Senator Cruz Defends 2A from the Floor of the Senate, Excoriates Obama Terrorism Failures

 Senator Ted Cruz does a superb job of exposing Democrats using a terror attack to attack the Constitution.  As is to be expected, the leftist media is attacking it as a "terrible" speech.  Read or watch it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Mr. CRUZ. 

 Madam President, our Nation is at war. Five days ago, we saw a horrific terror attack in Orlando, FL. From September 11 to the Boston Marathon, from Fort Hood to Chattanooga, from San Bernardino to this attack in Orlando, radical Islamic terrorism has declared jihad on America. As the facts have unfolded, they now indicate that the Orlando terrorist had pledged his allegiance to ISIS in the process of murdering 49 and wounding more than 50 at a nightclub.

   All of our hearts go out to those who were murdered. To the families of those who were victims and who are grieving, we stand in solidarity, we lift them up in prayer at this horrific act of terrorism. But it is also a time for action. We need a Commander in Chief who will speak the truth, who will address the enemy we face, who will unleash the full force and fury of the American military on defeating ISIS and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.

   In the wake of the attack, many of us predicted what would unfold, and it was, sadly, the same political tale we have seen over and over again. Many of us predicted that Democrats would, as a matter of rigid partisan ideology, refuse even to say the words ``radical Islamic terrorist''; that they would suggest this attack was yet another isolated incident, one lone criminal, not connected to any global ideology, not connected to any global jihad; and that, even worse, they would try to use it as an excuse to go after the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. I wish, when we predicted that, that we had been proven incorrect. But this week played out all too predictably.

   Yesterday we saw a political show on the Senate floor, with Democrat after Democrat standing for hours, incensed not at ISIS, incensed not at radical Islamic terrorism, but incensed that Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. This is political distraction. This is political gamesmanship. I think the American people find it ridiculous that in response to an ISIS terror attack, the Democrats go on high dudgeon that we have to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a gun control issue. This is a terrorism issue. And it is nothing less than political gamesmanship for them to try to shift to their favorite hobbyhorse of taking away the Bill of Rights from law-abiding citizens.

  I have spent years defending the Second Amendment--the right to keep and bear arms--the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, and I, along with the Presiding Officer, along with a great many Members of this Chamber, am committed to defending the constitutional rights of every American. You don't defeat terrorism by taking away our guns; you defeat terrorism by using our guns. This body should not be engaged in a political circus trying to restrict the Second Amendment. Instead, we should be focusing on the problem at hand.

   Why did we see yesterday's series of speeches? Because Senate Democrats have an election coming up in November, and they don't want to talk about the real issue. Let's talk about ISIS. Let's talk about radical Islamic terrorism. Let's talk about the failures of the last 7 years of this administration to keep this country safe.

  In response to my criticism and that of many others, President Obama gave a press conference where he said, echoing the words of Hillary Clinton: What difference does it make if we call it radical Islamic terrorism? Well, Mr. President, it makes a world of difference because the failure to address the enemy impacts every action taken to fight that enemy. 

   I want to talk in particular about three areas where this administration and the Senate Democrats' refusal to confront radical Islamic terrorism has made America less safe and what we need to do about it. Let's start with prevention. Over and over again we have seen the Obama administration having ample information to stop a terrorist attack. Yet, because of the political correctness, because of the ideology of this administration that will not even say the word ``jihad,'' will not even say the words ``radical Islamic terrorism,'' they look the other way, and the attacks go forward. 

   In my home State of Texas, Fort Hood, Nidal Hasan--the Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had been in communication with the radical Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. The Obama administration knew that Nidal Hasan had asked al-Awlaki about the permissibility of waging jihad against his fellow soldiers. All of that was known beforehand, yet they did nothing. They did nothing. And on that fateful day, Nidal Hasan murdered 14 innocent souls, yelling ``Allahu Akbar'' as he pulled the trigger. Yet, just to underscore the blindness of this administration even after the terror attack, the administration insisted on characterizing that terror attack as ``workplace violence.'' That is nothing short of delusion, and it is a delusion that cost 14 lives. 

   If we know of a U.S. serv ice mem ber who is communicating with a radical Islamic cleric and asking about waging jihad against his fellow soldiers, MPs should show up at that individual's door within minutes. And if we didn't have an administration that plunged its head in the sand like an ostrich and refused to acknowledge radical Islamic terrorism, Nidal Hasan would have been stopped before he carried out that horrific act of terrorism. 

   Likewise, with the Boston bombing and the Tsarnaev brothers, Russia had informed the Obama administration they were connected with radical Islamic terrorism. We knew that. The FBI had gone and interviewed them. Yet, once again, they dropped the ball. They stopped monitoring them. They didn't even note when the elder Tsarnaev brother posted on YouTube a public call to jihad. Mind you, this did not require complicated surveillance. This was YouTube. Anyone with a computer who could type in ``Google'' could see this. Yet, because the administration will not acknowledge that we are fighting radical Islamic terrorism, they were not watching and monitoring the Tsarnaev brothers. So they called for public jihad and then carried out that public jihad with pressure cookers at the Boston Marathon--yet another example where we knew about the individual beforehand, and if we had focused prevention on the problem, we could have stopped it. 

   A third example was San Bernardino, that horrific terror attack. Once again, we had ample information about the individuals in question. The female terrorist who came to San Bernardino had given the administration a fake address in Pakistan. Yet the so-called vetting that this administration tells us they do had failed to discover that it was a fake address. She had made calls for jihad; yet the administration failed to discover that. In San Bernardino, we saw yet another horrific terror attack. 

   And how about Orlando? Let's talk about what the facts are in Orlando. Now, we are only 5 days in. The facts will develop further as they are more fully developed, but here is what has been publicly reported. 

   What has been publicly reported is that Omar Mateen was interviewed not once, not twice, but three times by the FBI in 2013 and 2014. One of the reasons he was interviewed by the FBI was that he was talking in his place of employment, which, ironically and shockingly enough, was a contractor to the Department of Homeland Security, and he was talking about being connected to terrorist organizations, including the Boston bombers. To any rational person, that is a big red flag. Yet it has also been reported that his coworkers were so afraid to say anything because they didn't want to be labeled as somehow anti-Muslim by speaking out about someone claiming to be connected to radical Islamic terrorists. 

   We also know that when he was questioned by the FBI in 2004, according to public reports, it was because he was believed to have been connected to and knew Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who traveled to Syria to join the terrorist organization al-Nusra Front and who became the first known American suicide bomber in the Syrian conflict. That is yet another big red flag. If you are palling around with al-Nusra suicide bombers, that ought to be a real flag. If the administration is focused on radical Islamic terrorism, this is an individual we ought to be watching. 

   We know that Mateen, as it has been reported, traveled to Mecca in Saudi Arabia for 10 days on March 2011 and for 8 days in March 2012. And we also have indications that the FBI may have been aware that he was a follower of the Islamist educational Web site run by radical Imams. Not only that, but his father has posted online videos expressing not only sympathy but arguably support for the Taliban. All of that is what the Obama administration knew. Yet by Sunday morning they were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were no longer watching Omar Mateen. They were not monitoring him, and he was able to go in and commit a horrific act of murder. 

   The question that every Member of this body should be asking is, Why is the ball being dropped over and over and over again? It is not once. It is not twice. It is a pattern. It is a pattern of failing to connect the dots. I would suggest it is directly connected to President Obama and this administration's refusal to acknowledge what it is we are fighting. If you direct the prevention efforts to stopping radical Islamic terrorism--we had all the information we had on Mateen to keep a very close eye on him. Yet if that is not what you are fighting, then you close the investigation and yet another attack goes forward. 

   I would suggest that this willful blindness is one of the reasons we saw the circus yesterday on the Senate floor. Senate Democrats should be asking these questions, yet we don't hear them asking those questions. Instead, they want to shift this to gun control. They want to shift this to putting the Federal Government in charge of approving every firearms transaction between law-abiding citizens in America. Mind you, that would not have prevented this attack. Mind you, it was not directed at the evil of this attack. Mind you, it ignores the global jihad we are facing, but it is a convenient political dodge. We need serious leadership focused on keeping this country safe. 

   A second component of keeping this country safe is defeating ISIS--utterly and completely defeating ISIS. 

   In yesterday's circus, when calling for taking away your and my constitutional rights, how often did Senate Democrats say: Let's utterly destroy ISIS. Not with the pinprick attacks we are seeing, not with the photo-op foreign policy of this administration--a failed effort that leaves the terrorists laughing at us--but instead, using overwhelming airpower; instead, using the concerted power of the U.S. military, with rules of engagement that allow us to fight and win. Right now, sending our service men and women into combat with rules of engagement tying their hands behind their backs is wrong, it is immoral, and it is not accomplishing the task. 

   Do you want a response to the Orlando attacks? President Obama and Vice President Biden are going down. They will no doubt give a self-righteous speech about gun control, trying to strip away the rights of law-abiding Americans. How about they stand up and have the President pledge that ISIS will be driven from the face of the Earth? Do you want to see a response to murdering innocent Americans? If you declare war on America, you are signing your death warrant. That is the response of a Commander in Chief. That is the seriousness we need. 

   A third component of focusing on the enemy is that we should focus on keeping us safe--in particular, passing two pieces of legislation, both of which I introduced, the first of which is the Expatriate Terrorist Act. This is legislation which provides that if any American citizen goes and takes up arms and joins ISIS, joins a radical Islamic terrorist group, that he or she forfeits their U.S. citizenship. So you do not have American citizens coming back to America with U.S. passports to wage jihad on America. We have seen Americans such as Jose Padilla, Anwar al-Awlaki, and Faisal Shahzad, just to name a few, who have abandoned their country and joined with the terrorists in waging war against us. Just this week, the CIA Director testified to the Senate that more are coming; ISIS intends to send individuals back here to wage jihad. 

   Rather than engaging in political showmanship, trying to gain partisan advantage in the November election, how about we come together and say: If you join ISIS, you are not using a U.S. passport to come back here and murder American citizens. That ought to be a unanimous agreement if we were focused on keeping this country safe. 

   Likewise, let's talk about the problem of refugees. What are the consequences of the willful blindness of this administration that President Obama, in the face of this terror attack, says that he will admit some 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees, despite the fact that the FBI Director has told Congress he cannot possibly vet them to determine if they are terrorists? 

   Here is what FBI Director Comey said: 

   We can only query against that which we have collected. And so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interest reflected in our database, we can query our database until the cows come home, but there will be nothing to show up because we have no record of them. 

   This is an FBI Director who was appointed by President Obama who is telling the administration they cannot vet these refugees. Yet what does the administration say? What does Hillary Clinton say? What do the Senate Democrats say? Let the refugees in, even though ISIS is telling us they are going to use those refugees to send terrorists here to come and murder us. This transcends mere partisan disagreement; this is lunacy. 

   We know the Paris attack was carried out in part by people who came in using the refugee program, taking advantage of the refugee program. Indeed, earlier this year, on January 6, 2016, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, a Palestinian born in Iraq who entered the United States as a refugee in 2009, was charged with attempting to provide support to ISIS. He wanted to set off bombs using cell phone detonators at two malls in my hometown of Houston, TX. This is a refugee who came from Iraq. Yet, do you hear the administration saying: This is a dangerous world. Jihadists are attempting to kill us. We have to keep us safe. They don't say that. 

   The legislation I have introduced, which I would urge this body to take up, would impose a 3-year moratorium on refugees coming from any nation where ISIS or Al Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorists control a substantial portion of the territory. We can help with humanitarian efforts. We can help resettling refugees in majority Muslim countries in the Middle East. America is a compassionate country that has given more than 10 times as much money as any country on Earth to caring for refugees. But being compassionate doesn't mean we are suicidal. It doesn't mean we invite to America, we invite to our homes people who the FBI cannot tell us if they are terrorists or not. 

   What should this Senate be doing? We shouldn't be engaging in a sideshow of gun control. By the way, I will say on behalf of a lot of American citizens, in the wake of this terror attack, it is offensive. I sat in that chair and presided yesterday over some of the show. It was offensive to see Democrat after Democrat prattling on about the NRA. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 49 people in Orlando. It wasn't the NRA that set up pressure cookers in the Boston bombing. It wasn't the NRA that murdered 14 innocent souls at Fort Hood. It is offensive to play political games with the constitutional rights of American citizens instead of getting serious about keeping this country safe. 

   I would urge this body to take up both pieces of legislation--the Expatriate Terrorist Act to prevent terrorists from using U.S. passports to come back to America and TRIPA to prevent refugees from countries with majority control, major control from ISIS or Al Qaeda from coming in, ISIS terrorists as refugees. Those would be commonsense steps. The overwhelming majority of Americans would agree. Yet, in this politicized environment, that is not what our friends on the other side of the aisle want to talk about. Until we get serious about defeating radical Islamic terrorists, we will continue to lose innocents. 

   I would note one aspect of the attack on Sunday morning. It was widely reported that it was at a gay bar. There are a great many Democrats who are fond of calling themselves champions of the LGBT community. I would suggest there is no more important issue to champion in that regard than protecting Americans from murder by a vicious ideology that systematically murders homosexuals, that throws them off buildings, that buries them under rocks. The regime in Iran, now supported by billions of dollars of American taxpayer dollars at the behest of President Obama, murders homosexuals regularly. 

   I will confess, some in the press pool were a little bit puzzled: Well, how can a Republican be speaking out against this? Let me be very clear. I am against murder. I am against murder of any American. Nobody has a right to murder anybody because they differ in faith, because they differ in sexual orientation, because they differ in any respect. We are a nation founded on protecting the rights of everyone to live according to their conscience, according to their faith. This murder in Orlando was not random; it was part of a global jihad, an ideology, an Islamist ideology that commands its adherents to murder or forcibly convert the infidel, by whom they mean every one of us. 

   This body should not be engaged in political games. We should be focused on the threat and keeping America safe and defeating radical Islamic terrorists.

   As we remember the victims of this latest terror attack, the greatest memorial we can give to them is to redouble ourselves to a seriousness of purpose to prevent the next terror attack from taking innocent American lives. I hope that is what this body does. I hope we do so in a bipartisan manner. 

   I yield the floor.

Source at the Congressonal Record  S4279, S4280, S4281

Here is a link with the video

  Dean Weingarten

John McCain Proposes to Destroy Classic .45 Pistols Instead of Allowing them to be Sold Thru Civilian Marksmanship Program

But Senator John McCain had other ideas, as now he's introduced legislation in with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 that will have the 1911's destroyed and recycled into components or different firearms.

SEC. 331. REPURPOSING AND REUSE OF SURPLUS MILITARY FIREARMS.
(a) Army Transfers.—
(1) REQUIRED TRANSFER.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the Secretary of the Army shall transfer to Rock Island Arsenal all excess firearms, related spare parts and components, small arms ammunition, and ammunition components currently stored at Defense Distribution Depot, Anniston, Alabama, that are no longer actively issued for military service.
(2) REPURPOSING AND REUSE.—The items specified for transfer under paragraph (1) shall be melted and repurposed for military use as determined by the Secretary of the Army, including—
(A) the re-forging of new firearms or their components; and
(B) force protection barriers and security bollards.

I understand what might be the sentiment. It costs $200,000 a year to store them, and the metal could be used to construct things the army could actually use. My problem here is that the 1911s McCain has marked for destruction and repurpose are primarily the ones meant to go to the CMP.

More Here

British Labor MP Killed with "Homemade" Gun, Knife

 Image from news.sky.com

A British Labor MP has been murdered when she intervened in an altercation between two men, on of whom has been reported to have mental issues.  Witnesses at the scene reported that the gun used appeared "homemade".  A knife was also used.  The MP was reportedly shot three times and stabbed several times.  From uk.businessinsider.com:

An eyewitness report given to the BBC said that Cox was attacked after becoming involved in an altercation between two men.

"There was a guy who was being very brave and another guy with a white baseball cap who he was trying to control and the man in the baseball cap suddenly pulled a gun from his bag," the witness said.

The gun was "homemade" and large, according to multiple reports.

From sky.com:

"It looked like a gun from, I don't know, the First World War or a makeshift, handmade gun. It's not sort of like the kind of gun you see normally."

From spiderfinance.com:

 Another witness told Sky that a man in white, dirty baseball cap
had been jostling with the MP before pulling out a gun. The gun
was “homemade,” according to multiple reports. 

Given the  low level of firearms awareness in the U.K., I have doubts about the witnesses ability to discern whether the gun was homemade or not.  On the other hand, homemade guns are fairly common in the U.K. because factory made guns are so tightly controlled.  A third possibility is that the gun was modified from a factory long gun or a replica or blank firing gun.

That a British MP was murdered by a mentally ill man who had a gun and a knife in his bag illustrates the failure of gun control in England and Wales.

The only previous MP who was shot was in 1812, when the Prime Minister, spencer Percival was assassinated in 1812. From independent.co.uk:

Serious attacks are rare, although that doesn’t make them much less frightening. They have been an infrequent, out-of-the-blue shock since the shooting of Spencer Perceval, the only Prime Minister to have been assassinated, in 1812.

That was with a muzzleloader, which is not even being considered by gun control advocates.  Not a single MP was shot during the entire history of modern firearms before "gun control" was instituted in England and the Wales.

It will be interesting to see actual pictures of the weapons used.  They often appear in the UK press.  I have not seen any pictures of the weapons yet.

Update: A single witness alleged that the attacker yelled "Britain First!". There were several people nearby when the attack occurred.  Area residents say the attacker never showed any interest in politics.  It seems more likely that the witnesse' prejudices are in action here, instead of the attackers.  

The campaigns to keep the UK in the EU or to leave it have been suspended, but the referendum will take place as scheduled.

Second update: From the telegraph.co.uk:

Police arrested a 52-year-old former psychiatric patient named locally as Tommy Mair. According to witnesses, Mrs Cox’s killer used either an antique or a home-made gun which he calmly reloaded between shots. As she lay bleeding to death, he repeatedly kicked her before walking away, having stabbed a 77-year-old man who tried to intervene.

It is easier to make a single shot or double barrel gun than a multi-shot; which is why the "calmly reloaded" part is interesting. However, the same article claims that Mair was yelling "Britain First" which has been discredited in other reports.


©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

OH: Robbery/ Kidnap Suspect Shot

Columbia, SC (WLTX)- A man who Richland County Deputies say say attempted to rob a store on Broad River Road is recovering after being shot by the store owner during the attempted robbery.

Taveon Vogt, 22 has been arrested and charged with two counts of attempted murder, two counts of kidnapping, two counts of armed robbery and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime.

More Here

Discount Gas for Gun Carriers

Another business discovers the advantages of welcoming the gun culture and supporting the Constitution.  In Minnesota, a gas station has found a way to disuade robbers by welcoming people with guns. From kstp.com:

After getting robbed twice over the last three months, the owner of a Shell gas station in Sauk Rapids wanted to get more customers during the evening, hoping it would improve safety.

Last week, station owner Frank Schwagel offered a 10-cent-per-gallon discount for law enforcement or people with proof of permit to carry after 7 p.m. each day.

Much research has shown, over and over again, that people who obtain permits to carry guns are incredibly peaceful and responsible, much more so than the rest of sociiety.

They are several times less likely to commit crimes than police officer. Inviting people who carry guns legally to your business is similar to running a donus shop that police officers frequent.  Your chances of getting robbed are quite small.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

A Time to Fight for Freedom and the Constitution

In 2012, nearly four years ago, after the shooting at Sandy Hook, the future of the Republic and the Constitution looked dim. We had seen a President who disdained the Constitution, who flaunted his power, who had the media on his side and a Congress that conspired with him, be re-elected. This happened in spite of numerous scandals that should have resulted in his impeachment.

It appeared the seeds of severe European type gun control were going to pass Congress. Leaders among Second Amendment supporters were grim. Some said that we could not win. Some claimed that the best we could do was to compromise and hope to mitigate the damage. They were wrong. It took enormous hard work. It took determination and guts. But we won.

The Gun Owners of America were steadfast. The NRA held firm. No more infringements on the Second Amendment. Tens of millions of activists across the nation made our case in emails, tweets, essays, comments, and discussion boards. We sent overwhelming numbers of phone calls and emails to our representatives. We were right and we won. No more infringements were passed in Congress. A couple of Democrat states, financed with Bloomberg money, fortified with dirty tricks, passed some evil measures in a couple of states. Patriots have steadfastly refused to comply. In a dozen other states, Second Amendment freedoms are being restored.

Now we face another daunting battle. This time, the odds have improved. We removed some weak sisters in the Congress who claimed to be on our side. The President who wants us disarmed has seven months in office, not another four years. The presumed Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has made support of the Second Amendment a major theme in his campaign. Just as important, the old media cartel has been weakened. Many people see how it has been advancing its agenda with lies and through manipulation. It is not as hard for a majority to understand how much we have been lied to and mislead. For the first time in 50 years, a majority of Americans equate guns with safety instead of fear. Since 2012, 50 million guns have been added to the private stock in the United States.

It makes absolutely no sense, after a successful Islamic terror attack that killed 49 people and wounded 53 more, to call for the disarmament of Americans. Yet that is exactly what Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are calling for.

The rifles they want to take from us are precisely those most protected by the Constitution. Rifles that are the most useful for spontaneous citizen militias, as expected by the Second Amendment.

They are the type of firearm that is least used to murder. Twice as many people are killed with hands and feet as are killed with rifles in the United States. Of all the murders in the United States, only 2% are committed with rifles. Sport utility rifles, that the President and the Democrat nominee with to ban, are only a fraction of those. They are about 10-20 percent of the rifles in the country, and are increasing in popularity daily.

Sport utility rifles are they most popular rifles in the last 10 years. They are selling like Ice Cream on a hot August day in Florida. They are semi-automatics, similar to rifles that have been sold for a hundred years. They are the rifles that the present administration and Democrat candidate want to take from you.

It is time to fight; not with rifles but with words. I pray that we never have to fight with the rifles. It is far better if we win with words. We have the facts, the culture, and the Constitution on our side. We are winning this fight, but we have to fight if we are going to win. Similar to the horror attack in Orlando, if we do not fight back we lose.

You can and must join the fight. See an article that claims that guns are not useful for self defense? Make a comment. There are plenty of facts available on the Internet for you to use. Hear that your Congresscritter is waffling? Let them know that you will not tolerate it.

Be polite; it empowers your words more than cussing or other angry rhetoric. See that an entertainer or commercial enterprise has bowed down to political correctness and the two minute hate of Second Amendment supporters? Let them know that you will not support them. Be polite. It is a force multiplier.

Use sarcasm, cartoons, humor, and satire. Our opponents need to be laughed at.

Use social media to spread the truth. Do not let the disarmists take over the means of communication, as they have in the past.

Yes, it is a tough fight. Yes, our adversaries have money, power, the major media, and the power of fraud and lies.

We can beat them. We have done it before. But, we will not beat them if we do not fight!

Definition of disarmist

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Link to Gun Watch

Rob Morse: Socialists Cling to Their God and Their Religion After Terrorist Attack

The big government socialists just suffered another face full of failure. The mass murder by a terrorist in Orlando shook them.   The Socialist did what they always do.   Their answer is always more government and less freedom. Big government is their solution no matter what the problem. For a socialist, government is the god from which all things come. The Muslim murderer in Orlando is simply the latest example of Socialists clinging to their god and their religion.  Don’t expect the Socialists to change.

It isn’t easy being a religious Socialists.  Last week we saw a Democrat Muslim terrorize and murder hundreds of people in a gay nightclub.  The club in Orlando, Florida was a gun free zone. The gun free zone failed.

The murderer bought his guns legally.   Those firearms background checks failed. The murderer had been vetted several times by the FBI. The murderer was cleared each time he bought a gun.   The murderer was also cleared by the FBI during his security review that was required for his job. The murderer worked for a Department of Homeland Security contractor.   That is a bucket full of fail, and the gun grabbing, anti-rights bigots want more of the same.

The Obama Administration is blinded by political correctness. They can not and will not protect us. They simply use each failure as another call to their god of big government. Let me show you with example after example in their own words.

The evidence technicians were not done at the crime scene, and President Barack Obama called for more of the same. He called for more background checks for honest gun owners.  Those are the same background checks that failed in Orlando.   Those are the same background checks that failed at the Muslim terrorist murders in San Bernardino last Christmas.

More Here

Why Have Mass Killing racheted up During the Obama Regime?

Image from strange politics

There are two reasons why mass killings have increased during the Obama regime.  They have increased because the regime gives those killers what they want.  The cartoon illustrates these reasons.

These killings are rare.  They do not happen often.  There have been a cluster of them during President Obama's terms in office.  There are good reasons for that.

There are two types of mass killing that have occurred.  The first is the rampage killer.  These are accomplished by socially isolated mental cases, who hope to obtain a sort of immortality by killing as many people as possible. They want to "make the record book" and have "everybody know my name".  Those killings are the Gabbrielle Giffords shooting, the Aurora Theater attack, the Sandy Hook school killing, the Umpqua College shooting, and the Charleston Church shooting.  The biggest driver of those type of mass killings is media coverage of the events.

Media coverage of those events are over the top, because the major media see them as a way to implement gun control.   The media benefit from ratings and from politicization of the event.  The old media use these events to further their agenda to impose severe restrictions on gun ownership and use.  The restrictions called for often have no relationship to the mass killings committed.

The more coverage given to these events, the more likelyhood that another fragile ego will see them as a means to  fame and an end of their pain.  It is called the copycat effect, and is well documented.  The media know about it, but they do not care.  Getting their agenda advanced is more important than a few dozen lives.

The copycat effect has been demonstrated and documented over and over again.  Clayton Cramer wrote a paper on this in 1993.   It was published in a the Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9:1 [Winter 1993-94].  It won First Place, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Ethics Prize, 1993, Undergraduate Division.  It has been widely written about in other publications, such as the Wall Street Journal.   A book, The Copycat Effect, by Loren Coleman, was written in 2004.   It detailed simple strategies for mitigating the effect and reducing the number of these mass public killings.   They could be implemented without any significant chilling effect on the first amendment.

The second type of mass killing is the Islamist terrorist attack.  These are the Boston Marathon attack, the Fort Hood massacre, the Chattanooga recruit center attack, the Garland shooting (which was stopped), the San Bernadino massacre, and the Orlando Pulse Massacre. These attacks have been facilitated by the Obama administration for two reasons.  First, because the Islamicists see that they are winning.  They have advanced mightily in Libya and Syria.  The Americans left Iraq and are pulling out of Afghanistan.  ISIS built up in the vacume left by Barak Obama in Iraq.

 The failed "Arab Spring" policy of destabilized Libya, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, while emboldening Iran,   Islamicists have established organizations and safe zones in the chaos created by the Obama regime policies.

Islamicist are not swayed by talk of fellowship, of how Christians are the real threat, and Islam is the religion of peace.  They see that talk as a sign of weakness. They believe that Allah has prepared their enemies for destruction.  By appearing and acting weakly, the Obama administration has greatly encouraged our radical Islamic enemies.

Successful Islamist attacks against America have multiplied under the Obama administration.  The Obama administration has sent signals, over and over again to the radical Islamist.  Those signals are that America is weak and ready for defeat.

Those are the two reasons why mass killings have increased in the last eight years.  Through its policies, the Obama administration has encouraged them.  Pushing for more gun control encourages the media to give more coverage to mass killings.  More coverage of mass killings encourages more mass killers.

Appear weak and facilitating to Islamic terrorists, and you encourage more Islamic terrorists.

Both types of killers look for soft targets where there will be little opposition.  The Obama administration has pushed for more gun free zones, and wants fewer people to be armed to defend themselves.  Those policies have not advanced, in spite of the administration's desires.

The rate of people being murdered in the United States has been at record low levels, some of the lowest in 50 years.  But 2016 may be a turning point.  The policies of the Obama administration have produced the Ferguson effect, where police officers are reluctant to police in inner cities.  The murder rate in the inner cities has bounded upward in response.

The number of people killed in mass killling is a small fraction of those murdered in the United States. It will have a small effect on the overall murder rate.  But add the Ferguson effect and the mass killings, and the murder rate in 2016 will increase.

Policies have consequences. The Obama regime is reaping the consequences of their polices. It will take years to undo the damage. It is sad that innocent people are dying as a result.

Armed citizens cannot completely stop mass killings, but they can reduce the casualties.  Here are over twenty cases where armed citizens stopped mass killers in their tracks.

©2015 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Followup CA: No charges for Anaheim man who fatally shot suspected car burglar

Authorities say they have not filed charges against an Anaheim man who fatally shot a suspected burglar he caught rummaging through his parked vehicle.

The Orange County District Attorney’s Office is currently going over all of the details of the incident with police, spokeswoman Roxi Fyad told the Orange County Register. The shooter was not taken into custody following the incident, Anaheim Police Sgt. Luis Correa told the newspaper.

More Here

2016 Will be the Record Breaking Gun Sales Year of all Time!

2016 has been breaking records for gun sales since it began.  In fact, records were being broken seven months before 2016 began.  We only have records until the end of May, but they show a clear trend.  If that trend were followed, then 2016 would have set the record for the most American gun sales in a year, ever.

But that trend just got bumped, jumped, and Trumped.  It is now taking off like Falcon SpaceX rocket.  The reason, of course, is politics.

The fact is, more than half of Americans associate guns with safety.  That trend has been building for decades.  It is supported by theory and facts.  It is the result of education and cold hard thinking.  But thinking got thrown out the window on June 12th.  With the Islamic terror attack in Orlando, the ruling Obama administration just had its worldview kicked in the teeth, knocked to the gutter, and has started to bleed out.  But the people who rule the Democrat party cannot let that worldview die.  Their entire life and lifes investments depend on keeping it on life support.  What to do, what to do?

Attack a scapegoat who had nothing to do with the attack, but who is a consistent Democrat boogyman.  Attack the NRA and guns.

President Obama, Hillary, and Bernie all agree: Americans have too many guns, the wrong kind, and they can use them too easily.  This will not fly with most Americans, but it will fly with enough to scare the majority into a gun buying spree such as we have never seen.  The last seven years, which set record after record after record, will look tame.

A couple of weeks ago, I predicted that NICs instant checks would reach 28 million for the year, an all time record.  I though I was stretching my neck out.

I was much too conservative.  Consider 30 million, maybe 32 million for 2016.  We won't know until the ATF releases figures early in 2018, but that is my prediction now.  The Obama administration and its surrogates, Hillary, Bernie, all the old media, will be pushing panic and fear of guns as hard and fast as they can, right up to the election.

That will scare the 53% that associate guns with safety into buying guns like never before.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Antique Handguns and Canada; the Choices Have Narrowed

It was not that long ago that taking firearms into Canada was fairly easy.  I recall that long guns were no problem, and even handguns only required a simple seal showing that you had not used the handgun while in Canada.  That changed in the late 1990's.

Bringing and transporting a firearm and especially a handgun into Canada, without severe criminal penalties, can be daunting.

A couple of years ago, I was talking to a Canadian firearms and defensive handgun enthusiast (yes, they exist).  He told me that handguns that were made before 1898 were exempt from the licensing laws.  Another proviso was that they could not be chambered for certain cartridges. There were some very effective handguns made before 1898, so I started watching for a nice functioning Webley, or Tranter, or maybe something more exotic. I found that the task became more difficult two years ago.  In 2014, the RCMP unilaterally changed their interpretation of the antique handgun definition. From facebook.com/NFACANADA posted March 30th, 2014:

ANTIQUE PISTOLS RECLASSIFIED
Recently there have been a number of questions regarding the RCMP's reclassifications of antique handguns. This issue is particularly troubling due to the misunderstanding surrounding antique handguns in the first place. Lets start off with how the antique firearms regulations have historically been applied in Canada. Here is the exerpt from the RCMP's site:

• manufactured before 1898 that can discharge only rim-fire cartridges, other than .22 Calibre Short, .22 Calibre Long or .22 Calibre Long Rifle cartridges;
• manufactured before 1898 that can discharge centre-fire cartridges, other than a handgun designed or adapted to discharge .32 Short Colt, .32 Long Colt, .32 Smith and Wesson, .32 Smith and Wesson Long, .32‑20 Winchester, .38 Smith and Wesson; .38 Short Colt, .38 Long Colt, .38-40 Winchester, .44‑40 Winchester, or .45 Colt cartridges.

Ever since the act was introduced, this has been interpreted the same way. If the firearm in question was produced prior to 1898 and is not chambered in the calibers listed above, or the firearm has not been altered to fire those calibers, it was recognized as an antique under the firearms act. As an example, If you owned a Colt revolver built prior to 1898, which was rechambered from 38 Long Colt (on the exemption list) to 38 special, or 44 Special (not on the list) It was recognized as an antique. This firearm can be bought and sold without a license, and shot anywhere you can legally discharge a non restricted firearm.

Several weeks ago at the same time that the Swiss Arms and CZ858 became prohibited, the RCMP changed their interpretation of the law, affecting the classifications of many antique firearms. Now, the RCMP does not recognize that same firearm as being antique because it was originally built in a non antique caliber. The FRT #'s which historically showed these firearms as antique, have now been changed to restricted and prohibited. There are a number of issues with this, including the fact that antique letters have been issued for these guns for many years, showing them as antiques.

That still leaves a number of pistols and revolvers that would work, but you may have to document them.  The Tranter that Tia is holding in the picture above is in .442 rimfire, so it fits the bill.  The Mauser in her right hand does not; it was made after 1898.  There were about 15 thousand of them made before 1898, so if you have one of those, consider yourself fortunate.  The 7.65 X 25 Mauser is not on the prohibited list.  It would be just the thing to keep around the cabin for black bear protection in Canada.

Canada does not have a problem with gangbangers holding up liquor stores with antique Colt revolvers.  The regulatory change is made out of animosity to gun ownership.

It shows the danger of creeping bureaucracy.  In spite of long standing precedent, our brothers in Canada lost a chunk of freedom to the RCMP bureaucracy at the stroke of a keyboard.  I hope they can reverse it, but with another Trudeau now in power in Canada, it may be a while.


©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

The Orlando Killer Did NOT Use An AR-15

Would the average journalist know the difference between an AR 15 and a toaster?

A law enforcement source said that the shooting suspect legally purchased recently the two weapons used in the attack at the shooting center in Port St. Lucie near his Fort Pierce home. He had a Glock 17 handgun purchased on June 5, a Sigsauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4 on his person during the shootout, and investigators later found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-omar-mateen-cool-and-calm-police-negotiators-pulse-nightclub/

MI: Detroit Landlord's Boyfriend Shoots Armed, Drunk, Tenant

Police say the drunk and angry tenant had a gun and that he allegedly pointed it at the landlady. That's when her boyfriend, who also had a gun, fired several shots. The tenant was hit and died at the scene from his injuries.

More Here

NY: Retiree Officer Fatally Shoots Armed Robber

An alleged armed robber was fatally shot Monday morning inside a Queens bar as he attempted to steal from patrons.

An armed suspect was fatally shot by a retired NYPD officer Monday morning after allegedly attempting to rob patrons at a Queens bar.

On June 13 at about 3:53 a.m. police responded to a call of a man shot inside The Parkside Pub, located at 24-14 149th St. in Whitestone, according to authorities. Upon arriving cops discovered a man in his 30s with a gunshot wound to the head.
More Here

TX: Burglary Suspect Shot by Shop Owner

A 43-year-old man was shot Sunday morning by a shop owner in the 1000 block of West Constitution Street.

The man who was shot and the shop owner were not identified Sunday by Victoria police.

More Here

Orlando Massacre at the Pulse: Trapped in Bathrooms

It has been alleged that the Islamic shooter at the Orlando massacre had been there several times before.  He was likely scouting the place as a target.  One of the things he would have noticed were the limited exits. The shooter is said to have entered at the main entrance, where the green circle is.  The blue arrows point to the exits. The heavy black blobs on the outer perimeter of the diagram are the entrances and exits.

The main entrances are down at the bottom of the diagram.  The main entrances go into the foyer with the green circle. There is an exit, separated by a short wall, very close to it on the left.  A window is directly below the blue arrow tip.  The entrances are to the small foyer, with only one door on the left leading inside.

A shooter located at the bottom center blue arrow commands all exits and entrances.

The top blue arrow points to the back exit.  Some escaped this way, but that exit was then blocked by a fleeing patron. He feared the shooter would come out and shoot people who were blocked by exiting the alley by a fence. The blue arrow on the right points to the patio exit. Some escaped out that exit.  Those that fled to the bathrooms (left side of the diagram) were trapped, with no way out.  Note the extremely short distances.  The furthest distance that the shooter could see a patron would have been about 84 ft.  Most would have been much closer.

This harrowing account has been given by someone who claimed to be the only survivor from one of the bathrooms. Norman is said to be the survivor who is relating his account to a woman friend. From the nypost.com:

“[Norman] was in a bathroom stall with 30 other people, and those 30 other people are deceased. He is the only one that lived,” she said.

(snip)

“When he laughed, he took his gun and sprayed under the bathroom stall and on top of the bathroom stall, so then the bodies started collapsing and blood was going everywhere in the handicapped stall, 30 people squished in there getting shot,” Ventura said.

“He was laughing like he was making fun of the victims.”

“Then Norman had to climb over the bodies to try to climb on top,” she continued. “He said it was just horrific. While he was getting shot, he felt the shots coming into his skin, he felt the warmth of it and he thought he was going to die.”

If the account is correct, most of the deaths occurred in the bathrooms, where people had nowhere to run.  Jamming people into a handicapped stall only made it worse.  The hostages were reportedly held in one of the bathrooms.

When you enter a venue, look for the exits and remember where they are.  If you have to flee, go to an exit.  Do not get trapped in a dead end.


©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

Abandon Ship and Brexit Cartoon

This is a stunning cartoon from Ben Garrison.  I will not publish it here because of copywrite issues.

 Ben Garrison Cartoon "Abandon Ship! Brexit, Great Britain's Escape "


The European Union could have been a viable entity, but the ruling bureaucracy kept grabbing more and more power, and used it to dictate to the member states way beyond what was necessary for a viable economic union.  Now, they are paying the price..  Not very gun related, exept the EU has just announced even more draconian gun rules that several members of the EU do not want.

Those rules will not increase security one bit, but they trample on rights and traditions cherished by many.  It also comes at a time when large numbers of Europeans are trying to obtain weapons for some sort of effective defense, that the various governments claim is not necessary against the migrant threat.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MI: Private Buyers Rescue Guns at Detroit "Buy Back"

On  Saturday, 11 June 2016, the Wayne County Sheriff and anti-Second Amendment activists held a gun turn in event at the Mathis Community Center.  The turn in was hyped by numerous local news media, providing free publicity for the event.  But the actual coverage of the event was remarkably free of any mention of the numerous private buyers who competed with the "buy back" organizers for the firearms that were brought to the event.

Photo Gallery of Detroit Gun Turn in Event with Private Buyers 

It may not have been hard to compete.  The gun turn in organizers only offered $50 for each gun turned in.  Any working gun is worth at least that.  From wxyz.com:

(WXYZ) - Thanks to a $25,000 donation, the Wayne County Sheriff's Office was able to buy back hundreds of guns from residents ready to unload.

No questions asked, $50 for a gun--that's an offer the Wayne County Sheriff's Office has made before, but this buyback was different.

You can see that quite a few decent guns made it past the private buyers to the turn in table.



There is a Browning Auto-5 or clone, some decent .22 rifles, a Smith & Wesson classic revolver or two, and much more.  It appears it was a great day to be offering cash for guns in Detroit.

It seems hard to explain the lack of any news coverage of the private buyers.  After all, according to the narrative set up by the turn in organizers, they should not be there.  People should be glad to turn in $500 shotguns and revolvers for $50.

In reality, it is easy to explain.  The news networks did not cover the private buyers for exactly that reason.  Private buyers destroy the narrative that guns are bad and should be turned in to police.  It shows that many people value guns, which are prized and desired for multiple purposes.

But the private buyers were there, and that sort of fact is increasingly hard to cover up from the editor's desk.  The private buyers organized on Facebook, and on local activity announcements.  They showed up, and the old media cannot put their presence in the memory hole any longer.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

MI: Two Teens Killed in Burglary Confrontation in Rural Jackson Co.

Chief of Police David Luce says officers were called to the 13000 block of Town road shortly before 7am for a shooting.

Officers responded and found two 18-year-olds dead in a yard near a home. Chief Luce says it appears there was a confrontation after a theft and someone at the home shot the teens. The chief says there is no threat to the public.

"It was a confrontation between the subjects that escalated into deadly force", said Luce. "There is no other threat, we're very confident with that, it was an isolated incident."
More Here

Followup WA:Police Investigate Pasco Shooting

It appears that Yeates was drunk.

Travis F. Yeates, 34, of Kennewick, was shot at 5619 Austin Drive about 2:30 a.m., according to investigators.

“The investigation is focusing on whether the shooting will be justified or not,” police wrote in a Facebook post.

Pasco police Capt. Ken Roske said the homeowner Corey Chapman called 911 about a man pounding on the front door and as officers arrived Chapman told dispatchers that the man had gotten inside.

Police heard a gunshot and found Yeates dead inside the house. Roske confirmed that Chapman fired the shot.

Read more here: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/crime/article83010847.html#storylink=cpy

More Here

Gun Muffler (Silencer/Suppressor) Status Map of the United States

Map at American Suppressor Association

Many American gun owners and shooters do not know that it is legal to own and use silencers, suppressors, or perhaps the most descriptive term gun mufflers, in the United States.  There are only a handful of states that cling to the antiquated notion the suppressors should be banned because ... guns....  There is no logical or rational argument to be made for that position, but it persists.

The states where suppressors are banned are the same tiny minority that persist with unreasonable and likely unconstitutional restrictions on the ownership and carry of firearms for personal protection.  Silencers are more suited to hunting and target practice.  The map shows that irrational hatred of firearms is what is driving the legislation. 

The eight states that still ban gun mufflers for non-government agents are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhoad Island.  All but one, Illinois, have highly restrictive "may issue" concealed carry regulations, and Illinois only adopted a "shall issue" law after loosing a legal fight in the federal circuit court.

While the map does not show it, New Hampshire recently changed their law to restore the right to hunt with suppressors, making 40 states where hunting with suppressors is legal.

The reasons for legal gun muffler ownership are so obvious, that passing legislation is mostly a task of educating the legislators.  This is not always and easy task, but it is straight forward.  In the recent bill in New Hampshire, the legislature listed these findings of fact. From bill HB 500:

2 Findings. The legislature finds that:

I. Firearm suppressors lessen the report of a firearm by approximately 30 decibels, thereby allowing hunters to more fully enjoy and participate in the sport.

II. Hunting with sound suppressors will help to lessen the hearing damage many hunters suffer from.

III. Hunting with a sound suppressor allows new, inexperienced hunters to hunt without ear plugs or ear muffs enabling them to hear important instructions from their mentors (parents, grandparents, or other responsible adults) who are hunting with them.

IV. Suppressors decrease the chance of asymmetrical hearing loss or shooters ear.

V. Hunting with suppressors lessens the ambient noise heard by neighbors who may be on adjoining property where hunting is taking place. While it does reduce the noise level of a firearm, the firearm is still loud enough so that a neighbor will know someone is shooting.

VI. In the 34 states that allow some form of hunting with suppressors not a single state has moved to repeal this practice. It makes for safer shooting and better neighbors.

VII. Firearm suppressors are heavily regulated by the federal government, which requires a $200 tax be paid, a background check conducted, fingerprints be given, sign off by a local chief law enforcement officer, and approximately a 9-month wait to get the paperwork completed before taking possession of a suppressor. This virtually guarantees that abuses with legally owned suppressors are extremely rare.

 Once legislators are made aware of these facts, legislation removing burdensome bans on silencers and hunting with silencers often passes both houses with bipartisan support at 90%.  It is hard to get 90% support for anything. 

Illinois appears the next state that is likely to remove its antiquated ban on gun mufflers.  The House passed the bill, but the legislature adjourned before the Senate voted on it.  There is still a chance for the Senate to vote, as the legislature will need to reconvene for a summer Session.  The NRA-ILA has a handy system to take action if you are so inclined.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

TX: Armed Business Owner Critically Wounds Burglary Suspect

The owner of the business, who was upstairs, heard the break-in and went downstairs, where he saw the burglars taking cash, police said. He shot a handgun at them, and they ran to a nearby vehicle and drove off.

About half an hour later, Jacolby Tremone McCoy was dropped off at Doctors Hospital at White Rock Lake with gunshot wounds, and hospital workers called police.

Police said there was enough evidence to charge McCoy, 29, with the Plano Road burglary.
More Here

Florida Pulse Gay Bar Mass Shooting was in a Gun Free Zone

Overhead of Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida


Yet another terrorist mass killing takes place in a gun free zone, this time in Florida.

The mass public killing that took place in Florida this morning at the self described "Orlando's hottest gay bar". From the pulseorlandoclub.com:

 Experience Pulse, a world of fun and fantasy. Orlando’s hottest gay bar located in the heart of downtown. Step inside Pulse and savor the taste of three unique worlds: The Lounge, Ultra Bar and The Adonis Room. Since 2004, Pulse has been serving up unmatched live entertainment and tantalizing liquid libations, courtesy of our renowned staff and entertainers. Check out our upcoming performances and join us for an exciting and unforgettable night of fun and fantasy.

 It is clear that Florida law prohibits people from legally carrying guns into Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.

Bars are one of a long list of places that Florida establishes as gun free zones. From Florida Statutes leg.state.fl.us:

(12)(a) A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into:
1. Any place of nuisance as defined in s. 823.05;
2. Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol station;
3. Any detention facility, prison, or jail;
4. Any courthouse;
5. Any courtroom, except that nothing in this section would preclude a judge from carrying a concealed weapon or determining who will carry a concealed weapon in his or her courtroom;
6. Any polling place;
7. Any meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special district;
8. Any meeting of the Legislature or a committee thereof;
9. Any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms;
10. Any elementary or secondary school facility or administration building;
11. Any career center;
12. Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose;
13. Any college or university facility unless the licensee is a registered student, employee, or faculty member of such college or university and the weapon is a stun gun or nonlethal electric weapon or device designed solely for defensive purposes and the weapon does not fire a dart or projectile;
14. The inside of the passenger terminal and sterile area of any airport, provided that no person shall be prohibited from carrying any legal firearm into the terminal, which firearm is encased for shipment for purposes of checking such firearm as baggage to be lawfully transported on any aircraft; or
15. Any place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law.
(b) A person licensed under this section shall not be prohibited from carrying or storing a firearm in a vehicle for lawful purposes.

Florida has the most concealed carry permits issued of any state in the nation, but it did the occupants of the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando no good because it is a gun free zone by state law.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

New Zealand CrimeThink on Guns for Self Defense

I have considered a trip to New Zealand, or to Australia.  Australia makes it very difficult to bring in hunting guns.  Not quite impossible, but you must apply for a permit to possess guns in Australia. It is fairly involved, including such things as sending them a letter from your local police chief months in advance of your trip.  New Zealand requires that you obtain a temporary firearms license, but it appears much easier to obtain, mostly done online. You are not required to pay any fees until you arrive in New Zealand, and the temporary license is good for a year or until you leave, whichever occurs first.  Both Australia and New Zealand have tremendous hunting opportunities.

When I was looking at the requirements for a temporary license, I noticed the requirements for a standard license.  While severe by American standards, it is less burdensome than many countries.  From police.govt.nz:

Someone will arrange to visit you. They will interview you and check your firearms security arrangements. They will arrange to interview your referees.
You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

• a history of violence
• repeated involvement with drugs
• been irresponsible with alcohol
• a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
• indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

The last bullet point caught my attention.  You have to be very careful what you say or write in New Zealand.  If you have ever indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defense, you are likely to be disqualified from owning one. 

In the United States, self defense is the primary purpose most people give for owning firearms. Self Defense used to be a pillar of English law, but as the British Empire tightened control over its overseas possessions, self defense was removed as a reason for owning weapons.  An attempt to disarm the American colonies was the spark that set off the American revolution.  The 1837 revolt/mutiny in India brought about severe changes in the weapons law by the British rulers.  Before the revolt/mutiny, Indians could own whatever weapons they could afford. After the Mutiny/Revolt was defeated, the new law required residents to apply for a permit to own weapons.

Self defense was not considered a proper reason for a permit.  A variation of that law was imported to England and Wales after the First World War.  Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm has documented how police regulation, rather than legislation,  eliminated the right to keep and carry weapons for self defense from English law.

The reasoning is obvious.  If self defense is a legitimate reason to own weapons, then every member of the polity can claim the right.  Removing the right to own weapons for self defense was a clear and calculated move by the British governing elite.

That concept transferred to the rest of the British commonwealth.  Restrictions on weapons for self defense were exported to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the 1920s.  India kept its British Empire weapons restrictions after independence, with slight revisions. As in England and Wales, it is police regulation that has been used to de-legitimize the use possession of weapons for self-defense in New Zealand.  From loc.gov:

The Arms Act and associated regulations are silent regarding the ownership or possession of firearms for the purposes of self-defense.  However, the Arms Code (a firearms safety manual and guidance document produced by the Police and the New Zealand Mountain Safety Council (NZMSC) and provided to license applicants) states the following:

Self-defence is not a valid reason to possess firearms. The law does not permit the possession of firearms ‘in anticipation’ that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence.

Citizens are justified in using force in self-defence in certain situations. The force that is justified will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. Every person is criminally responsible for any excessive use of force against another person.

A firearm is a lethal weapon. To justify the discharge of a firearm at another person the user must hold a honest belief that they or someone else is at imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm.[41]

All of these weapons laws are based on fear of armed revolt to overthrow the existing power structure.  The actual revolt succeeded in the United States, failed in India, and never was attempted in England and Wales, Canada, New Zealand, or Australia.

England and Wales, Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand had low crime rates before and after they de-legitimized the ownership of weapons for self defense.  The weapons law had no effect on crime.

To an American, it is a strange notion that merely talking about using weapons to defend yourself, could bar one from owning weapons.  It makes the appreciation of the Second Amendment acute.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

GA: Fulton County Having Trouble Organizing Gun Turn In, "buy back" (Atlanta)

The Fulton County Sheriff's Office is attempting to organize a gun turn in event in Atlanta, Georgia.  They hope to raise $100,000 to fund the event.  Two years ago, $40,000 was raised for a turn in event that brought in about a thousand firearms.  That event had competition from private buyers, who got some good deals.

There is a gofundme link for the event at the Sheriff Department website, but the link is not working.  At the site , Sheriff Ted Jackson states his support for the concept of gun turn ins.  The events are not really "buy backs" because the people buying the firearms never owned them before. From the Sheriff Department site:

Sheriff Ted Jackson agrees, “Gun Buy Back programs are effective deterrents to violence in our communities. Public safety depends upon gun owners being responsible with firearms. Proper disposal of weapons is a big part of that. This initiative will provide a safe way to discard unwanted weapons and members of the community can do their part to protect their neighbors from harm.”

The event was originally scheduled for 9 June, 2016, but the date has been slipped.  It may be that money has been hard to come by or the event has been more challenging to organize than previously thought.

Under Georgia law, the guns taken in by law enforcement can not be legally destroyed. They are required to be sold at auction every six months. Presumably, the last 1,000 guns taken in have been sold or are sitting in storage, somewhere.

The Atlanta police department is sitting on at least 6,000 guns as of six months ago. They have probably added another thousand since then.  They simply refuse to obey the law.  Currently, there are no penalties for the City's scoff-law actions.

The Sheriff may be considering where he will store the additional 3,000 guns that he hopes to get from this turn in event.

A writer on ar15.com states that the Sheriff department has moved the date back to at least 19 July. Turn in events have traditionally been held on weekends to maximize participation.  The move to the middle of the week might be an attempt to cut down competition from private buyers.  If the Sheriff department is going to sell the turned in weapons, they could make more profit.

A number of turn in events have brought in individual firearms worth thousands of dollars, but the average gun turned in brings about $150.  The Sheriff department is expecting people to donate $100,000 for gift cards to gain 3,000 firearms. They could make close to a half million dollars from the event.

If the Sheriff chooses to violate the law and not sell the firearms within six months, then the department will be required to store them for future sales.  I doubt that the Sheriff is allowed to simply destroy valuable public property through negligence. There are civil and criminal penalties for that sort of irresponsible behavior.

Georgia Second Amendment supporters are planning to offer cash to people bringing guns to the event.  Any working gun is worth more than $50. Nicer guns could bring several hundred, and rare ones, thousands. 

The private buyers provide a service for the whole community.  Poor widows get closer to market value for the firearms they wish to be rid of. More funds are available to the people organizing the turn in event to buy rusted, broken, and unsafe guns.

The Arizona legislature passed legislation to prevent the senseless destruction of valuable assets from gun turn in events a couple of years ago, following the Georgia example.  Disarmists claimed that it meant there would be no more gun turn in events, because they would not be able to destroy guns that were turned in.  As far as is known, no turn in events have been held in Arizona since the law was passed.

The Fulton County Sheriff may have a better understanding of reality.  With the possibility of turning a handsome profit from this event, there are plenty of reasons for him to move forward with it.  An actual date, time and place would be nice.  People need time to make plans to attend.

Definition of  disarmist

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Federal Court Rules: Legal Theft of Guns is not Legal

Law enforcement officers seize privately-owned firearms in a variety of situations. The problem, as we’ve written about previously, is that once a gun has been seized, the police often refuse to restore it to its lawful owner, even when the owner hasn’t done anything wrong: he or she hasn’t been convicted of or even accused of committing any crime, isn’t disqualified from possessing or owning firearms, and the gun isn’t needed for a police investigation or as evidence. When the value of the firearm is less than cost of the anticipated legal fees to contest the seizure and compel the return of the gun, many owners have little real choice but to forfeit their lawful property.

An obvious problem.

A federal court in Rhode Island has recently ruled that a municipality and its police chief violated a gun owner’s constitutionally protected due process rights by refusing to return his lawfully owned firearms for over six years, without providing a mechanism by which such seizures could be reviewed and resolved.

More Here

NC: Armed Resident Shoots Suspect Breaking into Home

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. (WNCN) – A man who allegedly broke into a Fayetteville home Saturday morning is in the hospital after getting shot by the man who lived there, police said.

Police responded to a shooting call at approximately 4:45 a.m. at a home located at 6808 Bianca Place.
More Here

NM:Armed Burglary Suspect Shot IDed as Shaquan Ketcham

Shaquan Ketcham was in critical condition at a local hospital Friday after he was shot early Wednesday morning, according to RRPD spokesman Lt. Nicholas Onken.

Onken said Ketcham, who lives in Albuquerque, broke into a home in the 1000 block of Luz de Sol in the Cabezon area of Rio Rancho before 2 a.m. Wednesday. He was armed with a handgun, Onken said.
More Here

NC gun dealer wins duel with bank that cited federal reg to drop him

A North Carolina gun seller won a duel with his local bank, after the lender denied his web-based business its services, erroneously citing a controversial banking regulation, he told FoxNews.com Thursday.

For months, Luke Lichterman had tried to get his Hometrust Bank branch to process purchases, but officials told him a 2013 Department of Justice regulation dubbed “Operation Choke Point” barred them from serving a “risky” business, he said.

"When I asked the bank representative what other businesses are considered 'risky,' the first word out of his mouth was 'pornography,’” Lichterman, who is 75 and disabled from a serious car accident, told FoxNews.com. “I was both deeply offended and highly amused by that.”

More Here

NH: Governor Hassan Signs the Silencer Hunting Bill

Governor Maggie Hassan, (D) New Hampshire, has signed HB 500 the bill that legalizes hunting with silencers in New Hampshire. From the American Silencer Association:

The American Suppressor Association is proud to announce that after 3 years and a lot of teamwork, suppressor hunting is now legal in the Granite State! Earlier today, Gov. Maggie Hassan signed Rep. John Burt’s (R-Hillsborough)HB 500 into law, making New Hampshire the 40th state to legalize suppressor hunting. We could not be more proud to have been part of the team that got this bill introduced, passed through both houses of the legislature, and finally signed into law!

From the HB 500:

1 Title. This act shall be known as the “The Hunters Hearing Protection Act.”

2 Findings. The legislature finds that:

I. Firearm suppressors lessen the report of a firearm by approximately 30 decibels, thereby allowing hunters to more fully enjoy and participate in the sport.

II. Hunting with sound suppressors will help to lessen the hearing damage many hunters suffer from.

III. Hunting with a sound suppressor allows new, inexperienced hunters to hunt without ear plugs or ear muffs enabling them to hear important instructions from their mentors (parents, grandparents, or other responsible adults) who are hunting with them.

IV. Suppressors decrease the chance of asymmetrical hearing loss or shooters ear.

V. Hunting with suppressors lessens the ambient noise heard by neighbors who may be on adjoining property where hunting is taking place. While it does reduce the noise level of a firearm, the firearm is still loud enough so that a neighbor will know someone is shooting.

VI. In the 34 states that allow some form of hunting with suppressors not a single state has moved to repeal this practice. It makes for safer shooting and better neighbors.

VII. Firearm suppressors are heavily regulated by the federal government, which requires a $200 tax be paid, a background check conducted, fingerprints be given, sign off by a local chief law enforcement officer, and approximately a 9-month wait to get the paperwork completed before taking possession of a suppressor. This virtually guarantees that abuses with legally owned suppressors are extremely rare.

The growth in the use and popularity of suppressors has, politically, been like the sprouting of mushrooms after a rainstorm in the spring.  Everything necessary has been there, waiting.  And this is just the beginning.  There are likely a million legal silencers, suppressors, or gun mufflers, whatever you wish to call them, in the United States at this time.  The demand has been suppressed because of idiotic laws passed in the 1930s, as "progressives" demanded more control over everything related to guns.  The laws never had a good reason for existence, but the burdensome taxes and irrational regulations managed to chill the natural demand for gun mufflers.  Even with that horrible burden, the number of legal suppressors is growning exponentially.

In most countries of the world, silencers are easier to own and use than firearms.  If you can own a firearm, owning a suppressor is not a problem.

U.S. legislators are being educated about the insanity of current U.S. law.  If Donald Trump is elected President, it is likely that current law will be reformed. The proposed reform would put silencers in the same legal category as rifles and shotguns, instead of being treated like artillery and land mines.  When the requirements to own a silencer no longer takes mounds of paperwork, nine month wait times, and $200 in taxes for a $100 product, silencer ownership will skyrocket.

The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 3799, is unlikely to pass this year.  Proponents believe that President Obama would veto it.  It is a very simple bill:

To provide that silencers be treated the same as long guns.

Representative Matt Salmon from Arizona introduced the bill.

In Europe, silencers are treated as the safety devices they are.  A way to reduce noise pollution and to safeguard hearing.  They use is encouraged, and sometimes required.   That commonsense approach is coming to the United States.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch