I think they retracted within a day, ie before this went to publication. An editor should have caught that. The concealed carry numbers are a red herring unless I am missing a valid connection between those gun owners and massacres? Hundreds of thousands to millions are already in circulation and there is no way we will get legislation that in any fashion resembles registration, ie the foundation of the idea of every gun being traceable to legal owners and them being held accountable. That is a non-starter that will erode the s of any base legislation like this needs.
Additional reporting by HuffPost has not found any credible links between the two. Its not a viable claim to make any longer. Bring back check your weapons when you ride into town. Every citizens has the right to bear arms and to protect his life and the life of his family! California already has all of the laws that the other states are talking about enacting and we know how well that has worked out.
A criminal or psycho will always find a way to kill others cars, bombs, fire, etc… and that will never change. If the teachers were better armed and trained, the mayhem would have been far less. Big Brother will protect us, if we just give him the chance! This is the crock of crap the liberals believe in. If some armed person, other than the shooter had been on scene, this probably would not have become a mass shooting. Or if some unstable person had no access to a weapon this mass shooting would not have happened at all. It sounds like he should have been arrested or involuntarily committed a while ago which would have eliminated his ability to purchase.
But the current police and FBI apparatus failed. Its ironic, as those with mental illness are more likely to be the victims of violence not the perpetuators. Mental health practitioners already have to report viable threats to self or others but that metric is designed by professionals who know the field. Now we as a nation want to involve the sentiments of lay citizens into an already stigmatized population?
Its a sad situation. I think we should talk about it and seek solutions. But so much of the content of alleged solutions are knee jerk responses not ideas that substantively reduce the risk without unduly eroding personal liberty.
- Some Convenient Lies About Assault Weapons.
- What is Kobo Super Points?.
- The Mystery of the Ivory Charm (Nancy Drew Mysteries, Book 13).
- Gun Digest's Learning Combat Shooting Concealed Carry Handgun Training eShort!
- Best Personal Defense Weapon.
- Search Results.
I think we can take a page from other places like Canada for example. That type of weapon is categorized as restricted. It means you have to jump through some hoops and it can take about six weeks, but it helps to eliminate the chance of them ending up in the wrong hands. I get the Second Amendment, but we make it too easy for any Tom, Dick or Harry to walk in and buy whatever they desire.
One thing is certain, all this sitting on our hands and doing nothing while the next mass shooting is looming is unproductive. For me, the lives of our children far outweigh the words in the constitution which can and should be amended in times where needed to protect them from ourselves. I worry that the manufacturers will continue to be savvy enough to circumvent the letter and spirit of any such law and make weapons that just barely exist outside the definitions that make it restricted. Sitting on our hands is definitely accomplishing nothing except endangering more students. Appreciate the thoughtful response.
Exactly, big brother just like the russian communist atheist bolshevik regime that murdered millions of innocent people—their own citizens. Atheist communist regimes have been far more murderous than any christian theocracies. I love the either or. We must accept Christian supremacy or become victims of Russian Bolsheviks. Red Scare much? How about we not assume the supremacy and alleged certainty of either and deal with the nuances of American culture, including guns? The good guy with a gun argument has largely been rhetorical. I have seen a few incidents that were true but its largely untested.
What happens with all of these people suddenly brandishing arm in an uncontrolled, low information active shooter situation? How do untrained lay people distinguish between the good guy and the one doing the massacring once multiple people are involved? When I suggest that a big problem in society now is contributed largely to a lack of God in our schools and the broken moral fiber in this Country, I base that on findings from leading Sociologists like W.
I rely on these types of opinions, and just common sense from personal experience, these are people who practice a religion on a regular basis, not someone who may have attended a meeting or two at some point in their life. So what would those numbers look like in a nation that is supposedly predominately Christian? You would think the supposed supremacy of your god would be able to survive the free will he supposedly created and instill the alleged morals you posit.
I mean if they are so all powerful and relevant they would be welcome with open arms in a free, critical thinking society, right? Learn to deal in nuance the first time if you want your ideas taken seriously. Over the Edge, pls give it a rest with the line breaks. Give up all your guns to Big Brother, Ed.
History has shown us just how quickly governments can turn to tyranny and oppress and brutalize their own citizens. People will lose interest in this in a few days and be on to the next iphone version coming out or some trivial little craze like that, at least until the next massacre. The public has a very short attention span. Why would a 19 year old need an AR? Restrictions on renting a car are better than buying a gun. The only person under the age of 21 or so that should be able to carry a gun like that is one that has been trained by the military or law enforcement.
Until we can fix that, we are sadly going to keep seeing these types of mass shootings. ARplatform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since Please correct them. ARstyle rifles look like military rifles, such as the M, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers. Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition. They are true all-weather firearms. Chamberings include. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm,.
Gun Digest's Concealed Carry Mindset & Principles eShort Collection
There are even. These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. ARstyle rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the Springfield and. The point is when look at all the mass shootings in our country they involve an AR or some form of it. If you still think the AR is not to blame then you are part of the problem.
It is not an assault weapon.. The plastic does not make it fire any faster than putting flame stickers on your car makes your car go faster.. Well mister know it all, maybe you should do better research because an AR15 is made from aluminum and polycarbon fiber, not plastic. Not fake news but from the manufacturer themselves. I have carried and fired both versions of this military weapon.
Even qualified as expert using the m16 before serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Call me a snowflake all you want but the only difference is the full auto switch. Sad world you must live in John. It is essentially the same rifle without the scary plastic trim.. The term is definitely problematic but mostly because gun- control advocates mistakenly assumed it was synonymous with assault rifle, which its not. And the gun control advocates are rightfully dealing with pushback after conflating those terms for years.
But the AR is an assault weapon and has gained prominence in the home defense and prepper communities because of many of the properties that define that awkward category. Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through their intentional ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause….
Its definitely an assault weapon. Even Gun Digest discredits your notion, ie copy and pasted from a website, that the term was created by anti-gun activists. Phillip Petersen wrote the Buyers Guide and references its use in the manufacturing industry before activist took it on. Its been used for ages to loosely define semi-automatic weapons that look like or patterned off of their military counterparts. The fact is certain gun enthusiasts and their own activists organizations have been trying to erase the terms complex history to frame the narrative against its ban-like emphasis.
And your are failing. As a gun owner and 2nd Ammendment rights defender I am fully aware of your copy and paste definition and narrative and find it laughable. If its just a pea-shooter than why are you folks always worked up about the national conversation. I know why, as its a disingenuous attempt to minimize its well-marketed benefits and why its sales go out of the roof in moments like this. Because its not like there are a plethora of sites that explicitly talk about its tactical benefits during assault-like situations.
Or that its a go-to platform for preppers and home defense enthusiasts. Yep, pea shooter. The liberal media says it is, you are a tool of the liberal media.. Face it. Too bad the plastic scares you so badly.. Wow, do you even read what you write before posting it. You laid out a basic difference between the two in your post, which most educated people agree on, beyond the exact history of the assault weapon usage.
Your ideas are beyond ridiculous. At least try to be consistent with your basics, John, if you want your ideas to be taken seriously at all. Interesting, as Phillip Peterson is a licensed gun dealer who wrote an entire guide on assault weapons and included the AR? Wonder why that would be? Especially for a common resource like Gun Digest. Its almost like there is evidence that is inconsistent with your narrow, political worldview.
It uses the same magazines and fires exactly the same way. I happen to be a licensed dealer too. I have been for over 35 years. Never said you said an AR was full automatic, I highlighted how you were incorrect about about assault weapons being banned according to your own definition. So now the definition of assault weapon is defined by its use the military?
Changing the definition again? Is it a political creation or not, like you originally claimed? You are the only one mentioned the Ruger. An industry guide that includes both guns as assault weapons. How could that be? God waa taken out of schools. God is a threat to your existence and your goal is to take God out of everything. You could actually argue the Christian faith, the god you are clearly referring to, has more blood on its hands than any number of school massacres throughout history could catch up to.
Its empty rhetoric that relies more on the vengeful god of the old testament instead of the Christ-like teachings of the New. You on the other hand, just want to argue. Good for You! Have a blessed day! Never mentioned anything about the existing of god. But you came on a public forum trying to claim not believing in your god is why we have violence. Its an asinine idea given the amount of death created in the name of your god. Its not even logical.
If you actually have some support for your claim than share it. If not, stop vomiting your personal faith over everyone as if it is anything more than a lazy cop out for actually having to work to make our schools safer. Listen, people like,you keep taking God out of everything, God offends you. I get it. Hearts without God is a problem. Somethings wrong when you take God out of hearts, homes, schools, marriage. And someone out there, reading my comments, has gotten healing, or has felt like they are not alone.
Not once have I said anything about the validity of your god. When did I say I was offended by your faith? Another lie. I am challenging your action. And no…. There are plenty of Christians doing amazing things that honor their faith and also help society in these moments. What you are doing is the opposite. I refuse to accept the ideas that school age children are collateral in your game of religious supremacy. I get it, you dont believe in God, therefore, you will never understand what I speak.
I fully understand what you speak but its unChristian-like, ie honoring the New Testament and the teachings of Jesus. Gun laws are a deflection from the real issue of school responsibility to protect students. Obama had eight years to enact gun laws and chose not to. Gun laws dont work, in fact, the more laws, the more murders.
Ask Chicago. For schools to allow access and then watch a psychopath mow down its students is unacceptable. There are no automatic weapons sold without extreme permits. This allows time for intervention but hiding under a desk invites carnage. Democrat extreme hypocrisy is tiresome. They had a chance in to work on this but chose highly flawed Obamacare with no bipartisan support. Politicizing tragedy is tragic. And no, Obama did not have eight years to pass gun laws.
The Dems in Congress never had enough votes to force a bill through. Given gun control laws almost always pass along party lines they never had a chance. It apropos that you mention the ACA. Its an example of how gun control never stood a chance. They always blame the NRA and their donations. The facts are their donations are a fraction of what politicians get. The Unions spent 1. Plan Parenthood gave 38 million to Democratics so they will allow millions of unborn babies to dies.
The NRA has only given million in the last 20 years so to say politicians are beholden to them is just another way for people to divided the country. If the current laws would be enforced and help given to those with mental Illness would go a long way to help solve this problem. Add in school security and we would be on the right tract but just screeming we have to do something, anything will not solve the problem.
If, like they stated, there was a single entry system and security cameras filming and dozens of office people and staff why did none of them stop him at the gates. Its not like you can hide one of those and not be noticed. Even though it was in a bag the bag itself does not resemble anything that a normal person would take to school. If people had been observant and reported this and contained him as they saw it I am sure it would have made a difference. Did the school system itself fail to keep the students safe? But Ed, the Dems pushed thru Obamacare without a single Republican vote.
In fact, guns are the only solution right now to shooters like Cruz. Hiding under a desk and watching your students get shot while waiting for the police is cowardly and unacceptable. Nicholas Johnson, of TheGunBlog. Is it fair to say that there is a tiny minority of licensed gun owners selling guns illegally? Yes, of course. Does this represent some sort of systemic problem? Absolutely not. Blair Hagen of the NFA tells us, concerning this straw purchase issue,.
Constitutional Carry is usually defined as any form of loosened gun restrictions where no permit is required to possess or to carry a firearm, whether carried openly or concealed, or whether loaded or unloaded. Let's run through the current status of each one with an explanation of where they all are in the process right now and what we suspect will be the outcome of each:. State Sen.
Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, filed the bill that would allow residents to carry a concealed pistol without a permit. Too tough to call. With a Republican Governor and 3 to 1 Republican House and Senate, this should be an easy win in most states, and it may still be here. Arkansas is an unusual and complicated animal, in that it can be argued that it already has constitutional carry, provided you read Act that was passed in correctly.
It should be obvious to most that the Act made the carrying of such a weapon only illegal if the carrier had the intention to harm somebody - thereby establishing permitless carry. CR, Jamie Taff v. For all intents and purposes, this case ends the debate on Constitutional Carry in Arkansas. It is now legal to carry a loaded firearm open or concealed throughout the state. State Rep. Brandt Smith, R-Jonesboro, was able to get nonbinding Resolution declaring that Arkansas is a constitutional carry state where permits are not required to carry firearms passed through the House on Thursday, February 14th, An identical resolution will be going to the Senate and if that passes, the presumption is that it will go through the process once again, but this time as a fully binding bill.
Although the matter is settled in the eyes of the law, this will make it harder to repeal since it will then be proven to be passed by the legislature and not simply by a court decision. It makes no difference; this one is a done deal. Regardless of what other legislation is passed in the state, we shaded Arkansas in fully green as we now consider the state to have full constitutional carry rights. As well as granting full constitutional carry, it removes restrictions from carrying in parks, historic sites, wildlife management areas, public transportation, and 42 specific recreational areas.
It also removes any and all restrictions against carrying of arms while hunting or fishing. The bill faces resistance from Democrats and even a few Republicans, but it still seems likely to move forward. Likely to pass , although there could be some hurdles to overcome. The Governor has made statements in the past that seem to point to a strong likelihood of signing the bill if and when it gets to his desk, so the only probable stumbling block would be the votes themselves.
On Monday, February 11th, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill eliminating the permitting requirement for carrying a firearm. It still needs to go to the House and Senate for votes there. The bill, SF , needs to now get through the House and Senate, then be passed by the governor. The biggest problem in Iowa is that Governor Kim Reynolds has made comments that strongly put into doubt her willingness to sign any sort of permitless carry bill and has called the current law requiring a background check in order to get a gun permit, "good policy.
Not a good chance of passing. While obviously still a possibility, Iowa has in recent years been a more or less purple state, with a typical number of Republican legislators leery of passing any bills that some constituents would claim are too extreme. Squeaking this one through the House could be tricky, although the Senate looks easier. Any Constitutional Carry bill presented in a split legislature has the deck stacked against it from the start, although not a lot is known about Whitmer's positions on firearms.
Probably not going to pass. We just can't get past the glaring issue of having a Democrat Governor, no matter who it is. Any Democrat, even if it was a pro-gun one, who be in an enormously difficult position of being under tremendous pressure from national Democrat politicians. Optimistic gun rights advocates look to do the unthinkable in Nevada, despite the current controversy over their impending universal background check by passing permitless carry.
Assembly Bill was introduced by Republican lawmakers on March 24th but appears to not have much of a chance in the newly Democrat-controlled state legislature. The backlash over universal background checks Senate Bill that passed last month may be partly responsible for the announcement of the measure. Almost zero chance of this passing anytime soon. If one state could be said to have less chance than any other in the country of passing permitless carry, this would be the one. This bill also makes it illegal to carry a gun into prisons, police stations, courthouses, the statehouse, and various other places.
Constitutional Carry has been attempted in at least 5 of the past 6 years and failed every time, usually in committee. Though the Senate and the House have more Republicans than Democrats, they don't overwhelm the minority with huge numbers, and the Governor, Roy Cooper, is a Democrat. In he made disparaging remarks about the wisdom in granting teachers the right to carry, and his personal satisfaction with the current permitting process makes it seem unlikely that he would sign any bill removing the necessity for permits.
Despite the overt concessions to the anti-gun crowd with the new restrictions that it would impose as outlined above, we just see it as unlikely that this bill would survive the triple whammy of having to endure committee hell in both chambers and be signed by a Democrat governor generally unfavorable to the idea — one who now would likely have even more pressure on him by the left not to sign it than even recent past governors would have had.
Fresh off a win that saw a law modified after a clerical error that would have inadvertently outlawed AR's, the state's gun groups think they just might have the numbers to do the same. Ohio's current House is strongly Republican, with the Senate even more so. Despite having proposed the bill before and having it fail, proponents believe that the recent wins in other states will help push the bill along.
HB was officially introduced on March 29th by Rep. Ron Hood, a Republican from Ashville and Rep. Tom Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati. Twenty-seven more Republican lawmakers are co-sponsoring the bill. This one could go either way. The GOP's numbers look quite good, but this is a traditionally purple state where it's likely that many of the Republicans in the legislature are somewhat left-leaning.
The bill was introduced on May 6th, at which time it was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The House and Senate currently enjoy Republican majorities, albeit razor-thin ones. As we've seen in other purple states, the possibility of a few wayward RINOs sinking the bill is very real. Like Michigan above, we just can't see any real likelihood of Constitutional Carry passing in a state with a Democrat governor, particularly one known to not be friendly to gun rights.
It also revises and removes some of the places where carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited. The process is still in the very early stages though, so details other than the bill itself make it difficult to tell how this one could go. Chances of this happening just got a lot worse. The House Whip, Russell Fry, is blocking the bill at the moment because of a fight with the sponsor of the bill.
Residents are encouraged to call his office and demand that he stop his antics and bring the bill back to the subcommittee for a vote. You can read all about it in our recent story, here. The blocks seem to be caused by RINOs using flimsy excuses to prevent full votes on either measure. Jonathan Stickland, a Republican from Bedford, sponsored the bill along with 14 other Representatives. The biggest problem right now appears to be that two Democrats chair the most pivotal committees standing in the way of Constitutional Carry.
They are state Rep. Both are fairly well known to not be friendly to gun rights. Dennis Bonnen, the Republican Speaker of the House for Texas on Friday, April 5th made a public declaration dropping the state's Constitutional Carry bill after a Chris McNutt, the executive director of Texas Gun Rights, showed up in his hometown to urge him to expedite the bill. It grants temporary permitless carry to all legal Texas gun owners in the event of a declared emergency and for 7 days following the disaster.
At his discretion, the Governor may also extend the time period for Emergency Carry to be in effect beyond the set 7-day period. See our latest article on HB When Chad Linton and Paul McKinley Stewart fought for and successfully had their minor felony convictions from the s and s in Washington and Arizona overturned, their records were stricken from the books and that should have been the end of painful lesson that neither of them will ever forget.
To their shock though, California discovered their past transgressions and has barred either of them from ever owning a gun In , Chad Linton was 18 years old and stationed at a US Naval base in the state of Washington taking weekend liberty away from the base when he was spotted speeding by a police officer, who attempted to pull him over. Being late for his check-in and at this point quite close to the base, he made the foolish decision to speed up to try and make it back before the officer could catch him.
After a short time, he realized this was a bad idea and pulled over. He was arrested without further incident. He then learned that in the state of Washington, evading the police even for a brief time is a felony. He spent the next 7 days in jail and upon release, served mandatory probation and some community service. The case was left open-ended and no felony was ever officially entered into his record.
When he was sentenced, the Washington State court judge, who was sympathetic to Mr. Linton, told him that he would not want to see his military career destroyed over the incident. He told him that if he successfully completed all terms of his probation, the court would reduce the matter to a misdemeanor, and have the matter discharged from his records. He bought several guns during this time, undergoing multiple background checks and fingerprint-based database queries of law enforcement records which never flagged him as being a prohibited person.
However, in December of , he attempted to buy another gun and this one finally showed him as being prohibited from possessing a firearm — by the state, not the federal government. To clear up the matter, he traveled back to Washington and hired a lawyer to formally request that his record be expunged.
The judge looked at the facts of his case and decided that Chad was no danger to society, clearing the felony from the books and granting him his right to owns guns back. It's worth noting that he didn't necessarily have to actually do this since the FBI records at the time didn't show him as actually being a felon. The state of California had been relying on an incomplete report on the matter showing that he was charged with a felony and that he pled guilty.
They never dug any farther to find the full resolution of the case in Washington. At this point, He is not only not a felon but has never been a felon in the eyes of any court in the country. Additionally, he now has a court order from the originating state proclaiming him as perfectly legal to purchase and own guns.
A copy of the order was then sent directly to the FBI by the judge as a further effort to proclaim Linton's innocence. Despite this, the California Attorney General's office decided that since they see an offense that qualifies as a felony on the old copy of the arrest record that they found and that since he pled guilty, he is, therefore, a felon as far as they're concerned, regardless of having been exonerated by the original state where the offense happened In October of , Mr.
This was obviously not an issue since the federal database did not show his as a felon and did not bar him from owning guns. Within a few days, the results of that scan were returned to him and showed no felony convictions in his history. He then mailed a copy of the exoneration letter from Washington to the DOJ, which they neglected to respond to at all. He waited close to a year and finally just sent the letter again. In March of , the inept DOJ sent Linton a letter stating that the attempted firearm purchase was denied due to the presence of a prior felony conviction — obviously referring to the now-vacated Washington arrest.
They next sent California's Department of Justice agents to Mr. Linton was not home at the time, but his wife was. Upon arrival and upon learning what they were there for, Mrs. Linton retrieved the court order from the judge in Washington who granted him his right to own firearms back and showed it to the agents. For their part, the agents were sympathetic and understanding and called the Deputy Attorney General Robert Wilson's office to explain the situation.
Wilson told them that it didn't matter and that they were to take the guns anyway, so they reluctantly confiscated every gun he had, including the antique shotgun that his grandfather had given him. One agent later sent an email to his bosses protesting the actions they were forced to perform and supportive of Linton's rights to his guns. Ridiculously, when Mr. Linton asked the Attorney General's office how he would go about getting his firearm rights in California restored, they told him that it would require a presidential pardon since there is no other process for it to happen by.
This is obvious nonsense since he is not now nor has he ever been a felon and there would be nothing to pardon — not to mention the fact that US presidents cannot pardon state crimes anyway, only federal ones. As an year-old in Yuma County, Arizona in , Paul made the poor decision one night to climb a fence and enter an unlocked truck owned by the telephone company to steal some tools. Like Chad above, he performed his sentence and cleared the matter sufficiently to have it downgraded from a felony and later stricken from his record entirely.
Despite this, the state of California is still defiantly refusing to restore Mr. Stewart's gun rights to him. He later made a connection with the lawyers representing Mr. Linton and has joined the case as a co-plaintiff. The firm is further joined by:. We stated at the beginning of this section that the state will lose; however, we need to keep in mind that this is Califonia we're talking about.
The plaintiffs could, in fact, be the ones who lose, but since the case has ballooned to national attention our strong suspicion is that it will be appealed if that happens and appealed again if necessary right up to SCOTUS if need be. Past US Supreme Courts would probably pass on taking the case, but we've talked before about how this new high court might just take such a case.
The net result is that the overall likelihood of this failing all the way up to SCOTUS and then failing even there is just not very high. The bulk of this information comes from the Firearms Policy Coalition. The FPC is looking for anyone who has had a similar situation, where their gun rights were restored by another state but the reinstatement is not being recognized by the state of California.
Disclaimer: Gun Rights Watch does not give legal advice and no content contained herein may be construed as offering legal advice. GRW does recommend specific lawyers to refer to upon request. Material published on GunRightsWatch. The entire contents of GunRightsWatch. GRW does often grant permission to reprint its works on other websites and publications.
By they would change the name of the group to Handgun Control, Inc. Richardson has gone on record publicly criticizing the NRA on multiple occasions for what the GOA considers to be an attitude of compromise on gun rights issues and for selling out the gun rights movement in general. For this senseless act, Chapman was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison at the Wende Correctional Facility, where he has remained ever since, being denied parole 9 times already.
Still, the notion of any new gun control legislation was rejected by then President-elect Ronald Reagan. As Reagan got into his limousine, John Hinckley, Jr.
Free News Delivery by Email
The first hit White House Press Secretary James Brady in the head, actually causing the most damage of any bullet Hinckley fired that day; Brady suffered brain damage and was permanently paralyzed. The second round hit District of Columbia police officer Thomas Delahanty in the back of his neck as he turned to protect Reagan, wounding him moderately.
Delahanty later recovered completely. With Delahanty out of the way, Hinckley had a clear shot at Reagan but missed again anyway and hit the window of a building across the street. As the Special Agent In Charge Jerry Parr frantically shoved Reagan into the back seat of the armored limousine, his fourth shot hit Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy in the abdomen, who also later recovered completely. The fifth bullet hit the bullet-resistant glass of the window on the open limo door, and the sixth and final bullet ricocheted off the armored side of the limo and hit the president under his left arm, grazing one rib and lodging in his lung, stopping almost an inch from his heart.
In the aftermath of the shooting, amazingly, no new strong voice for Gun Control rang out immediately. It would take years for the passage of the Brady Bill. Reagan retained his strong stance for gun rights, although after his presidency he did support the background checks enumerated in the Brady Bill. There were three pieces of significant legislation related to gun rights during the Reagan administration. The first was the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of , which illegalized the manufacture or import of armor piercing ammunition, or "cop-killer bullets," which are designed to penetrate bullet-resistant clothing.
This relatively minor act was quickly overshadowed by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of This was something that the NRA had long lobbied for, and it was generally declared a victory for gun rights. This act accomplished several things; it was now easier to transport long rifles across the United States, it ended federal record keeping of ammunition sales, and it prevented the prosecution of someone passing through states with strict gun control with firearms in their vehicle as long as the gun, or guns, were properly stored.
The act, however, also contained a provision outlawing ownership of any fully automatic firearms that were not registered by May 19, This provision was cleverly slipped into the legislation as a last-minute amendment by Rep. William J. Hughes D of New Jersey. Reagan has been roundly criticized by some gun rights groups and gun owners for signing the legislation with the Hughes amendment intact. The United States Undetectable Firearms Act of makes it illegal to manufacture, transport, sell or possess any firearm that is undetectable by walk-through metal detectors, or any firearm whose major components do not generate a recognizable, accurate image before standard airport imaging machines.
This bill was designed to ban firearms that could foil standard metal detection, and also required handguns to assume the traditional shape of a handgun so that imaging machines could recognize them easily. It began as an attempt to ban handguns like the Glock 17 that had much less metal content than other handguns in the mids. This particular bill might have faded into obscurity, but in recent years the advent of 3D printing with high-grade plastics and now, even as metal parts has given this measure a new degree of relevance. The NRA originally chose not to fight this bill, because its restrictions did not affect any guns being made at the time, but this may prove to have been a short-sighted decision with the advent of 3D printing.
Also, the passage of this bill was seen as a major victory by the anti-gun crowd; it seems to have added an air of legitimacy to HCI, who was instrumental later as The Brady Campaign in passing the Brady Bill. Further renewals in and were similarly endorsed, and this year-old law is now making new headlines against the possibility of 3D printing technology.
On January 17, , at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, Patrick Purdy, a man with a long criminal history, shot and killed five schoolchildren and wounded 32 others before committing suicide. This incident immediately received national news coverage and was cause for renewed calls for regulation of semiautomatic weapons.
The federal government was more divided on this issue, but this event is considered to be the catalyst for the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The Gun-Free School Zones Act of prohibits any individual from possessing a firearm anywhere within feet of any place that is defined as a school zone. In the Supreme Court subsequently maintained that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority, but then-Attorney General Janet Reno found a loophole to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling; in the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of she buried an exception that if the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce" it is still subject to the GFSZA, which affects nearly all firearms.
The Brady Bill mandated federal background checks on anyone purchasing a firearm in the United States and instituted a five-day waiting period before any purchase could be claimed. This system determines whether prospective firearms or explosives buyers' identification and birth date match those of a person who is listed as ineligible to buy. The Brady Campaign also lobbied for the passage of this ban, which used rather ambiguous terms to define an 'assault weapon'. Nonsensical characteristics, such as the color of the weapon in some cases, were used to outlaw some rifles, pistols, and shotguns.
There were actually a detailed and complex set of rules for whether a specific firearm would be banned, such as the inclusion on the gun such features as folding stocks, flash suppressors, pistol grips, and detachable magazines, but a complete list of features and the rules for banning firearms based on them is outside the scope of this article.
It was enacted with a ten-year lifespan, and due to lobbying efforts on behalf of the NRA, it was failed to be renewed in In October , The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a report about the effectiveness of gun violence prevention strategies which concluded, "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws.
None of the renewal bills have left committee, and, despite the stated intentions of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to re-enact the ban, no movement was made on this until the December shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. This bill failed its vote in the Senate 40 to To date, this is the closest the AWB has come to renewal. Increased public awareness about gun rights issues, courtesy of the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and other groups like them, as well as lobbying efforts on behalf of the NRA, can all be thanked for that.
It also keeps the spotlight off the relationship between rogue gun dealers and the black market in firearms. There have been efforts to repeal this amendment, but none have come to fruition as of yet. This law allows qualified law enforcement officers, current and retired, to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions.
Later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of , this expansion of scope specifically extended its coverage to include officers of the Amtrak Police, Federal Reserve Police, and police officers of the executive branch of U. The amendment would have banned. Jim Moran D-Va. Bush, prevents gun manufacturers from being held liable in federal or state civil suits by crime victims involving guns made by that company.
Gun Rights Watch - Blog
Gun manufacturers and even dealers can still be subject to a lawsuit for damages from defective equipment, breaches of contract, or any other criminal actions that they may be directly responsible for, just as any other U. This law stemmed from the backlash of several lawsuits, perhaps the most notable of which was Chicago Mayor Richard M.
He was quoted as saying: "You can't expect the status quo on businesses which make money and then have no responsibility to us as citizens. On June 26, , District of Columbia vs. Heller U. This landmark case, in which the U. It further declared that Washington, D. It did, however, declare that the right to keep and bear arms was not unlimited and that it would continue to be regulated. It should be noted that this case essentially reversed the almost year precedent set by the United States vs. Miller case of Decided June 28, , McDonald vs. Chicago U. Supreme Court, which found that the rights of the individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected via the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.
This decision cleared up any uncertainty left after the District of Columbia v. Heller decision as to the scope of an individual's gun rights in regard to the states. In this case, several suits against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois challenged their gun bans after the District of Columbia vs. Heller decision. The suits, including one by Chicago resident Otis McDonald, a year-old retired janitor, were thrown out of court. But the U. In early , President Obama proposed sweeping changes to Gun Control, after the massacres of 20 first graders in Newtown, Connecticut, and 12 moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado.
His plans included universal background checks for gun sales, the reinstatement and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, limiting ammunition magazines to a round capacity, and other measures. These measures all failed at the national level, but some individual states did begin enacting tighter legislation to encroach on Second Amendment rights, flouting the precedent set by the McDonald vs. Chicago decision just three years earlier. On Sept. Voters in the state threw out of office Democrats John Morse and Angela Giron for supporting recently enacted Gun Control laws that require background checks on private gun sales and limit magazine clips to 15 rounds.
The election became a media storm, drawing national attention not only for the removal of the officials but also for the mass influx of money from both sides of the political aisle, from the National Rifle Association and from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a noted Gun Control advocate.
In February , the Trump administration signed into law a bill that rolled back the NICS Improvement Amendments Act, returning Second Amendment rights to approximately 75, individuals who were receiving Social Security disability and had representative payees. And, finally, in , in the political aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneham Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, a number of students who survived this incident took to the national stage to call for tighter gun control.
This is one more Gun Control scenario that will likely be playing itself out in courtrooms and more unconstitutional legislation. This is part four in this series and the conclusion of our History of Gun Control in America. Link to all Four Parts. As expected, the shooting of MLK led to an ad nauseam tidal wave of articles in the media damning guns and the people who owned them. The Boston Sunday Globe had this quote at the end of an article about the heated controversy from Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal:. Then to hell with the Constitution. In spite of all the anger and controversy, no further legislative action was forthcoming for the time being.
A month after the assassination, an attempt by Senator Dodd to add all long barreled guns to the mail order ban was voted down in the Senate. Another month went by. This single event led to the most fervent opposition to gun rights the nation had yet seen. This very same day, a Senate Judiciary Committee approved a provision of the Omnibus Crime Bill to ban the mail order sale of handguns.
Dozens upon dozens of bills were brought before Congress, with a wide range of restrictions imposed. Ironically, those exact sentiments of the anti-gun forces, and the multiple bills demanding confiscation presented to Congress during this period, may be the best argument that their concerns were and are perfectly justified. Other anti-gun periodicals of the time were much more forthright, even if grossly misguided. A modest effort in this direction would include the following first steps: No person should be permitted to buy or possess a handgun or ammunition for any handgun.
Possession of all automatic and semiautomatic firearms should be banned. So should all rifles. However, licenses for the purchase of shotguns for sporting purposes could be obtained from the local police chief, who would be required to enforce certain federal standards. Clearly, the anti-gun movement had grown to a now-unprecedented level with traction from the violence of the preceding months. The editors at Advertising Age issued an unheard-of challenge to their industry to create ads meant to provoke popular support for a bill that would bring about significant new restrictions on gun ownership.
Hollywood stars soon joined in, financing their own campaign in support of the stalled bill.
- Stedings and Virághs scanning electron microscopy atlas of the developing human heart;
- Gun control and claims about gun misuse in Canada?
- Process-Induced Chemical Changes in Food.
- The Gambling Debate.
- Gun Digest's Learning Combat Shooting Concealed Carry Handgun Training eShort.
It was signed by more than other celebrities, including Mel Brooks and Richard Burton. Some sort of impending legislative action seemed inevitable. The legal battle that formed concerned primarily three measures: the ban on mail order sales, registration, and a ban on foreign imports of military arms. Many other measures were proposed, both more lenient and harsher, but these were the central issues. The majority of firearms manufacturers nationwide backed a proposal for gun licensing, which was opposed by the NRA once again dispelling the notion that the NRA is a flunky of the gun manufacturers and was ignored by Congress.
The mood in the country by this time clearly favored some form of Gun Control. An onslaught of new local regulations began appearing; New York City in August added registration of rifles and shotguns to the Sullivan Law, and Chicago now required registration of all guns. New Jersey narrowly missed garnering enough votes to confiscate all handguns and register long guns. This act completely banned any mail order sales of firearms and ammunition made since except for muzzleloaders , banned the importation of all military-style weapons, banned interstate sales of guns and ammunition, and required record keeping by dealers of all ammunition sales.
Importing small foreign handguns was also prohibited in certain cases, instituting a new system which ranked pistols individually by points based on a number of factor including size, weight, and caliber. It should be noted at this time that for at least 25 years after the passage of the Federal Gun Control Act, the crime rate rose steadily, including murder and armed robbery rates. Additionally, the FGCA has placed unreasonable restrictions on gun owners, forcing them to buy whatever arms are available locally and pay whatever the local going rates are for guns and ammunition.
Gun owners with rare guns chambered for hard to find ammunition may have to abandon the idea of shooting it. Military style guns have climbed steadily in value to several times their former price. Out-of-state hunters and target shooters cannot replenish their ammo. The FCGA, possibly the most far-reaching and restrictive federal gun law ever passed, shares its most defining characteristic with every other Gun Control law: it hinders honest citizens while not affecting criminals in the least.
The wave of anti-gun legislation continued on into the seventies. Few bills saw the light of day, however, and in late the record-keeping provision of the FGCA was actually amended to exclude rifle and shotgun cartridges, despite fervent opposition from Senators Dodd, Kennedy, and Brooke. The media attack on gun owners and sportsmen continued unabated. That same year, a network television special entitled "Say Goodbye," about endangered species of animals, included many scenes of endangered animals being ruthlessly hunted and shot via unsportsmanlike means, such as one scene featuring a mother polar bear and her cubs being shot from the seat of a helicopter.
Unknown to viewers, all of the hunting footage in the film had been staged, apparently to pursue an agenda. Several of the scenes were not as they appeared to be; for instance, in the bear scene, the mother and cubs were being shot with a tranquilizer, but this was not mentioned in the film.
After its airing, stricter rules were imposed to raise the standard of nature programs, but the damage to the American view of the hunter had been done.
It can be noted that at this time a change was becoming apparent in the attitude of the NRA. What my research for this article has led me to believe is that before , the National Rifle Association had adopted a policy of working with the advocates of Gun Control; with the increased level of bias and unrelenting attacks came a sea change in their demeanor. From this point on, it becomes much clearer what the underlying theme was… This was a cheap, low-powered revolver, usually in. They were unreliable, inaccurate, and useless for hunting or target shooting, but criminals loved them for their cost and availability.
Senator Birch Bayh introduced the bill to ban this little innocuous handgun, and the NRA leaped into the fray. Some of the credit for the quick defeat of these bills must be given to the Nixon Administration, which had a very different attitude towards gun rights than did the Johnson Administration. Although much supported, it got no further probably because the majority of legislators realized that an eight-inch barreled handgun can be turned into a two-inch barreled handgun with just a hacksaw.
Senator Bayh presented a similar bill which fared better. It passed the Senate, then was referred to a committee in the House. Then, however, an interesting thing happened. Bayh received a letter from Myron Lance, a convicted murderer serving a long prison sentence, with a criminal record that was longer. At the end of his rambling letter was the following: "I hope they pass that gun law. It'll make it harder for citizens to protect themselves. That way we could get guns easier. A seventeen-year-old burglar had recently broken into the apartment, and upon his arrest had mentioned what he had seen there.
Foolishly, law enforcement authorities believed this incredible story by a young thief. The agents knocked on the door to the apartment. Ballew maintains that she heard nothing. The agents knocked a second time, then a few seconds later began ramming the steel door with a battering ram. Ballew screamed and called to her husband who was also naked and about to enter the shower; he had time to run out of the bathroom and grab his revolver and point it at the door, still naked. The two had been broken into before, as previously mentioned, and had installed the door and had guns ready for another attempt.
After six quick rams, the door gave way. The first officers through the door were dressed as hippies, apparently undercover. The police arrested Mrs. Ballew and sent her husband to the hospital. As a result of this reckless raid, Kenyon Ballew was permanently paralyzed until his death in No live grenades were ever found in the apartment. Ken Ballew did have 2 dummy grenades and 3 demilitarized grenades that had been turned into party favors.
This case attracted a firestorm of publicity due to the haphazard nature of the raid and shoddy investigative work that had led to it, and the raid was criticized by groups ranging from the ACLU to the NRA. This case galvanized support on both sides of the gun issue, though much more so for the NRA and pro-gun groups. It also marked more evidence of the gun issue polarizing people into two camps, and the NRA abandoning any effort to work with the anti-gun crowd and taking a more hard-line stance.
More speedily written and poorly conceived legislation followed the shooting of Senator John Stennis in January of Echoing the familiar patterns of the past, several bills were introduced, but none passed. Senator Ted Kennedy brought forth a bill that would have banned virtually all handguns except those with barrels over ten inches, of which only 2 or 3 models available qualified.
Interestingly, and possibly a factor in the quick dismissal of all anti-gun bills generated at this time, is that Wallace and Stennis both maintained a firm pro-gun rights stance after their shootings. Much was made of the argument that handguns have no use for sporting, and are virtually useless for the defense, despite both of these statements being patently untrue.
Since that time, anyone possessing a firearm, even a BB gun, without an FID is subject to imprisonment for a minimum of one year. And so it went throughout and Several measures were proposed but went nowhere, including one outrageous bill in Washington, D. Another bill called for the U. Consumer Product Safety Commission to ban handgun bullets as a hazardous substance cute trick, eh? Government Colt M at a distance of two feet, apparently to make a statement to people to stop polluting the environment. Luckily for Ford, she forgot to put a round in the chamber and he avoided any sudden lead poisoning.
Just 17 days later, Sally Moore shot at Ford with a new. Given new life, the media circus and legislation by Gun Control advocates began anew. Senator Kennedy slurred, ''The overriding lessons of these nearly tragic events is that if America cares about the safety of its leaders, it can no longer ignore the shocking absence of responsible gun control. The only thing you hunt is human beings. Some mention must be made of the agenda-driven content of the pictures which accompanied the text of the many anti-gun articles of this time.
In point of fact, the only publications where any sort of pro-gun viewpoint is seen are the hunting and shooting magazines, and various conservative publications. But, of course, these journals only reach a small percentage of the population, and they are largely preaching to the choir.
Related Gun Digests Concealed Carry Preparation & Aftermath eShort
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved