Uncategorized

Uncategorized

Taking Liberties With The Law

February 20, 2012 by 2 Comments

When the North Carolina General Assembly passed the omnibus HB 650 which contained many changes in the state’s gun laws, they included a provision that would allow concealed carry in state, municipal, and county parks. However, thanks to an amendment by former Rep. David Guice (R-Transylvania) they allowed cities and counties to continue to ban concealed carry at recreational facilities if they so chose. Guice justified the exemption for recreational facilities by saying “I’ve seen firsthand the violence on the Little League field.”

From Section 21.b.:

A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term “recreational facilities” includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility.“

As can be seen above, the law was very specific as to what constituted a “recreational facility”. Moreover, the prohibition applies only to that facility and not to the park within it resides.

Unfortunately, certain cities within North Carolina have started to take liberties with this exemption.The latest to do so is the City of Greensboro. The Greensboro City Council will consider an ordinance amending their law on Tuesday. According to the supporting memoranda from city staff, they are construing the exemption to include the entire park in which the recreational facility is located. The ordinance itself is somewhat vague though given how it is presented by city staff I think it may be reasonable to expect they mean the whole park.

Grass Roots North Carolina has issued an alert on the changes in Greensboro.

Like some others, Greensboro is being rather creative in their reading of a clearly laid out law. The ordinance they will be considering Tuesday night takes the following interesting liberties with the new law:

  1. It bans whole parks which *contain* recreational facilities;
  2. Tries to say the legislature “changed” the word “parks” to “recreational facilities;” and
  3. It fails to specifically name the “recreational facilities” where guns are banned.


If we were too polite with the above, let us be clearer. These are the ways they will be BREAKING THE LAW if allowed to go forward with this plan. Now in the creative logic they are applying in reaching these conclusions, they may not even be aware that they will be breaking the law. It is up to you to make them aware of this.

They are asking for people to contact Greensboro City Council to make their displeasure known and the link above has a pre-written message.

I can’t say I’m surprised by the actions of the Greensboro City Council. I grew up in the city and it has changed significantly since I left it after college. Though I still own the house I grew up in, the author Thomas Wolfe was right when he said you can’t go home again.

Uncategorized

Breitbart On The Media Ignoring Operation Fast And Furious

February 19, 2012 by 2 Comments

Andrew Breitbart was interviewed by Ginni Thomas (Mrs. Clarence Thomas) for the Daily Caller regarding Operation Fast and Furious.

Fast and Furious happened, Breitbart explained, “for the purposes of creating a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights. I don’t think the most sinister screenwriter could imagine a government that would abide by that, let alone the media to cover that up.”

A teaser for the full interview is below. The article notes the full interview will be available on Monday.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA On Obama’s FY2013 Budget

February 18, 2012 by 1 Comment

When President Obama told Sarah Brady that he planned to fly under the radar on gun control, he wasn’t kidding. Having looked at the Federal Budget for Fiscal Year 2013 for the last couple of days, I can assure you that the average person would have a hard time finding what is buried in it.

However, the NRA-ILA has people on staff that have the expertise to muddle through the budget. Below is their response posted yesterday:

Barack Obama’s careful effort to hide his anti-Second Amendment agenda is starting to come undone. The latest evidence is found in the budget he sent to Congress this past week.

As we reported last fall, NRA was very successful in having a number of provisions included in the annual spending bills that are important protections for our rights. Obama grudgingly signed the Fiscal Year 2012 spending bills that contained those “riders,” although in his signing statement, he announced his intent to defy some. Now, in Obama’s FY 2013 budget, he proposes eliminating many of them outright.

One of the most egregious is the deletion of a provision first added for FY 2012 that prohibits any future “Fast & Furious” style operations. In an official summary, the administration says the restriction is “not necessary.”

“Not necessary”? Obama may trust Eric Holder and the senior officials at the Department of Justice, but Congress and the American people certainly should not. Holder’s refusal to fully cooperate with congressional investigations is proof enough that this sort of reckless operation should be specifically banned.

Two other provisions first passed for FY 2012 were also put on the chopping block. One prohibits a ban on the importation of shotguns deemed by the BATFE to be non-“sporting.” Congress passed this to block an Obama administration plan to expand the use of the “sporting purposes” test once again, this time to ban the importation of many popular defensive, target shooting and hunting shotguns. Removing this provision is clearly a first step toward implementing a new import ban.

The other new provision for 2012 was a ban on the use of tax dollars to lobby for new gun laws. Obama signaled that he would take this step when he announced at the bill signing for the 2012 legislation that he and his administration would not be bound by that provision. And in his budget, Obama would get rid of that restriction entirely.

Another provision deleted was a prohibition on the use of funds for anti-gun research at the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control. These prohibitions have been passed by Congress to stop these groups from funding junk science “studies” in support of new restrictions on gun rights.

Obama also wants to get rid of the provision that stops the Department of Defense from destroying surplus M1 Garands and M1 carbines—a provision that has been in place for over 30 years. And he wants to drop a provision that stops the destruction of spent military brass. Without these protections, thousands of surplus rifles could be destroyed instead of being sold to law-abiding Americans through the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and millions of recyclable brass cases will be melted down as scrap rather than being made available to reloaders.

There is good news for gun owners, though. No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.

So why oppose these provisions now? Is it an election-year signal to his anti-gun base voters? Or is he finally showing his true beliefs and giving up his pretense of support for the Second Amendment? Whatever the answer may be, gun owners should expect nothing but more anti-gun action on the part of the Obama Administration.

Uncategorized

Clearing An AR-15 Double Feed

February 17, 2012 by 1 Comment

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is back with another one of their video training tips. This one features Gunsite instructor Bob Whaley showing how to clear a double (or more) feed in your AR-15. As Whaley notes, slamming the bottom of your magazine to make sure it is seated can sometimes cause the rounds to “volcano” as he puts it.

Uncategorized

The Bradys – The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight

February 17, 2012 by 1 Comment

The Brady Bunch aka the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (sic) is confused. They don’t seem to know who leads their organization.

On February 6th, they announced with great fanfare that Dan Gross had been “elected” President of the Brady Campaign.

Washington, D.C. – The Board of Trustees of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center today announced that Dan Gross, the co-founder and Executive Director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence (formerly PAX), has been elected the new President of the nation’s largest gun violence prevention organizations….

Dan Gross replaces Paul Helmke, a lawyer and former Mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, who stepped down July 10, 2011. Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at Brady, served as acting president in the interim.

They even got USA Today to buy into Gross being elected as opposed to hired and Paul Helmke stepping down as opposed to the reality of not having his contract renewed.

Youth anti-violence advocate Daniel Gross has been elected to head the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Center, the Washington-based organization promoting gun control plans to announce Monday…

Gross is cofounder and executive director of the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and was elected to the Brady post by the organization’s board of trustees. He replaces former Brady president Paul Helmke, former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., who announced in June he would step down on July 10. Helmke’s resignation followed a five-year commitment he’d made to serve the organization starting in 2006.

So it was interesting to read the February 16th press release where the Brady Campaign announced their 2011 state-by-state “scorecard” which ranks states on the degree of oppressiveness of their gun control regime. It had this tidbit in it.

“Guns don’t fall from the sky into the hands of criminals,” said Brady Acting President Dennis Henigan. “All too often, crime guns come from gun dealers in the states that stubbornly refuse to enact common sense, lifesaving gun laws. Every day, a river of illegal guns flows out of the states with weak gun laws, victimizing families in states that are doing their best to protect their residents. It is no accident that the states with the weakest gun laws are the exporters of death and injury.”

Has Dan Gross said to himself after being on the job 10 days “Omigod! I can’t take any more of these losers! It is worse than I expected and I wasn’t expecting much.” Or is it that the memo that the Bradys have a new president just not get out to all their PR staffers? Regardless, I’m glad they remain the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.

Uncategorized

The Seven Varieties Of Gun Control Advocate

February 17, 2012 by

Gus Cotey, Jr. in an article posted on the JPFO website has classified gun control advocates into seven categories. He goes into detail about the characteristics of each category. The seven varieties are:

  1. Elitists
  2. Authoritarians
  3. Criminals
  4. The Fearful
  5. Ideological Chameleons
  6. Security Monopolists
  7. The Dysfunctionally Unworldly

 As he notes about these classifications:

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.

I think Cotey’s post is well worth a read since it is essential to know our opposition if we are to preserve our gun rights.

Uncategorized

Andrew Traver – Seeking That Rocky Mountain High?

February 16, 2012 by

I’m not sure how I missed this but Katie Pavlich is reporting that Andrew Traver, SAC of the ATF’s Chicago Field Division and Obama’s nominee to head ATF, is transferring from Chicago to be the SAC of the Denver Field Division.

President Obama’s pick for ATF director, anti-gun Andrew Traver, has been transferred from his position as special agent in charge of the ATF Chicago Field Division, to head up the Denver division. According to sources, the move came after Traver felt frustrated his confirmation for ATF director had been stalled in the Senate for nearly a year. The estimated cost to transfer Traver is nearly a million taxpayer dollars, all because his feelings are hurt.

Traver will replace Marvin Richardson (no relation). According to the rumors at CUATF, Richardson will now be the Deputy Assistant Director of the Office for Public and Governmental Affairs replacing Scot Thomasson who is now the Acting SAC of the San Francisco Field Division.

Vincent Cefalu had this to say about the moves on Feb. 11th:

WORD IS:
Andy Traver’s feelings are hurt because he got played as a pawn for the Director job. He told ATF to make things right he wants to be the SAC in Denver. ATF is going to move out the current Denver SAC, who is known to ATF to have offered “lack of candor” answers to the questions of Federal investigators and make give him a spot in PGA, the DAD job recently opened when they moved out Scot Thomason.

FIRST, SINCE WHEN DO WE MAKE MULTIPLE MOVES TO APPEASE ANYBODY. MR. TRAVER, TWO WORDS. MOBILITY AGREEMENT. YOU PICKED CHICAGO NOW STAY THERE AND DO YOUR JOB.RICHARDSON, BE THANKFUL YOUR REPEATED LACK OF CANDOR AND MISMANAGEMENT DIDN’T GET YOU FIRED. YOU STAY IN THE JOB YOU ASKED FOR ALSO.NOW THOMASSON IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL. HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION OF MANAGEMENT SINCE HE IS THE SELF PROCLAIMED HELLS ANGEL RICO EXPERT WHO ALMOST TANKED A GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION. AND NOT TO FORGET HE WAS COMFORTABLE (FULL WELL KNOWING BETTER), TOUTING THE COMPANY LINE THAT WE NEVER WALKED GUNS. Now, Mr. Jones and Mr. Brandon, what do we the field get for just saving the Bureau and the taxpayers the unnecessary expenditure of a million dollars?

Uncategorized

I Can’t Believe CNBC Bought This Nonsense

February 16, 2012 by 3 Comments

Yesterday, Elliot Fineman of the Brady offshoot National Gun Victims (sic) Action Council was interviewed by Melissa Lee of CNBC. The interview centered on his group’s boycott of Starbucks due to their policy of neutrality on gun issues. Fineman said the boycott would be ongoing. Of course, no mention was made of the Valentine’s Day BUYcott by either Fineman or CNBC.

The story was presented in such a way as to give credence to Fineman’s claims that the boycott would impact Starbucks. When  pressed on how it would be determined that his group’s boycott was hurting Starbucks’ bottomline, Fineman said that they were using self-reported data from their supporters on how much they were not spending at Starbucks.

Excuse me but self-reported data from their “followers” is not exactly reliable data from which to make projections. Fineman then says that their Monte Carlo simulations show that 90% of the time their boycott will have “a significant impact on the Starbucks’ stock.” Having used Monte Carlo simulation with retirement planning for years, I understand the results you get are very dependent upon both the constraints and the input data. In other words, if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out and that is exactly what they are getting.

It is very hard to prove a negative unlike a positive. The results from the BUYcott can be shown by an increase in sales for February 14th. However, a decline in sales over time would be hard to attribute to just the boycott by Fineman’s group. There are many other factors like the state of the economy and competitors (like McDonalds) which come into play which are much more significant.

Fineman goes on to say that institutional investors who own 357 million shares of Starbucks’ stock should be able to make their own decision based upon his studies. However, they don’t plan to go to the institutional investors to pressure them to pressure Starbucks.

If Fineman is so confident in his projections, then he should have no problem presenting them to investors nor have a problem with pressuring these same institutional investors. I would speculate the reason he won’t be “pressuring” the institutional investors is because he knows he would be laughed out of the room.

Uncategorized

The EPA Denies a Petition to Restrict Lead Tackle

February 16, 2012 by 1 Comment

The gun prohibitionists and anti-hunting/fishing groups are grasping for anything they can use to stop the lawful exercise of shooting, hunting, and fishing. In this release from the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, we see that the Center for Biological Diversity was stopped in their attempt to regulate fishing tackle due to lead. Unfortunately, I doubt they will stop their attempts just because the EPA told them to take a hike.

Science has prevailed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD)—an anti-sportsmen group—that would have precipitated significant restrictions on lead fishing tackle all over the United States. The CBD wanted the EPA to use the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to heavily regulate anglers from using tackle they have long used even though science doesn’t support such a measure. The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) has been, and will continue to, fight such unscientific lead bans and restrictions at the state and federal level.

In a letter to the CBD on February 14, 2012 the EPA wrote:

After careful review, EPA has determined that, while the petition does provide evidence of exposure and a risk to waterfowl in some areas of the United States, it does not provide a basis for finding that the risk presented is an unreasonable risk for which federal action under section 6(a) of TSCA is necessary to adequately protect against such risks. Accordingly, EPA is denying your request to initiate a proceeding for the issuance of a rulemaking under Section 6(a) of TSCA to adequately protect against risks posed by fishing tackle containing lead of various sizes and uses that are ingested by wildlife…. Your petition does not demonstrate why federal action is necessary given the mix of regulatory and education actions state agencies and the Federal Government already are taking to address the impact of lead fishing tackle on local environments.”

When the CBD began its quest for this unwarranted restriction on fishing tackle in 2010, the CSF responded by working with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) in Washington, D.C., and with the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses (NASC), which serves as the umbrella organization for launching and working with state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses now active in 39 state legislatures, to demand such regulations should be based on sound science and under state jurisdictions. The Executive Council for the NASC, and several state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, wrote letters to
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson asking that she deny the CBD petition. Meanwhile, the CSF rallied legislators in the CSC and in caucuses around the country to demand that any such ban be based on real scientific evidence; after all, the cost to anglers would be real if affordable tackle is taken off the shelves. The EPA subsequently denied the CBD’s first petition.

However, the CBD filed a new petition with the EPA in November of 2011. This petition asked the EPA to evaluate the unreasonable risk of injury from lead fishing tackle, and to begin proceedings for rule making under Section 6 of TSCA. The CSF stayed engaged at all levels of government. The NASC sent letters from various state sportsmen’s caucuses, including Alaska, Arkansas, Indiana, Oregon and South Carolina, to point out that state natural resource agencies are in a better position to respond to any localized concerns and that such a restriction is not biologically justified as no studies have shown that fishing tackle is impacting loon or other waterfowl populations.

Also, on April 14, 2011, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838 and H.R. 1558) was introduced into both chambers of Congress by the chairs of the CSC—Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD) and Representatives Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Mike Ross (D-AR). This legislation is another way the CSF has been working to prevent a federal ban on lead in recreational fishing tackle. It would clarify the TSCA exemption for ammunition and establish a similar exemption for fishing tackle. The Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act would put an end to attempts to over-regulate the recreational fishing and hunting industries and protect the rights of anglers and hunters who choose to sustainably enjoy their sports.

Jeff Crane, president of the CSF, says, “Sportsmen and wildlife won a big battle. Though we doubt the Center for Biological Diversity will stop this ideological attack on fishing, the EPA has decided against an unscientific restriction of lead fishing tackle. The state legislative sportsmen’s caucuses, under the umbrella of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, have once again represented their angling constituents admirably.”

If the EPA agreed to this ban it would have been an unjustified fishing restriction at the federal level. Wildlife management in the United States has been a model to the rest of the world because we have successfully managed wildlife at the population level. There is no evidence that lead fishing tackle is causing negative population-level impacts, therefore forcing anglers to replace their lead tackle with costly alternatives would be an unnecessary burden to America’s fishermen and an impediment to fishing participation.

Other sportsmen’s groups, most notably the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), have also been instrumental in fighting back these unnecessary restrictions on America’s anglers right to fish. Click here for more on the conservation communities’ position on lead.

Uncategorized

Grass Roots NC On Anti’s “Eat In Peace” Campaign

February 16, 2012 by

North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (sic) are starting a campaign called Eat in Peace. The aim is to encourage restaurants to post their establishments against legal carry if HB 111 passes.

Grass Roots North Carolina is calling them out on some of their lies and misstatements.

North Carolinians “Against Gun Violence” is publishing lies to disarm law-abiding restaurant patrons.

On its website, NCGV blatantly and dishonestly claims that HB 111 will “…force family restaurants and bars to allow loaded, concealed guns.” See promulgation of this flagrant lie below and here: http://grnc.org/gun-ban-advocates-lie-about-restaurant-carry.

The fact is that HB 111 will not prevent restaurant owners from posting against carry should they (unwisely) choose to do so. GRNC has always supported the property rights of restaurant owners while protecting the rights of gun owners.

Restaurant Association does not oppose restaurant carry

This is why THE NC RESTAURANT & LODGING ASSOCIATION (NCRLA) DOES NOT OPPOSE RESTAURANT CARRY AND HB 111! A letter documenting NCRLA’s position on HB 111 is available here: http://grnc.org/ncrla-and-hb-111.

The only thing NCRLA ever opposed was an effort by anti-gun Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake, GRNC 0 star) to force restaurant servers to question patrons about whether they are armed – a hostile amendment GRNC removed from the bill long ago!

Republican lawmakers are deceived

The real tragedy is that Republican lawmakers have joined in NCGV’s self-embarrassment by allowing themselves to be swayed by disinformation and tainted polls. As a result, HB 111 languishes in committee and has not been brought up for the hearing it deserves.

Will it require the deaths of more North Carolinians in Restaurant Homicides to force lawmakers to see the truth?

Danielle RIP

What about Restaurant Homicide?

Victims of Restaurant Homicide like Danielle Watson and her unborn child — viciously stabbed to death just a few weeks ago by an ex-con in a restaurant where she was prohibited by law from protecting herself – indicate that a more appropriate slogan for NCGV’s disinformation campaign is not “Eat in Peace, but rather…

“Rest In Peace”

How many more mothers and children will have to die in NC restaurants before the General Assembly rescinds dangerous laws mandating defenselessness?