Today, House Bill 531 was introduced by state Representatives Hubert Collins (D-97) and Jody Richards (D-20). HB 531 would allow a law-abiding individual, to lawfully carry a concealed handgun for self-defense without needing to first obtain a government-issued license. This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration, and your NRA-ILA expects a Senate version of HB 531 to be introduced later this week.
This bipartisan legislation recognizes the right of Kentuckians to legally carry a concealed firearm without the requirement of acquiring a Kentucky concealed carry deadly weapons license (CCDW). HB 531 is a much-needed update to concealed carry in Kentucky, allowing law-abiding gun owners the ability to better protect themselves and their loved ones. This legislation would give Kentuckians the freedom to choose the best method of carrying for them, based on their attire, gender and/or physical attributes. HB 531 would also keep in place the current permitting system so that people who obtain a permit could still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that Kentucky has with other states.
Dylan Roof, pictured below, was a poster boy of how the system has failed to stop mass shootings yet again.
He killed 9 and wounded 1, seeking out South Carolina State Senator Clementa C. Pinckney, who was the pastor for the church.
In the days after the shooting took place, the narrative began to take shape – Roof had been arrested for drug possession. Roof was awaiting trial. Somehow he’d gotten a gun – early reports stated that Roof had been given it by family. It seemed like this was going to be seized upon as evidence that Universal Background Checks needed to be passed, lest another tragedy like this take place.
The Narrative had changed. Robbed of their opportunity to blame the “gun show loophole” for this atrocity, the people upset by this pivoted and went after another the Confederate Flag which was prominently featured in Roof’s social media profile and symbolized the racist views expressed in his manifesto.
When Australia had a mass killing – I think it was in Tasmania – about 25 years ago, it was just so shocking the entire country said ‘well we’re going to completely change our gun laws’, and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.
This was important, because Australia did several things: They banned multiple classes of firearms, and they confiscated privately owned weapons under the guise of a mandatory “buy back”.
Never before has this been suggested at such a high level in this country. Previously politicians may have suggested confiscation obliquely, or in unguarded moment, but for a sitting President to state it outright was an eye opening moment.
A few weeks later, on July 16, there was another mass shooting. In contrast to the Charlestown one, this shooting was carried out by a self-radicalized homegrown Islamic extremist decided to target a Chattanooga, TN recruiting office and then a Navy Reserves center. Local law enforcement chased him down, and killed him shortly thereafter.
FBI officials and the media quickly played down any attempt to classify the shooter as a “terrorist” despite him travelling to Jordan shortly before the attack took place.
The perpetrator was revealed to be Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, who carried out the attack with an AK-47 style rifle, a pistol, and possibly a shotgun. Four Marines were killed at the scene while Navy Petty Officer Randall Smith died later at a hospital.
“Some of the weapons were purchased legally and some of them may not have been,”
Attempts were made to try to highlight the need for a renewed assault weapons ban, others wanted to focus on Armslist. Instead, the public reacted in a wholly unexpected way; they were outraged that military personnel were unable to defend themselves.
Paradoxically, though, people remembered that the military areas were gun free zones – press pool photos and footage showed the front doors of the Marine recruiting center riddled with bullet holes, next to a “Firearms Prohibited” sign.
The Safeguarding Service Members’ Second Amendment Rights Act, would repeal bans on military personnel carrying firearms on Armed Forces military installations and Department of Defense (DoD) sites and prohibit the president, secretary of defense andsecretaries of military departments from enacting similar restrictions or prohibitions in the future.
You could practically see the antigun talking heads rubbing their hands with glee over this. They had their perfect example for why gun laws needed to change. Clearly there was no way that this guy had gotten his gun legally, right?
Turns out that despite a well documented history of domestic violence, arson, and involuntary commitment, Houser was never actually prosecuted. All of this could have been avoided had he been convicted for arson back in 1989, and “[c]ourt documents filed as part of a divorce say Houser had a history of hospitalizations for mental conditions.”
We have tried an experiment for the last 250 years and it’s failed miserably and we have to start a new approach. The new approach has to be guns should not be available to people generally, except if they have a significant need.
Surprisingly, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was actually ahead of this wave, stating in early July:
“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City.
A few days earlier, she said in Hanover, N.H.: “We have to take on the gun lobby. . . . This is a controversial issue. I am well aware of that. But I think it is the height of irresponsibility not to talk about it.”
Fake update: It would appear that I’m not alone in noticing this trend:
Business Insider: The dark reason why guns are virtually guaranteed to be a major issue of the 2016 campaign
After years of ducking presidential-campaign battles over gun laws out of fear of the powerful gun lobby, it appears that Democrats are finally ready to go on the offensive.
Democrats are becoming more and more outspoken about gun violence in the wake of seemingly ever increasing mass shootings, despite the fact that the American public remains as opposed as ever to many gun-control measures
It remains to be seen whether this represents a turning point in election politics, or a repeat of Clinton’s 1994 mistake.
Brave New Films, a left wing video production group that regularly posts “documentaries” on YouTube, posted the following video today about how the NRA is a bunch of mean meanies trying to harm medicine:
The problem is that it’s extremely misleading. The “Docs vs Glocks” law came about after numerous doctors were reported asking political questions in their practices, including one doctor refusing to continue treating the patient if they refused to answer questions about firearms in the home. Doctors don’t have the right to discriminate against their patients due to their political beliefs. Some patients were told it was a Medicaid requirement to inform the doctors about gun ownership, others had parents separated from their kids so the physician could ask without the parents consent or knowledge. It’s the height of hypocrisy for them to complain about being gagged from pushing politics when they refuse to provide basic checkups for a patient simply because they don’t want to be given a lecture about how guns are evil.
Could you imagine the outcry if a physician refused treatment because they refused to answer when asked if the parents were gay, or muslim, or handed out pamphlets about the dangers of kids being in single parent homes?
Accidental firearms deaths total under 600 per year across all age ranges. Accidental firearms fatalities for children under 14 number less than 150 yearly. This is per the CDC WISQARS statistics. Meanwhile, medical malpractice kills anywhere between 180,000 – 440,000 people EVERY YEAR.
The Brady campaign filed suit against this law and won an injunction; that injunction was vacated upon appeal. The text of the Federal judges decision can be read here: http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.pdf
The majority judges’ opinion:
The Act seeks to protect patients’ privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The Act recognizes that when a patient enters a physician’s examination room, the patient is in a position of relative powerlessness. The patient must place his or her trust in the physician’s guidance, and submit to the physician’s authority. In order to protect patients, physicians have for millennia been subject to codes of conduct that define the practice of good medicine and affirm the responsibility physicians bear. In keeping with these traditional codes of conduct—which almost universally mandate respect for patient privacy—the Act simply acknowledges that the practice of good medicine does not require interrogation about irrelevant, private matters.
As such, we find that the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct. The Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care. It is uncontroversial that a state may police the boundaries of good medical practice by routinely subjecting physicians to malpractice liability or administrative discipline for all manner of activity that the state deems bad medicine, much of which necessarily involves physicians speaking to patients. Although the Act singles out a particular subset of physician activity as a trigger for discipline, this does little to alter the analysis. Any burden the Act places on physician speech is thus entirely incidental. Plaintiffs remain free—as physicians always have been—to assert their First Amendment rights as an affirmative defense in any actions brought against them. But we will not, by striking down the Act, effectively hand Plaintiffs a declaration that such a defense will be successful. Furthermore, when the Act is properly understood as a regulation of physician conduct intended to protect patient privacy and curtail abuses of the physician-patient relationship, it becomes readily apparent from the language of the Act the type of conduct the Act prohibits. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and vacate the injunction against enforcement of the Act.
This video is propaganda designed to allow antigun organizations to let antigun doctors to try to proselytize at their practice. This isn’t about free speech, it’s about anti gun special interests pushing politics in the place of medical care, and this has been upheld repeatedly on appeal. There’s a reason why the Brady campaign has been the lead on lawsuits fighting this legislation.
The attack against Obama is rooted in a vote he took while serving in the U.S. Senate. It has to do with what the federal government considers armor-piercing ammunition (not, as the statement says, ammo for deer hunting).
The Justice Department would see a small funding increase under President Obama’s proposed budget, but key Justice agencies such as the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would have to make do with less money, budget documents show. Funding is up for top priorities such as national security and counter-terrorism ($107 million more than the current year) and civil rights enforcement ($103 million in new investments). But the FBI — perhaps the most prominent Justice Department agency — would see a 6.5 percent decrease in its overall budget, from $8.9 billion to $8.2 billion. Funding for the ATF, long considered vulnerable to the budget axe, would drop 12 percent. Other Justice agencies such as the U.S. Marshals Service would retain the same level of funding, while the Drug Enforcement Administration – fighting an increase in heroin use and a continuing prescription drug epidemic – would see an 8 percent increase.
Now, I’m hardly what you would consider a fan of the BATFE, but a 12% cut in their budget certainly doesn’t sound like the hallmark of an administration that is serious about tackling gun crime.
The Usual Suspects typically harp on the NRA as the single reason the ATF is unwilling unable to perform their duties, including multiple hit piece articles detailing a litany of half baked claims & excuses as to why the NRA is the root cause of gun crime in the US, but I’d venture to guess that more than decimating the budget of the firearms regulatory agency is going to have an effect.
Bryant Gumbel was interviewed by Rolling Stone and had this to say:
A story you personally took on last season, about the “Eat What You Kill” movement, would you have done that five, ten years ago? There are a few things I hate more than the NRA. I mean truly. I think they’re pigs. I think they don’t care about human life. I think they are a curse upon the American landscape. So we got that on the record. That said, I’m willing to separate that this story had nothing to do with that. It’s not a gun story. So I would like to think that I would have done it, but I don’t know. Obviously, that was my first experience around killing and guns and hunting.
What a surprise. Bryant Gumbel hates the NRA but had no experience with guns or hunting prior to his “Eat What You Kill” segment. Hate is a rather strong emotion, and he’s obviously entrenched in his opinion, judging by the rhetoric used… yet he knew nothing about the subject, or the reasoning behind the NRA’s motives or reasoning.
Heck, why bring up the NRA at all?
I find it especially interesting that while filming the Eat What You Kill segment, a boar rushed out of concealing foliage, less than 10 feet away, and was only brought down through the quick reaction & skill of the hunter. They spent time discussing how aggressive the boars can be, and examining their tusks… yet Gumbel can’t seem to understand that this experience also translates into what you can experience on the street.
This argument comes up as a throwaway line when dealing with anti-gun zealots. As always, let’s remember:
“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
The NRA is a registered non-profit, specifically a 501(c)(4) (Tax ID#: 53-0116130). In order to keep their non-profit status, they have to file IRS Form 990s yearly, which are available for public inspection.
$11 million in gross inventory sales (hats, wine I guess?)
Finally, at the bottom, there’s $20 million in advertising
So there’s $20 million in advertising dollars. $2-6 million in direct contributions from manufacturers (See NRA Ring of Freedom). Compared to $200+ million in money directly from members, end users, and individuals buying NRA gear.
If someone is going to make the claim that manufacturers run the NRA, ask them for the figures. Make them show their math.