drug use limit his exercise of a right the Constitution would otherwise protect?
Our point is not that Mr. Pearson's behavior -- assuming it can be proven -- should go unprosecuted. We believe in strong gun laws. Our point is simply that the government cannot both embrace an individual rights view of the Second Amendment and prosecute people for wielding guns. The attorney general is complicating efforts to prosecute people such as Mr. Pearson by adopting arguments better left to the fringes of the defense bar. Unless Mr. Ashcroft backs off, his efforts to align himself with the gun lobby will only play into the hands of more criminal suspects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44025-2002Aug4.html
c 2002 The Washington Post Company
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Army shooter Specialist Shane M. Barnhart, from Phenix City, Alabama, has taken the 2002 Three-Position Smallbore Rifle Championship at NRA's National Matches, a first for him. Barnhart competed against over 350 shooters at this year's championship.
It would come as no surprise to those that know Barnhart that he would come out on top. "I practice every day, from 7:30 a.m. till 2:30 p.m.," said Barnhart, explaining his ways of success. Barnhart, if not practicing daily, is somewhere on the road at a competition. "Our team usually travels about 165 days out of the year. I love the travel though, it is great," Barnhart said.
Barnhart is a three-year shooter of his Army team, and a 10-year veteran of Camp Perry. Barnhart posted an impressive score of 2290 points with 83 tie-breaking center-of-target hits, called Xs, during the 2002 Three-Position Smallbore Rifle National Championships. Additionally, Barnhart took the Service Champion award as well as third place in the metallic sight portion of the three-position championship.
Jeffrey Doerschler, from Wethersfield, Connecticut, took second honors overall with a 2285-95X. Doerschler also took top honors as Civilian Champion.
Finishing up third overall, and no stranger to the winners' circle was Jamie Beyerle of Lebanon, Pennsylvania, with a 2279-76X. Beyerle won first place in the Metallic Sight Championship with a score of 1144-41X. Beyerle also took home the Woman Championship and, for the third time in as many years, the Junior Championship.
Special Category awards in the Three-Position Championships went to Fred Cole, with a 2183-53X, to take top honors as Senior Champion. Billy Grant, of Buffalo Mills, Pennsylvania, was Collegiate Champion for a second straight year with a 2248-69X.
The Three-Position Smallbore Championship is an aggregate of scores fired in two 120-shot matches -- one fired with .22 caliber rifles fitted with metallic sights, and one in which rifles are equipped with either metallic sights or scopes. Each of these matches consists of three 40-shot, sub-aggregate matches, one fired from the prone position, one from standing, and one from the kneeling position, at targets approximately 55 yards away.
A summary of results of the Metallic and Any Sight Matches and results of the Three-Position Smallbore Championship follows.
Results of the 2001 National Three-Position Smallbore Rifle Overall Championship
Winner: Spc Shane M. Barnhart, USA
Phenix City, AL 2290-83X
Second: Jeffrey Doerschler
Wethersfield, CT 2285-95X
Third: Jamie Beyerle
Lebanon, PA 2279-76X
High Woman: Jamie Beyerle
Lebanon, PA 2279-76X
Senior Champion: Fred Cole
Stony Brook, NY 2183-53X
Collegiate Champ: Billy Grant
Buffalo Mills, PA 2248-69X
Three-Position Any Sight Championship
Winner: Jeffrey Doerschler
Wethersfield, CT 1161-54X
Second: Spc Shane Barnhart, USA
Phenix City, AL 1147-42X
Third: Steve Goff
Columbus, GA 1142-45X
High Woman: Jamie Beyerle
Lebanon, PA 1135-35X
Three-Position Metallic Sight Championship
Winner: Jamie Beyerle
Lebanon, PA 1144-41X
Second: Spc Trevor Gathman, USA
Smiths, AL 1143-45X
Third: Spc Shane Barnhart, USA
Phenix City, AL 1143-41X
High Woman: Jamie Beyerle
Lebanon, PA 1144-41X
http://www.nra.org/display_content/show_content.cfm?mod_id=51&id=3706
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
THE latest statistics are in. Even more people than we thought have evaded the law, in order to get permits to carry concealed deadly weapons in Kentucky.
But, not to worry. Some 33 states already have statutes allowing people to carry a hidden firearm. And, according to a piece now up on the National Center for Policy Analysis Web site, ''serious misconduct by concealed-weapon permit holders is comparatively rare.''
There follows a list of proof, including the fact that among 215,582 license holders in Texas, only 178 have lost their permits for felony conviction. And the gun lobby's favorite scholar, John Lott, Jr., of Yale, is quoted to the effect that ''there has never been a case where a person with a permitted concealed handgun has killed a police officer.''
That's certainly good news, although perhaps not the definitive argument for or against any particular policy.
The site has not been updated to include the Shively man whose gun accidentally went off in the Tinseltown theater complex, wounding a woman who was standing near the concession stand.
Last month, he pleaded guilty to wanton endangerment. He was required to give up his concealed-carry permit, for three years.
Nor does it reflect this week's news from Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Wohlander that an estimated 7,000 Kentuckians got their concealed-weapons permits without going through the legally required training. That's more than twice the number state officials previously have suggested.
But, then, evading the law in this way is not considered serious misconduct.
Otherwise, the Justice Cabinet would have done something more than send letters to the miscreants, asking them to submit statements verifying they actually have met the law's requirements. A spokesman assures the public that the Cabinet has no plans to reject the permits of those who don't receive the training.
Apparently, there isn't unanimity on what constitutes serious misconduct.
Click here to respond to this editorial.
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/020804-2.htm
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878