How To Stop Mass Shootings In America

Is there a way to stop mass shootings in America?

The latest tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida  cost 17 young lives.

What strikes me is how similar the response to these things always is.  Someone of my acquaintance who works in the administration of a large city in my area told me that less than 15 minutes after the news was reported, several busloads of 'protesters' with ready made signs were already descending on the lawn outside City Hall. The usual suspects in Hollywood and in DC were making statements calling for massive gun control and their friends in the media were doing their bit. CNN even staged what amounts to a faux 'town hall' where a couple of target 'conservatives were subjected to what was obviously a staged, scripted event. It was a blatant example of how America's children are being indoctrinated and taught not to think critically.

This stuff has been going on since Columbine. Let's examine some  interesting similarities these mass shooting events seem to share as well as what's been tried in response. Maybe we can come up with an answer.

Here are some similarities:

Most of these shootings were carried out by people already known to be people of interest well known to local authorities. They were known to be moody trouble makers already on the edge. The most recent Florida shooter fits the profile perfectly.

In many mass shootings, certainly Sandy Hook as well as this most recent one, even basic security practices were not followed. Adam Lanza was known to be trouble, yet someone let him into Sandy Hook Elementary, where he murdered 20 young children. This was a direct violation of the school's lockdown procedures, and we've never found out who let him in. At Stoneman Douglas, there was an actual Broward County Sheriff designated to guard the kids. Somehow, the shooter got past him, and when the shooting started the sheriff refused to go into the schoolroom to confront him and take the shooter out. The deputy resigned in order to avoid a suspension and probably a later dismissal. The Gabby Giffords shooting was a similar case, with yet another troubled loner well known to local police  able to shoot a number of people including Congresswoman Giffords because the local sheriff didn't see fit to assign a couple of men to oversee security in a large, open crowd at a shopping mall. This pattern is a recurring one.

Each shooting was followed immediately by calls for increased gun control laws, lots of media hubris and political posing and absolutely ZERO action that made any difference. Remember this one, we will explore it in a bit more detail later.

Let's look at the kind of action proposed and sometimes implemented  to solve this problem. It always ranges from confiscation to laws that make it difficult or impossible for law abiding citizens to own firearms to protect themselves. Heavy taxation on guns and ammo, outright banning of many weapons, bureaucratic resistance to concealed carry laws or firearms permits, all have been used, especially in Democrat controlled urban  kingdoms and states. How well have these policies worked?

Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington DC have incredibly strict gun control laws. They haven't decreased homicide rates. Apparently people bent on evil aren't having any trouble getting their hands on firearms. France has even stricter gun control laws, there being no 2nd Amendment. That didn't stop the Bataclan jihadis frrom getting their hands on actual military assault weapons and murdering a large number of people in Paris, and that is by no means the only time this has happened. The Russian Federation has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet, virtually eliminating private ownership of firearms.  Just today, four people were shot leaving church after Lent services in Dagastan by a jihadi, and there have been other similar incidents.  I could cite many more examples of where extreme gun control doesn't stop killers from obtaining weapons.

Obviously, severe gun laws or prohibitions don't stop people intent on obtaining guns from getting them.

Even more interesting, in a number of places where gun controls are fairly lax, mass shootings are reare or even non-existent.  I'm thinking of two countries in particular, Israel and Switzerland. Israel has mandatory conscription for most of its population, and reserve duty afterwards. People actually keep real, fully automatic military assault weapons as well as emergency rations, ammo and even hand grenades at home.  Yet there are hardly any mass shootings. In fact, the last major school shooting was carried out by  'Palestinian' terrorist who attacked a school in Ma'alot. It began when three armed 'Palestinians'  attacked a van, killing two Israeli Arab women while injuring a third and entered an apartment building in the town of Ma'alot. There they murdered a couple and their four-year-old son in cold blood.From there, they headed for the Netiv Meir Elementary School, where they took more than 115 people including 105 children, many of them children on a field trip. They ended up slaying 25 hostages and injuring 68 more. This happened in May, 1974.

After the initial horror faded, the Israelis ramped up border security. Since many of the schoolteachers actually served in the military, they also implemented plans for enhanced school security. The teachers all took firearms and ammo to class, and needless to say, they knew exactly how to use them and had contingency plans to secure the schools. It's a strange sight to American eyes to see a couple of young schoolteachers escorting kids on a field trip with Uzis in hand, but it also is a secure one, because you know these children aren't going to be slaughtered like the ones in Ma'alot.

In Switzerland, nothing like Ma'alot ever occurred and compulsory conscription was recently ended, but many Swiss still train with the reserves and likewise keep weaponry in their homes that would make the average America Leftist politician faint. Again, no mass shootings, and crime is more likely to involve ledgers and computer programs than firearms.

There are other reasons why these two countries lack mass shootings and have what I'd call a healthy gun culture, but the bottom line is that gun control doesn't prevent mass shootings and lack of it doesn't cause them. The state in the union with the loosest gun laws also has the lowest gun homicide rate per capita in America...and that's Vermont.

Confiscation and bans don't really work either. Just ask the Australians.

One thing we do know for certain is that after all the rhetoric from the Left, nothing much has been done to stop mass shootings. Why do you suppose that is? After all, since Columbine, the Democrats have controlled both Houses of Congress with veto proof majorities on different occasions. They never came up with anything to solve the problem, have they? And you can't blame the NRA, since they have little or no influence on Left leaning Democrats. So why has nothing been done,  if they're so passionate about 'protecting kids?'

Well, I live in reality. I  think what the Left really cares about is confiscating firearms and disarming the American populace. Like most totalitarians, the Left salivates over the idea of an America where  they and the government forces they control are the only ones legally allowed to bear arms. And people cheering for that need to digest one of my favorite Machiavelli quotes; "When you are disarmed, you are not only helpless, you are despised."

That's the only logical reason for why the Left refuses to actually address the problem of mass shootings. To come up with a real solution would  get rid of their entire cause celebre', banning and confiscation. They're still hoping that after a few more incidents like this, they will eventually get popular support for that. It's a fool's hope in my opinion, but apparently they're willing to risk kids' lives to take a shot at it, no pun intended.

The answer to the question I pose is an obvious one. Yes, mass shootings can be severely curtailed and perhaps even ended with time. But here's what it would take:

1) Far more emphasis on school security. Non -students should not be allowed on campus without explicit permission and should be walked through a metal detector. At my former high school, a fence surrounded the place and a police patrol car circled the place all day long and at night for things like athletic matches. It worked for the most part. Arming members of the faculty, particularly those who know how to use firearms effectively and safely would be a pretty good idea as well. School kids should also be drilled on exactly what to do and where to go in the event a killer gets in.

2) When local police have knowledge of a potential shooter who fits the pattern of almost any of the killers who pull this stuff off, there's no reason a confidential list couldn't be circulated to local gun dealers to put a hold on purchases. This won't always work (the Sandy Hook killer was actually refused an attempted purchase and simply murdered his mother and took her guns) but it would definitely help. Local dealers would absolutely cooperate, too. Contrary to what you might hear on CNN or MSNBC, most gun dealers are scrupulous in cooperating with law enforcement on matters like these. Being on the 'hold' list would also have to be subject to appeal in the courts, of course.

3) I've always believed that an effective way to cut way down of gun crimes is simply to make use of a firearm to commit a felony a capitol crime. It might not effect the kind of born losers who commit mass shootings overly much but would definitely effect a lot of other gun criminals. After all, somebody aiming a .32 at the head of a convenience store clerk is signifying his or her willingness to kill that person and take their life. And more than one helpless person has been murdered merely to make sure they won't bear witness against a criminal, even in robberies that involved an insanely small sum of money. A death penalty for using a firearm in this way might make a lot of people think twice and help remove those from society who don't. It could also have a significant effect on America's gun culture, which used to be healthy but which now, thanks to Hollywood and the music biz tends to lionize such thuggish behavior.

4) We need to totally remake America's gun culture. Aside from the above step, we need to train kids so that they see guns as protection and defense used by responsible adults rather than things used to obtain instant gratification and coercion. I think Hollywood, the music industry and the game industry could be persuaded to help here. A big part of the poisoning of America's gun culture can be traced to certain changes in the entertainment business in terms of what kind of behavior it promotes. That applies to a lot of things, but definitely in how America's young view guns, particularly in certain communities. If the Left really wants to strop these mass shootings, they ought to be willing to go along and encourage the entertainment biz to go along...unless. of course, they're more interested in mega-donations from that industry rather than kid's lives, right?

I'd also like to see a re-establishment of the cabinet post of Secretary of Civilian Marksmanship. Yes, we actually had one of those, who worked with the NRA on programs to teach kids how to safely and effectively use guns properly and see them in their proper context in society. An increased emphasis on discipline and proper behavior in the public schools wouldn't hurt either.

Kids really do live what they learn.

Taking these four steps might not eliminate mass shootings. But it would definitely make them very rare.

Obama's Gun Diktat - The Devil In The Details

 

President Barack Hussein Obama has followed through on his promise to 'go after guns' via executive order and it was really quite a show. I especially liked the part where he started weeping crocodile tears over schoolchildren gunned down in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012.

"First graders in Newtown. First graders," Obama said, pausing to collect himself. "Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad."

This concern for children from a man who fought tooth and nail for infanticide?  So touching.

At first glance, the president's diktat on guns seems reasonable. Prog fascists are very good at that, and of course, the president was quick to use the usual progressive talking point  that everyone knows this is the right thing to do. Or to use his exact words, there's what he called 'a broad consensus' supporting this, but those mean nasty Republicans in Congress just won't act, so he has to.

The president admitted that his plan wouldn't have stopped what happened in San Bernardino, but he feels this has to be done anyway, in order to 'make if harder for criminals to get guns.'

I wish all the victims of the murders attributed to the President's own efforts to put guns in the hands of criminals via Fast and Furious had been in the room, looking right at him when he said that. Now, their reaction would have been must see TV.

Before we discuss what the president has in mind, let's get something out in the open. Prog fascists aren't interested in getting guns out of the hands of criminals. They want confiscation of guns from the law abiding, because that's the route to the absolute power they revel in. There's nothing the president is proposing that's going to get guns out of the hands of criminals, but it will make a lot of law abiding citizens helpless before them.

When you deal with a Barack Obama and those of his ilk, you have to realize that they play the long game. First, they propose something that sounds relatively reasonable, like say, ObamaCare where if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan...and just think of the savings and how cheap the premiums will be! Months later when the peons wake up down the road and realize how they've been lied to and screwed over, it's too late to get rid of it without a major effort.

Please keep this in mind as we continue our discussion...Obama's agenda never changes. When it comes to our pathological liar of a president, whatever he and his dutiful minions might say to grease something through has nothing to do with how it's eventually applied. And the ultimate destination remains the same. In this case, it's gun confiscation.

So with that said, let's look at President Obama's new diktat on guns. And remember, he's tried to get this sort of thing through congress twice before and both times it has failed by bi-partisan majorities.

The first thing he wants is to promulgate that wonderful lefty myth, 'the gun show loophole.' The truth, as anyone who's ever been to one can tell you is that it doesn't exist.

If you go to a gun show, what you will see is licensed dealers,, because the people whom put on these things aren't looking to go to jail for aiding and abetting illegal weapons transaction. If you see something on one of the dealer's tables you like, they still are required to do a background check, the same as if you were in a brick and mortar store. All the laws, restrictions, waiting periods etc. all still apply. Also, as a licensed dealer in every state of the union you're restricted to either selling guns at the registered address of your store or at an organized, licensed gun show. You can sell guns online out of state, but they must be legal in your buyer's home state and they must be shipped to a licensed dealer in your buyer's home state, where once again a background check has to be done and a waiting period imposed in accordance with the laws of the purchaser's home state. Doing it any other way is a felony offense and not something a licensed gun dealer is going to risk prison and the loss of his livelihood for. So the president talking about closing this fairy tale 'loophole' this means very little in and of itself and it certainly won't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, but it fits in with the rest of the president's agenda when it comes to convincing people who aren't even aware of which end of a firearm points where that this is somehow necessary and important.

The next thing he wants, and the heart of his plan is to hire a lot more ATF and FBI agents to provide scrutiny on things like enhanced background checks. But remember two things; first of all, they work for President Obama and are going to do what he tells them to do - just like the IRS. And second, criminals don't obtain firearms using methods where a background check is required. In the case of San Bernardino, the two killers and the friend that purchased additional firearms and explosives for them had no criminal record. And in the Newtown shooting, Adam Lanza likewise had no record, and got his weaponry by murdering his own mother in her bed. Not only that, but as I've pointed out before, the only reason any children died is because a school employee violated lock down procedure and let him in.

So if gun confiscation is the ultimate aim, criminals aren't really a very productive target. To really confiscate as many guns as possible, you have to go after the law abiding and somehow transform them into people who shouldn't be allowed to own firearms to defend themselves. And the best way is to work the 'mental health' and the enhanced background check angles, the really devious parts of Obama's plan.

Doctor-patient confidentiality? Faggedabboudit. Health and Human services rules have now been changed to put the onus on physicians to report anything you tell them that seems even slightly amiss to the FBI or the ATF. And what doctor is going to take the risk of potential liability by not doing so? No matter how minor or what the cause is, just a report from your physician that you seemed slightly depressed or not your usual self can ultimately be used to confiscate any guns you own.

And you can trust states ruled by 'progressives' to take this even further. California just put a law into effect requiring physicians to ask patients if they own guns, which guns they posses and where they keep them. Failure to answer alone is grounds for the doctor to report this to the FBI or the ATF, and a doctor can even order your guns seized by court order if he really wants to cooperate with the State. After all, if he doesn't and something happens...do I need to draw you a picture? We could even be talking about criminal liability here, or forfeiting a license to practice. Fear of government is the meat prog fascists thrive on.

VA will also be a fertile grounds for this. Veterans, after all, can all be labeled victims of PTSD, mental stress, maladjustment to peacetime society, call it what you want. The psycho veteran beloved of Hollywood scriptwriters has become a cliche these days. And these are men and women who likely own firearms and have been trained to use them. You can expect them to be heavily targeted for confiscation by the Regime.

What about victims of lawfare? A spurned girl friend can accuse a man of sexual assault, claim he threatened her and/or file a police report with no proof at all except her word. Thanks to VAWA, a woman can even have a man locked up with no real evidence at all, or say that self inflicted bruises were the result of assault or domestic abuse. Any family law attorney or criminal lawyer will tell you that this sort of thing happens with disturbing frequency nowadays. That's especially true when it comes to divorce cases, particularly where child custody is involved. And even if it's proven that the accusation is totally unfounded, it remains on the record. Goodbye Second Amendment rights!

The key, you see, is who gets to decide who has criminal intent or who is too mentally unstable to own firearms. With the enhanced background check phase of this, it's President Obama's employees who will now get to decide that. Trust them to follow orders and push it to the limit. And again, remember...the president's ultimate destination is full gun confiscation.

Ultimately, this can even be extended to 'extremists' whom criticize the president or his policies forcefully. And in time, it will be, bit by bit unless this is stopped in its tracks. Mark my words on that.

Congress has already spoken out about this to some extent:

Kevin McCarthy Verified account ‏@GOPLeader

Americans have a constitutional right to own firearms. @POTUS doesn't have a constitutional right to legislate from the executive branch.

Brian Babin ✔ @RepBrianBabin

Obama’s executive gun orders must be rejected. We are a #ConstitutionalRepublic & Pres. cannot bypass Congress when initiatives are blocked.

11:18 AM - 4 Jan 2016

Speaker Paul Ryan said none of Obama’s proposals would have prevented the recent mass shootings in the U.S. 

“His proposals to restrict gun rights were debated by the United States Senate, and they were rejected,” Ryan said. “No president should be able to reverse legislative failure by executive fiat, not even incrementally.”

Talk is cheap, fellas. let's see what you DO.


UPDATE: Ah well...unfortunately they're showing us the answer as I write this.

Epic Fail! WH Can't Name One Mass Shooting That Would've been Prevented By Proposed Gun Regs

Reporter: Can you name any mass shooting's the president's new proposed gun laws would have stopped..??

Josh Ernest: Ummmm no, but let's do it anyway, because whatever President Obama's idea is. I'm sure it's a good one!

Unfreaking-believable

One For Father's Day..And The Second Amendment

At a time when many children are growing up without fathers due to certain societal changes and of course, the lawyers and the courts, it's well to reflect on one vital function of fathers that these so-called 'feminists' seem to have forgotten in the zeal of conducting the War on Men....that their traditional role was to protect young females in their family from predators.

At about 11 PM last Monday, a 17-year-old girl was getting something from her car parked in front of her house, where she lives with her mother. As reported by Fox2News in St. Louis, two men, both with guns, grabbed her and began to push her back into the home with a gun to her head. They were obviously after a quick and easy home invasion, with the brutal rape of a young girl as an added bonus.

Unfortunately for them, her father, who does not live with his daughter or the girl's mother was visiting right around that time and was strapped.

He didn't dither or delay...his protective instincts kicked in, he pulled his own gun, shot and killed one perpetrator and severely injured the other.

He says he had no choice but to fire. “He was holding her hostage. She was a human shield. So I did what I had to do.”

When the reporter asked him how he had the confidence to pull the trigger when the man was holding his daughter, he said, “It wasn’t like that. It just happened. I didn’t have no choice. He had my daughter so I did what I had to do.”

Oh, and the two perps? Terrell Johnson, who no longer will hurt anyone else and Cortez McClinton, who was wounded were both career criminals. Johnson had a long rap sheet and had served time in the Missouri prison system for armed robbery. Ditto for McClintock, who had already been charged with one murder back in 2010.

I have a feeling President Obama will not be commending this man. Nor will gun confiscation fascists. But imagine what would have happened to the girl , her mother and the father if he hadn't been armed. By the time the police were able to respond, the bleeding bodies on the floor would have belonged to different people.

And there is this. Here's a man who is estranged from his wife and almost certainly doesn't see his daughter as much as he wants to. Yet the bond was so strong that he didn't hesitate risking his life to try and save hers. And he continues to give her an example of masculine behavior and what to look for in a potential husband and father herself when the time comes.

The man wisely insisted on not being identified by the reporter to avoid possible retribution at the hands of some of the perp's friends, but he deserves a shout out on Father's Day. He exemplifies a big part of what it's about.

New Study - Legal Concealed Carry Equals Fewer Murders

A new study conducted by Quinnipiac University came up with some interesting results for gun control fanatics.Not only do states that outlaw concealed carry by law abiding citizens have much higher gun-related murder rates, but that banning 'assault weapons' (to gun grabbers, anything semi-automatic with scary looking graphics and the ability to fire five shots out of its magazine)has no meaningful effect on gun murder rates. (h/t, Truth Revolt)

The study, conducted by Quinnipiac University's Mark Gius, was published in Applied Economics Letters, and used extensive data from a thirty-year period, 1980-2009. Here's Gius's summation of the results:

Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level.

Gius also cites similar studies by John R. Lott and David B. Mustard.

It's actually an assault on common sense that such studies should be needed at all. People intent on breaking the law will always find or even make guns to do it if that's their tool of choice. The people at a disadvantage are law abiding citizens,their property and their families, who are given a choice of becoming criminals or remaining helpless.

To make it even simpler, answer these questions for yourself. If you were a criminal bent on robbing a convenience store, using a .38 as a persuader and then murdering any potential witnesses, where would you face the least risk of things going wrong? In New York City or Chicago? Or in Texas,where the
clerk, the guy in the stockroom in back and probably the forty-year-old matron over on aisle 3 are very likely carrying their own brand of lead-fueled deterrent and know how to use it?

If you and a co-perp break in and do a home invasion with rape, plunder and murder in mind, where would you be most likely to feel confident after you hear five shots about rushing and overpowering that terrified housewife before she can reload? In Los Angeles, where you know that's all the bullets she was able to legally have in her weapon? Or in Tulsa?

Here's a fun fact, by the way. The state with the loosest gun laws in America (including legal concealed carry) and the lowest per capita gun murder rate just happen to be the same...Vermont.

Huge 2nd Amendment Victory - FLA. Court Rules Colleges Cannot Ban Guns

The young woman pictured above is Alexandria Lainez, a single mom who sued the University of North Florida over the right to carry a gun in her vehicle while attending classes at UNF so she would be able to defend herself and her child while traveling to and from campus.

“I think it’s pretty important to be able to protect myself and my son, especially with that long commute to and from school.”

Ms. Lainez, 24, has had a concealed weapons permit for three years, has taken gun safety courses and is a proud member of Florida Carry, a state chapter of a number of organizations defending 2nd amendment rights.

When the UNF ruled that she was not allowed to have a fire arm on UNF property which includes their parking lots, she sued...and won.

The Florida appeals court ruled that UNF was violating state law and that “No college or university has the authority” to make such a regulation. This decision is huge, and will affect 2nd Amendment rights statewide.

In Florida, a state law in 1987 prohibited local governments from passing local gun control ordinances stricter than those passed by the legislature, but there were no penalties for non-compliance, a number of local governments didn't comply and passed there ownlaws and regulations.

In 2011, the Legislature passed another law that provided for hefty fines and removal from office for elected officials and allowing for personal damages up to $100,000 for violations.

After that most local governments complied, but a few politically correct bastions like UNF remained scofflaws.

It remains to be seen whether UNF decides to appeal. According to UNF Associate Director for Public Relations Joanna Norris, in spite of the ruling, until the university decides whether to pursue this, UNF's anti-gun regulations will remain in effect and they will continue to break the law.

(h/t BizPac)

Your Castle No More - Serviceman Charged With Murder After Shooting Threatening Intruder

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter." - British Prime Minister William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham, commenting on the English common law doctrine of a man's right to be safe in his home, 1763.


Air Force Sergeant Matt Pinkerton was faced with an aggressive intruder who broke into his home at 2:00 AM after being told to leave and threatened his wife and his safety, so he dispatched him with a Glock 9mm.

Believe it or not, the State of Maryland's position is that Pinkerton should have called 911 and just sat there waiting for the police to arrive instead of defending his wife, himself and his property. And they're charging him with murder two:

Pinkerton was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and use of a firearm in a felony or violent crime.

The state argued that Pinkerton could have called 911.

District Court Judge Jonas Legum reduced Pinkerton’s bond from $1.5 million to $250,000.

Legum said he finds it “amazing” that the statement of probable cause against Pinkerton is only two pages long, and included only one sentence about whether or not Green had a weapon.

Pinkerton told police he did not see any weapons in Green’s hands, charging documents state.

Green had staked out the Pinkertons’ home before they arrived early Sunday morning, O’Neill said. When Green knocked on the door, Pinkerton retrieved a Glock 17 9mm handgun, put it in his back pocket and went to see who it was, police said. He wasn’t expecting any visitors.

When Pinkerton opened the door, he found Green on the porch, police said. Green demanded to see Jessica Pinkerton.

Matthew Pinkerton told Green to leave, but he refused and started to shout, police said.

The pair exchanged “derogatory” remarks before Pinkerton closed the front door, police said. Green continued to yell from the front porch, police said.

Pinkerton then heard his screen door being opened, police said. He headed back to the front door as Green broke through it, damaging the door frame, O’Neill said.

Pinkerton pulled his gun and ordered Green to leave, O’Neill said.

Green continued into the residence and was shot twice by Pinkerton, police said.

“He has the right to defend himself against an intruder,” O’Neill said.

Assistant State’s Attorney Glen Neubauer said Pinkerton could have called the police. When Pinkerton grabbed his gun, it was “bizarre behavior in itself,” Neubauer said.

But O’Neill said calling 911 wasn’t an option.

“By the time 911 is called, he’s dead,” O’Neill said.

This should put the citizens of Maryland and other locales where anti-Second Amendment radicals have taken control on notice as to what the lives of you and your loved ones are worth to the politicians in power.

Backdoor Gun Grab - EPA Forces Closure Of Last Lead Smelter In U.S.

The Left badly wants American citizens disarmed and denied their Second Amendment rights, and they'll achieve that by any means necessary...including using Obama Environmental Protection Agency to severely impact the price of ammo:

In December, the final primary lead smelter in the United States will close. The lead smelter, located in Herculaneum, Missouri, and owned and operated by the Doe Run Company, has existed in the same location since 1892.
The Herculaneum smelter is currently the only smelter in the United States which can produce lead bullion from raw lead ore that is mined nearby in Missouri’s extensive lead deposits, giving the smelter its “primary” designation. The lead bullion produced in Herculaneum is then sold to lead product producers, including ammunition manufactures for use in conventional ammunition components such as projectiles, projectile cores, and primers. …

Doe Run made significant efforts to reduce lead emissions from the smelter, but in 2008 the federal Environmental Protection Agency issued new National Ambient Air Quality Standards for lead that were 10 times tighter than the previous standard. Given the new lead air quality standard, Doe Run made the decision to close the Herculaneum smelter.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration and SWAT teams attached to non-military or police governmental agencies like Fish and Game or the EPA itself have purchased billions of rounds of ammo for themselves...and are training their agents to shoot first and ask question later when it comes to what are euphemistically called 'non-traditional targets' like pregnant women, children and the elderly.


Of course, ammo can be imported, and there are shooters who roll their own and save their cases,but the idea is to deplete the supply of available ammo and make it horrendously expensive. Look for arcane 'taxes' on ammo purchases as well, something California and other Democrat run states are already salivating over.

The national security implications of this are pretty staggering as well. If we get involved in a shooting war in the next three years, there will be a significant delay before facilities like Doe Run can tool up and start production again.

But that's not the primary concern of the Obama Administration. Their focus seems to be on maintaining the ability to guard the elites and impose tyranny from within.

UPDATE:  The EPA regs in question were actually passed under George W. Bush ( after 2006, when the Democrats had a strong majority in Congress), and Day by Day's Chris Muir actually printed a correction. What's different is the way they're being enforced, and a climate where the Feds are pushing radical gun control while buying up as much ammo as they can get their hands on with other people's money.

John Kerry To Sign UN Gun Confiscation Treaty

 

On the sidelines of today's General Assembly, Secretary of State John Kerry is going to sign a UN 'gun control' treaty which essentially abrogates our Second Amendment and gives the UN sovereignty over what firearms, if any, American may own.

This is being sold as an anti-terrorism and anti-crime measure, just like all such measures are. But it's real purpose is simply to disarm law abiding citizens, since criminals and terrorists will always be able to obtain arms when they need them, either from the black market or from state sponsors of terrorism like Iran.

Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla. is one of the most vocal opponents of the treaty. He sent a letter to Kerry declaring it "dead in the water," since the senate already rejected it once and a majority of senators has gone on record against the treaty.

Since it's a virtual certainty that President Obama is unable to get a two-thirds majority in the senate to ratify it (even Democrats in gun friendly states like Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, Montana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia wouldn't vote for it), why is President Obama having Secretary Kerry sign it?

Simple indeed. First, 2014 is coming up in little over a year, and President Obama wants a signed treaty in case a lot more anti Second Amendment senators get elected. And second, and more likely, this most autocratic and lawless of presidents plans on instituting as many of the provisions of the treaty by executive order as possible, citing the UN and the 'international community as his authority.

That, I'm pretty certain is the ultimate agenda.

UPDATE: It appears that  Tennessee Republican Senator  Bob Corker is on top of something for once. He sees this exactly as I do, and sent the president a letter  warning him about trying to implement this garbage via executive order.

The Navy Yard Shooting And What It Shows.

By now, we have most of the facts surrounding yesterday's Washington Navy Yard tragedy.

 

The Left was sorely disappointed not to get some right wing Tea Party type as the perpetrator, and even more distressed to find out that it was a black man who didn't possess one of those scary "assault weapons', like the AR-15 idiots like Piers Morgan reported he had.

Instead, the killer, Aaron Alexis, used an ordinary hand gun and a shotgun.

It's been reported that Aaron Alexis was a mental case who had a history of multiple arrests with police in various states and was accused of committing numerous gun crimes, including firing a gun into his neighbor’s occupied apartment and blasting the tires off of a car in a fit of rage. According to all existing laws, he should never have gotten the Navy security clearance he held, let alone been able to obtain a firearm of any kind. Yet those laws were not enforced.

I'll ask the question no one else seems to be able to. Was his race a factor in why those laws weren't enforced and why he retained his security clearance, or was it just a simple screw up? Certainly the Fort Hood jihadi, Major Nidal Hassan would never have been in a position to murder 13 people while screaming 'Allahu Akbar' if it wasn't for political correctness.

Alexis had been seeing a psychiatrist and reported hearing voices , yet no one saw fit to remove him from work in a highly protected classified area. Of course, now we know that one of those voices was likely that of Joe Biden, saying "Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!".

There's another, horrendous similarity to Fort Hood. Both the Army dispensary there and the DC Naval shipyard were gun free zones, by Federal law. So a killer following his own rules had free rein to murder, because his defenseless victims could not shoot back.

And that doesn't just apply to the Navy Yard. Washington DC has some of the most anti-Second Amendment laws in the nation. While the Supreme Court may have struck down the old laws, which were even worse, in practice, it is gun control nirvana. It's almost impossible in DC to obtain the kind of weapons Aaron Alexis used to murder unless you have the time, money, connections and patience to get the city bureaucracy to allow you to purchase arms to defend you and your family.

That was highlighted by yesterday's events. The elites, of course, were protected by their private security, courtesy of the taxpayers. But the rest of DC's residents in the area, as well as the personnel in the Navy yard had to just sit there and pray.

Originally, it was thought that there were multiple gunmen on the loose.

So the D.C. police sent out an advisory to residents with “Do not take action” in big letters. Instead, they got given an “event” number and instructions to call 911.

Soon after that they were ordered to “Shelter in place!”. This translates as, 'We know you're defenseless anyway, but don;t try to defend yourselves or you're loved ones if anything hairy happens. And don't run, either. Just hide and hope you get lucky this time.'

As it turned out, there was only one killer, and he got his just reckoning with a lethal dose of lead. But what if there had been more than one killer? How many would have died?

For that matter, even if Aaron Alexis slipped through the cracks, how much would the toll of dead and wounded have been reduced if his victims had the means to shoot back?

And the Left, including our president is using this tragedy as a call for gun control, to make us even more helpless. Have they no shame?

We indeed have psychos and monsters among us. We always have and always will. And they don't pay much attention to laws. Murderers will always be able to obtain firearms when they want them. They'll steal them, buy them illegally or even make them if they get a little easily acquired know how.

Taking away the means of Americans to defend themselves and their loved ones is not just heartless and inhumane. It is an affront to basic human dignity.

And it shows clearly how the elites feel about the rest of us. As Machiavelli said long ago, "When you are disarmed, you are not only defenseless but despised. "

A Huge 2nd Amendment Victory In Colorado

 

Gun confiscation advocates suffered a huge loss in Colorado, where they had managed to shove through anti Second Amendment laws based on federal legislation that failed in Congress.

Recall movements were launched against four Democrat state senators who pushed the measures through.

Not much credence was given to the recall movements because Colorado was thought to have become a Blue state and the legislators in question were all in solidly Democrat districts. But not only did the recalls succeed on two of them, Colorado Senate President John Morse and state Sen. Angela Giron, but the recall elections put solidly pro Second Amendment Republicans in their seats.

There are several far reaching things to consider here, aside from the fact that the laws will likely be repealed, and gun grabbing politicians will now be a lot less likely to support this kind of legislation in most of the country.

The anti-gun forces outspent pro Second Amendment advocates by six to one, and there was little if any help coming from the Republican National Committee, as usual. The victories were entirely due to grassroots efforts, and both wins were in districts that were thought to be solidly Democrat. And they definitely are.

 According to calculations from DailyKos Elections, Barack Obama bested Mitt Romney by 58 percent to 39 percent in Giron’s district, which consists of the city of Pueblo and its suburbs (and a few rural areas). Morse’s district, which covers downtown Colorado Springs and some nearby towns, was even more Democratic, voting 59 percent to 38 percent for Obama. Further calculations by Daily Kos Election results show that this is the typical Democratic performance in these districts.

Even more interesting, Giron, who was considered a rising star among Colorado Democrats and a possible future candidate for governor comes from a district that is predominantly  Hispanic. She got tossed out decisively, which brings me to another point I've mentioned more than once - gun grabbing laws disproportionately affect blacks and Hispanics who live in urban areas and have to live with the real life results of the diktats of  the elites  when it comes to  defending their lives, their families  and their property. Turnout was relatively high for off year elections.

There's an important lesson here.

Democrat incumbents almost never lose in districts gerrymandered to keep them in office unless they have done something that really rubs voters the wrong way. And certainly not by 12 points.

What happened here is that grassroots activists took the issue directly to the voters, door to door and house to house. This is particularly important in Giron's district, where the appeal wasn't based on ethnic pandering but on an issue that cuts across the sort of balkanized special interest groups Democrats love to exploit. The same thing can be done with ObamaCare, school choice, and a hoist of other bread and butter issues.

Is the Republican establishment paying attention? Are they learning anything? I doubt it, but you never know.

California Set To Disarm Its Citizens

 

As California continues to release thousands of violent felons from its prisons, the Democrat-dominated State legislature is working to pass legislation to victimize law abiding citizens and make it as difficult as possible to defend themselves.

The Senate and the Assembly are working on passing a number of bills that would severely affect the rights of Californians and give the state the nation's toughest anti-Second Amendment laws.

The Assembly will hear a bill that would ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. Since the majority of rifles today are semi-auto, this would ban all rifles except black powder muzzle loaders and bolt action rifles that load each shot individually.They will also hear bills already passed in the State Senate that would make it a crime to leave a gun unlocked when you're out of the house and make owning a 'high-capacity magazine', defined as ten shots or more, illegal, even those that were grandfathered in under the state’s previous gun laws. That will outlaw a number of previously legal handguns, as well as rifles that were previously legal.

The Senate will hear bills passed in the Assembly that would create a state database of all ammunition purchases and require background checks to purchase it, make it a crime to have a gun that's not locked up when not being carried, and extend the time for which someone is banned from owning firearms after making a violent threat. I'm not certain exactly how 'violent threat' is defined, and neither is the bill as of yet.

This is how the elites in California, who all have extensive, tax payer provided security feel about the 'less worthy'.

California still has what's known as 'defense of the castle laws' wherein you can use deadly force against someone who breaks into your home if you have a reasonable belief they might do you bodily harm.

That might very well be the next to be 'amended'.

Major 2nd Amendment win! ILL Overides Dem Gov's Veto To Approve Concealed Carry

 

Illinois Democrats have been notorious for blocking legislation allowing their citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights and defend themselves.

The most recent example was Democrat Governor Pat Quinn's veto of a bill they approved over a month ago that would allow concealed carry and junk most of the prohibitive laws on owning firearms in Illinois.


Quinn used his veto power to try and forces changes on the law that would have gutted it. In response, The State Senate voted 41-17 in favor of the override Tuesday afternoon after the House voted 77-31, margins that met the three-fifths threshold needed to set aside the Quinn's veto.

Concealed carry is now state law, and the new law permits anyone with a Firearm Owner's Identification card who has passed a background check and undergone gun-safety training of 16 hours — longest of any state — to obtain a concealed-carry permit for $150.

The Illinois State Police have six months to set up a system to start accepting applications. Spokeswoman Monique Bond said police expect 300,000 applications in the first year.

The Illinois legislature's move was prompted by a landmark decision by the Federal 7th Circuit court, who ruled the Second Amendment permits citizens to take guns out of their homes. The court's original June 9 deadline was extended by a month, but if no new law had been passed, Illinois' gun laws would have been null and void with nothing to take their place.

A big win for freedom and the Second Amendment indeed!

California's Jihad Against The 2nd Amendment Continues - On Steroids

 

California's Democrat dominated legislature is continuing its steady progress towards eventual confiscation with scads of new anti-Second Amendment legislation.

The state's laws are already the most anti-gun ownership in the country, but you ain't seen nothin' yet, as the saying goes.

Under a bill passed by the Senate, Californians who want to buy ammunition would have to submit personal information and a $50 fee for a background check by the state. Then the state Department of Justice would determine whether buyers have a criminal record, severe mental illness or a restraining order that would disqualify them from owning guns.

I wonder if being a registered Republican, voicing 'unpopular opinions' or an affiliation with certain conservative groups will be classified by Democrat appointees in the state Department of Justice as 'mental illness'?

The Senate also passed a bill that would outlaw the sale, purchase and manufacture in California of semiautomatic rifles that can accommodate detachable magazines.

For those of you whom actually know anything about firearms, all rifles are semi-auto unless we're talking about bolt action single shots or black powder rifles.And there are plenty of rifles used in ordinary hunting and target shooting that use box type detachable magazines of anywhere from 3 shots and up. This bill affects all of them.

The measure, SB 374 by Leftist loon Darrell Steinberg(D-Sacramento), also would require anyone who presently owns a weapon of this kind to register them with the state.For a hefty additional fee, of course. The idea is to pass a subsequent bill prohibiting the transfer of these weapons to friends and family, so that eventually they'll disappear through attrition except in the hands of criminals.

The Assembly joined the anti-gun action by passing AB 48, authored by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, Democrat from Berkeley, (of course) to require the state Department of Justice to notify local law enforcement agencies when someone buys more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition and to ban kits that convert magazines to carry more than 10 rounds. There 's a similar bill making the rounds in the state assembly would ban gun ownership for anyone who conveys a serious threat of violence to a licensed psychotherapist...and would require that therapist to make a subjective judgement on whether to violate Doctor patient confidentiality to report it, or be subject to liability.

The state senate and assembly bills will pretty much guarantee that a lot of people who might benefit from therapy, like vets with post traumatic stress aren't going to seek it for fear of having their rights taken away. The prohibitive fees on ammo and gun ownership will likewise affect the ability of working families to defend themselves and their proerty, and will also disproportionally affect blacks and Latinos. It will also impact single women living alone,unless they're rich enough to afford private protection.

There's absolutely no doubt that these measures will pass both houses of the legislature and be signed into law by Governor Brown.

This is unscientific, but a Los Angeles Times straw poll on whether these measure should become law has 12,655 no votes ( 94%) as opposed to 531 yes votes (6%) as of this morning.

There may very well be legal challenges, as there were in Chicago and Washington DC, but they take time and in the interim Californians will live with laws designed to disarm them and make them defenseless.

Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' On Guns

After President Obama's hysterical rant yesterday, I suppose this is to be expected.

Vice President Biden told a number of anti-Second Amendment allies in a conference that President Obama,having failed to get his way is going to be implementing what he wants via yet another executive order:

"Look I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But you know I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

G-d forbid this wanna be dictator would actually honor his oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

President Obama passed the constitutional point of no return on this sort of thing long ago.Although I admit to getting an ironic chuckle over this president referring to anyone else as a 'liar'.

By the way, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already pulled the gun bill from the Senate floor.I'm sure that this was coordinated in advance with the White House, because Reid undoubtedly knows what's being planned in the gun grab.

President Obama Throws A Tantrum After Gun Bill Loses

Even I have trouble believing this one. But it is what it is.

First, we see one of the Newtown parents President Obama flew to Washington at taxpayer expense to lobby congress making some scripted remarks and being used as political cannon fodder and a warm up act, and then we see the president of the United States in a full on tantrum, in essence blaming the Evil Republicans and the 'Gun lobby' for the deaths of children.

Aside from the obvious lies (most Americans do not consider restrictions on Second Amendment rights that important an issue, and the bill that was shot down definitely restricted those rights) there's his childish, angry tone at not getting his way.

He still can't resist making this a partisan rant against Republicans, even though enough Democrats crossed the line to vote against this awful legislation to make it a bipartisan rejection; he still can't resist shrieking against Emmanuel Goldstein in a modern version of the Two Minute Hate.

This is the same president who did nothing about gun grabbing back when he had 60 votes in the Senate during his first term, the same president who kept his mouth shut about it during the last election when all those battleground states were on the line and the same president who had no problem helping his attorney general stonewall the investigation of his administration's gun trafficking of weapons across the Mexican border in Fast and Furious, stretching Executive Privilege beyond anywhere it's ever gone before. How many innocent lives did Fast and Furious cost?

And he has the nerve now to point the finger at others for what he calls political expediency?

At one point in his rant he says that if even one child's life is saved by what amounts to an unconstitutional breach of our Second Amendment rights, by taking people's guns away, it's worth it.

Yet, just as he's silent about the innocent Mexicans that died because of Fast and Furious, he obviously isn't concerned about saving kid's lives if they're children in the womb who are aborted just before they're born or who die after they survive an abortion.

This kind of hypocrisy, this kind of evil is beyond political agendas, beyond politics.

Who is Barack Obama really, and where is he leading us as a nation? Isn't it time we started asking ourselves that question?

Senate Kills Anti-Gun Bill With Bi-Partisan Majority

The Democrat dominated Senate killed the new gun control bill championed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It ended up getting only 54 votes, six short of the 60 needed to avoid a filibuster. President Barack Obama brought thew parents of the Newtown tragedy to DC at taxpayer expense to twist the arms of the Senate, and the president, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, (D-Ariz), and with her husband, Mark ( 'I'll take an AR-15 please') Kelly, had personally lobbied senators, but it the end it failed.

It was an extremely anti-Second Amendment piece of legislation no matter what its proponents said, and while it didn't specifically mandate a federal gun registry, it lay the way open for one and created the means to create it. The bans on 'assault weapons', which the Left defines as 'scary looking guns' since there's no other criteria for them and what are termed high capacity magazines were downright silly and should have ensured the bill's defeat all by themselves.

And finally, while the people pushing the bill said that certain exemptions for personal sales would be allowed, they weren't in the bill itself.The new regs for background checks and the banning of certain firearms and magazines definitely were.

As I wrote before, this was an open attempt to subvert the Constitution by legislating away part of the Rill of Rights.

And among other things, the gun grab doesn't poll well. Only 4% of Americans consider more restrictive gun legislation an important issue, according to Gallup.

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again.

GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) all voted "yes."

Toomey in particular did himself some serious damage, as did West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin, both of whom were instrumental in engineering this bill as one of those bi-partisan compromises that really isn't.

Our Founders provided us with a legal and constitutional way of repealing amendments or inserting new ones. You pass the legislation in both Houses of Congress, with a 2/3 majority and then it goes to the states, where 3/4 of them must ratify it.

Thankfully, enough senators cared enough about the Constitution (or at least about getting elected again) to do the right thing this time.

And underline 'this time'. President Obama isn't giving up on this one, as he said today .

Filibuster In Senate Falls Short - Gun Bill Cleared For Debate

The new proposed Senate gun control bill cleared the 60 vote threshold to avoid a filibuster 68-31 .

It will now go to debate.The bill, so far, is pretty much a mystery except for the fact it reportedly contains provisions for expanded background checks and penalties for gun trafficking - which probably won't be applied to our attorney general for trafficking guns to Mexico illegally as part of Fast and Furious.

Aside from an unconstitutional abridgement of the Second Amendment outside the normal amendment process, the bill also places a major burden on law abiding gun owners, does nothing to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook that are being waved like a bloody flag to promote it and give the feds the intro they need for universal registration and eventually, confiscation.

More than a dozen Republican senators for days had threatened to hold up the bill Thursday. They voiced concern that the proposal -- namely, the background checks provision -- would infringe on Second Amendment rights and impose a burden on law-abiding gun owners. They also expressed frustration that, while Manchin and Toomey touted their compromise measure, the bill on the table Thursday did not yet include that. Rather, it included a stricter background checks provision.

"Because the background-check measure is the centerpiece of this legislation it is critical that we know what is in the bill before we vote on it," Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a statement. "The American people expect more and deserve better.

Here's a list on who voted to advance the bill:

New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte
Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn
Maine Sen. Susan Collins
Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake
Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson
Arizona Sen. John McCain
Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr
North Dakota Sen. John Hoeven
Illinois Sen. Mark Kirk
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander
Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker
Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey
Nevada Sen. Dean Heller

Two Democrats, Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor voted along with other Republicans to kill this bill.

The legislation  will almost certainly have to clear another 60 vote threshold to pass the Senate, and then would still have to pass the Republican-majority House.

Senate Reveals 2nd Amendment 'Compromise' - As Gun Confiscation Begins In New York

Senators Pat Toomey(R-PA) and Joe Manchin ( D-WV)appeared today at a news conference to reveal the outline of the new Senate sponsored bill on gun control. Essentially, it expands background checks for commercial gun purchases and includes gun shows and internet sales.It would exempt personal transfers from the checks, the so-called “friends and neighbors exceptions”. The proposed bill would also call for yet another federal commission to study "mass violence”.

The odd thing about this is that anyone who's purchased firearms knows that you already need to go through a background check to buy a weapon at a gun show or over the 'net. Just do a search for online gun sales, click on any link and you'll see that the retailer tells you that your purchase will be delivered to a local seller with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) for a background check before you can obtain it, and that your home state's waiting period applies.Same with gun shows. So why all the fuss? And why would the NRA already announce its opposition?

 Simple, for a couple of very good reasons.

 What's going on here is a modification of the Second Amendment without due constitutional process, and that sets an important and disturbing precedent. In order to modify or repeal an existing amendment or pass a new one, congress must first pass the legislation and then it must be ratified by two thirds of the states to become law. What we have here amounts to a federalized attempt to weaken our right to bear arms, and I guarantee that this is only the first step if it succeeds.

This has never happened before,let alone on any part of the Bill of Rights. Federalizing this also makes gun ownership a federal concern, and facilitates the recording of data on who owns guns - and their eventual confiscation - a much simpler task. it's simply universal registration under a different guise, and that's exactly why the ATF is creating that new and incredibly intrusive database of personal info I informed you about a few days ago.

 All this has happened before the legal challenges to some of the ridiculous new laws passed in places like California and Connecticut have even been adjudicated.

Also, there are some interesting and new provisions in the proposal. One of them will allow a doctor to add a patient to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) without ever informing the patient he or she has been added. No due process requirement required, and no criteria. A doctor can simply add a patient to the federal database as mentally ill without their knowledge...say, one of those 'psycho' Republican voting vets seeking help for PTSD or even someone seeking counseling for a family matter.

And as we all know, a lot of medical providers will add anyone to the list who might even remotely qualify as well as a lot of people who don't, just to keep predatory lawyers at bay.

Aside from having the potential to keep someone from going to the doctor in the first place to get help or counseling, once you're flagged in this fashion for whatever reason and found out about it, you could even find Big Government coming to confiscate any legally purchased firearms you own you're faced with taking on the federal bureaucracy to try and get yourself removed from the system.

Science fiction? It's already happening in New York:  

“John Doe, an upstanding professional with no outstanding criminal convictions and no history of violent action received a letter from the Pistol Permit Department informing him that his license was immediately revoked upon information that he was seeing a therapist for anxiety and had been prescribed an anxiety drug. He was never suicidal, never violent, and has no criminal history. The New York State Department of Health is apparently conducting a search of medical records to determine who is being treated for anxiety drugs and using this as a basis for handgun license revocation. It seems these supposedly confidential records are then compared against a list of known NY pistol license holders and letters are sent out demanding their Pistol Owner ID Cards be surrendered, as well as any firearms and accessories.

 Hey, why stop at violating the Second Amendment? Let's go after the 4th and 5th as well! According to, James Tresmond Esq., the attorney involved in this case in Erie County ('John Doe' is suing)his client is by no means alone.

Give it time, and Blue states will probably be effectively disarmed in five years or less by this and other provisions. And it may not just be Blue states.

Maryland Deliberately Delaying Firearms Background Checks Until New Gun Grab Law Passes

The deep Blue, Democrat-ruled States are seemingly having a contest with each other to see whose laws can damage Second Amendment laws the most. And they'll use any means fair or foul to accomplish it.

Prospective gun buyers in the state of Maryland are experiencing unheard of delays in getting background checks processed, according to sources like the Maryland Shooter's Forum.The process usually takes 7 days, but delays of 3 weeks are now the norm.

The Maryland Star-Democrat reported on the unheard of delay, but blames it on the fact that Maryland is subject to Federal as well as state laws. The gaping hole in that nonsense is that Maryland gun buyers have always been subject to the same laws - so why the delay now?

The answer to our riddle? Maryland's Democrats just shoved the strictest gun laws in the country though the state legislature and sent it to Governor Martin O'Malley for his signature. And the new law will prevent most of the delayed buyers from getting the firearms they purchased weeks ago.



The connection is obvious...the background checks were deliberately delayed until the new law passed in order to deny Maryland residents their Second Amendment rights

The new law bans yet another large group of weapons, limits magazines to 10 rounds, and forces handgun buyers to be fingerprinted like criminals and submit their fingerprints to state police.

And Maryland already has stiff laws, including universal statewide background checks and a seven-day waiting period to buy a gun, twice that of most states.

The bill also calls for $25 million for schools to invest in security such as locks, cameras and buzzer entrance systems s well as $4.6 million implement the bill and pay for state police employees to enforce the law.

Some of that money may very well end being raised by an increased tax on ammunition,or mandatory liability insurance for gun owners. These tactics are all being discussed by the usual suspects as I write this.

If you live in a Blue State, this and more is undoubtedly coming your way soon.

Crossposted at Mr. Conservative