CATI Blog

CATI Blog

Sinister Anti-Gun Promotion At Capital Building Exposed

There are many folks that don't like seeing guns. Even though they may claim to be "strong 2A supporters" at the very moment they see a citizen with a firearm, the story changes. How many times have we heard, "Yes, I have guns, lots of guns! I shoot, I hunt, I can protect my family, BUT sometimes it's not the right time or place to have a firearm." Yet they claim to be STRONG 2A supporters.

Let's take a closer look at the statehouse in Austin. I personally have been chin deep in the gun rights movement in Texas since 2013 when CATI started pushing for full State recognition of our unalienable right to keep and bear arms. I have been to meetings with legislators and other government officials, and have been there with boots on the ground, in front of the scene and behind it, and everything I write here is coming from firsthand experience.

To understand where we are right now and what led up to these recent events, let us take a step back in time and cover some history.

The State Preservation Board is the state’s department in charge of the Texas State Capital Building, and the attorneys for the SPB have responded to me directly regarding my request for information on carrying a firearm on the grounds and inside the building. There is no "rule" against the firearms as per the state agency that operates the capital. Yet, apparently, there are folks under the dome that don't like it and have put pressure on "someone" to suppress our political speech of openly carrying firearms.

Jason Orsek of CATI Texas

Jason Orsek - CATI Texas Vice President

I was one of the four original Texans that walked into the statehouse with my Scar 17 across my back on July 4th, 2013. Although I held a letter clearly stating that there was no rule against it, someone didn't like it and ordered the DPS troopers to remove us from the building. None of the involved troopers could produce any law, statute, or rule concerning out actions, or even a written request for us not to do it. All they could say was “It is not allowed.” and that we could open carry “Outside only.” After exiting the building and as we stood at the outside door of the capital debating DPS, citizens walked right past us and entered the building with a CHL. Someone did not want those rifles inside the building....

As time passed we had rallies at the capital and stayed outside and DPS continued to claim no rifles were allowed inside, yet they could not cite any source for this infringement on our right to bear arms. Then we came to a realization that CHL holders were allowed inside with their handguns, so surely a pre-1899 black powder revolver would be ok! According to the Texas penal code, it is not even considered a firearm, and is less regulated than a pocketknife!

Mr. Gary Hays entered the building with his BP. Again he suffered the same fate we did with our rifles. He made it in for a short time and then was asked to vacate. DPS was very nervous about this and treated it like a huge ordeal. They took Mr. Hays down into the basement to question him alone. I intervened because I was his official caregiver. I insisted that either I was going along, or else they were going to have to replace me with a RN or arrest me. I was allowed to stay with my "patient" and observe everything. It was pretty much what you can imagine, no one knew what to do or how to handle it because no laws were broken, but someone obviously didn't like it and hey, the troopers were” just doing their jobs” right? Eventually, Mr. Hays was released and escorted off the property. They released his black powder revolver to me and instructed me not to come back on the property. The oddity of it all was this: I had my loaded and chambered Glock 19 on me the entire time. Now I had a CHL, but they didn't know that because they never bothered to ask and they shuffled me around the metal detectors. Don't ask, don't tell, right? I was legal either way.

Then things got even more interesting ...

After a quadriplegic managed to legally enter the building with a unloaded black powder revolver , this silent somebody pulled some strings in order to get even more illegitimate gun control going at the statehouse.

The readers of this blog know the events that took place after that, namely the arrests of Holcomb, followed by Scott and Gary .....

After this, they would allow no firearms, or pre-1899 black powder guns on the Capitol Grounds.

Dova with a BP and Grisham arrested with a toy gun as others carried rifles not 20 feet from them....

Tom and Dewlash....

Every gun arrest case at the capital was later dismissed as the prosecutor could find nothing with which to charge the alleged “offenders”.....yet DPS still enforces this law that does not exist, and all because someone doesn't like guns in that building...

It was, and still is, a mess, but one thing was growing: gun control at the statehouse by someone with the political clout to have nonexistent laws enforced by arrest (kidnapping?).

Now we are up to date as of January 13th, 2015...

Gun activists have been playing nice and staying off the grounds (Though any CHL holder can carry a handgun right into the building, no questions asked).

In the past two years, Texas gun activists have made HUGE headway towards defeating these antiquated gun laws and making it harder to regulate firearms on the grounds (that are already legal)

Then on January 13th, 2015, something powerful happened. Known gun rights activists entered the building without firearms but instead heavily armed with signatures. Signatures from sorted voting pools and organized to target each legislator.

One senator was approached that is not in support of HB195 (the bill that would remove the wording in the Texas State Constitution that was enacted directly after the civil war that allows the Legislature “by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”) and voiced his opinion. As expected, some words were exchanged and after approximately 45 seconds of feelings being expressed, the gun activist left the office.

Now here is where I believe it gets even more interesting…

The very next day, first rattle out of the hat, they pass a rule that legislators can install a "panic button" in their offices. The new law also gives representatives more discretion about who can enter their public offices.

CATI TexasSo now we have a unique situation. Apparently in 100+ years of voting age Texans voicing an opinion utilizing their 1A rights, despite the thousands of disagreements before this one that were far more heated...now, all of a sudden, they need a panic button? So now, when a legal voting age Texan with a CHL enters HIS statehouse to express his opinion to a legislator that was voted in for his district, and dares to say something the legislator doesn't want to hear, they can call in the DPS to remove or arrest him? To disarm him? To strip him of his CHL which is in itself is a perverse version of his UNALIENABLE RIGHT that was already taken from him, and sold back to him at a premium, via the CHL program? Now those who are supposed to work for us, have even more power to prevent them from hearing our opinions and problems that they are elected to address?

There you have it folks. Somebody in that house doesn't like guns, and they have managed to get unlicensed carry of rifles off the complex, managed to get the carry of non-firearms (according to Texas penal code section 46.01 (3) a&b) off the public grounds completely, without passing a law or an amendment to the Texas Constitution which is what it would lawfully require, and they have now achieved the first step of getting the coveted CHL holders that speak out removed from the complex and stripped of even the state approved perversion of their right... This doesn’t look good to me.

Be mindful what you say.....Somebody in that house doesn't like guns and they just breached the last threshold of bearing arms we had in our own capitol...the CHL...

Press Release: CATI Texas Set To Manufacture Firearms At State Capitol

Come And Take It Texas
For release on 1/5/15
Ghost Gunner Printed Firearm Come And Take It Texas(CATI) Come And Take Texas, has been the front line for gun rights since their inception two years ago and Jan 13th won't be the exception. Everyone concerned about gun rights will attend the event being held at the Austin, TX Capitol. From 8am-6pm attendees will be visiting all representatives to express their desire to have The Constitutional Carry Bill HB 195 passed. And staying true to being the front line for gun rights, CATI has purchased the Ghost Gunner machine and will be manufacturing firearms on location at the Capitol. 

Event Details - Click Here


Learn More: CATITX.com 


Support CATI - Membership


Donate To This Event




Demand for Restoration of our Gun Rights H.B. 195

On January 13th Come and Take it Texas and others will convene at the Capitol in the Republic of Texas. State Representative Jonathan Stickland has introduced House Bill 195. Texas is one of Five other States, along with CA, NY, IL, and SC, that do not have the Freedom to Open Carry a Handgun. In the last year and a half Texan Gun Rights Groups all around the Lone Star State have walked,assembled, and engaged in Humanitarian efforts all while Open Carrying their Long Guns and Black Powder Pistols. This has succeeded in Educating the Public as well as Law Enforcement, to show that the presence of Firearms in Public is not only Safe but Highly supported. Stickland's H.B.195 is what we Demand and intend to present it in a way as Big as Texas itself. Restoration of our Human,Civil,and Constitutional Rights is not Requested. A "war cry" by brusquely impatient Patriots will be heard on that Day, from 8am till 6pm.when the Legislators clock out and beyond. Governor Elect Gregg Abbott has already Pledged to sign Open Carry into Law. Now all eyes are on the "law makers" to do the right thing, To honor their oath of office and Return our Freedom.

By Andre' Esparza - CATITX.com
SupportHB195

December Newsletter

Here is the Come And Take It December Newsletter. Please print and enjoy. Also, follow and share the links below to get our petitions signed. The time for us to take back open carry is quickly coming. Be there with us in Austin on 1-13-15.
Thanks and Carry On.

Happy Holidays,
From the whole team here at CATI Texas

CATI December Newsletter

HB 195 petition
Stop Straus petition
Come And Take It Texas on Facebook
We Are Coming To Take It event on 1-13-15

CATI Region Facebook Pages:
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6

History Of The Stand Your Ground Law

The struggle for freedom and human rights are woven into the very foundation of the United States. Based on this struggle, we built a society that we have today, which many believe is the society of freedom and justice. Although the modern political and philosophical thought and ideals have set the axiom that refers to the limitlessness of human freedom, which is actually true, we can see throughout recent events that also the freest society in the world has some objections regarding this topic.

Stand Your Ground Law ImageThe whole story has begun 2012, in Florida, as we learn from the media, as a young man named Trayvon Martin was taking a walk in the neighborhood or going home after a sports event when he ran into George Zimmerman, who was a member of a voluntary, but armed civil patrols. As Zimmerman was patrolling in their neighborhood in Sanford during the night, he conflicted with a seventeen-year-Tryvon, thinking that he was one of the robbers with which Zimmerman and his neighbors have had problems with. The argument went wrong, Zimmerman’s gun fired and Trayvon Martin was killed. This event is almost immediately characterized as racist, because Trayvon Martin was black skinned (he was born in Miami), Zimmerman was declared as someone who returns racism through the big gate into the American society (although he had a Cuban mother). Of course, the situation has escalated after the verdict of his release, in which the court, in the case of Zimmerman, is referring to Stand Your Ground law. The situation was followed by a series of protests, and even President Barack Obama commented on this matter. All of this we could have seen in the last few months in the media. As in the case of Dunn, before this, ghosts of canceling Stand Your Ground law, were awaken, who are convinced that it encourages racism, bloodshed, etc. even though they are forgetting about the benefits of the law, which was adopted in good faith and serves to provide a basic right to life and property to a man and a citizen.

To understand the point of Stand Your Ground law, we must investigate its origin and its benefits. Stand Your Ground law is based on the Castle Doctrine and in the last ten years has been adopted in many countries on the territory of the United States. In fact, it is the law relating to self-defense and the very act of defending his personal, private property rights. Every person has a duty to the right to self-defense, "In general, a person is allowed to use force to protect himself, or another, from the use of force by a third person '(qtd. in  J. P. Neyland 3). In order to preserve the inviolability of property and life, in order to preserve personal freedoms of man and citizen shall, indeed to stand up for themselves. Of course, the possibility of which was given to man to defend himself, certainly must not be misused. It rests on the man and the law to determine whether indeed anyone is acting with the intent to protect what is his, which belongs to him or acting to deliberately hurt each other, which is clearly intent to be sanctioned. In her work, Cristina Catalfamo dealt with the history of Stand Your Ground law and its roots in the Castle doctrine. She says ' The now-familiar concept of the right to stand one's ground against an attack is a doctrine of modern law, and its roots in medieval English law were slow to develop '(Qtd. 721). Thus, the defense which involves the use of any type of weapon is not something that was invented to be furthered war, religious or racial conflicts, already existed in English common law, centuries ago. It is well known that the British have their own laws and regulations adopted if they had any specific needs, ie. to prevent consequences of events that have already happened.  Hence the famous saying that a man has a right to defend his home as a castle (Megalet 112). English common law implied and obliged those who are attacked to retreat and take action only when they are in mortal danger inside their home, however, it is often a header to the attacker. So the attacked were seriously injured, and, not a few times, killed. This claim is found in the survey conducted by Cheng and Hoekstra (7). 'This English duty to retreat doctrine was rejected in a majority of states across the United States in the late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century' (Qtd. Catalfamo in 722). Because of this the duty to retreat doctrine is retained only in some states. At the beginning of the 19th century when law began to develop as a science in this area, as we have said many states in the United States have refused to accept the duty to retreat doctrine, and history says that it was at because of the honor people felt. For them it was not dignified and honorable to flee from the attackers or robbers, or to withdraw, but they directly confronted them, later in the post-war phase, ie. due to the serious consequences that the war left in the South, confrontments were somehow a part of a legal system (JP Neyland 13).

CATI AmericaThe first time the Supreme Court officially recognized human right to defend himself against the attackers was in a process that is driven in 1895, Babe Beard vs. United States. Michael R. Walford describes this event in his post. The story is that Babe Beard was on his property when the three brothers came to ask Babe for a cow, which apparently remained in his estate, and belonged to one of the three brothers. Babe refused to give them back the animal and one of the three began to threaten him with one hand in his pocket. Babe warned them to leave his property and when they didn't, Babe shot and killed one of them (nydailyrecord.com). Babe was arrested and charged with murder, but the court cleared him of charges, just because of the moral and natural principle of the inviolability of life and property. '... If that danger was real, coming from the hands of Will Jones, or it was apparent as coming from his hands, and as affecting this defendant by some overt act at the time, was the defendant called upon to avoid that danger by getting out of the way of it if he could?  The court says he was. The court tells you that he was. There is but one place where he need not retreat any further, where he need not go away from the danger, and that is in his dwelling house ... '(Qtd. Resource.org from). This is the original quote from the judgment of the court in the case of Beard v. United States, affirming the right of a man to defend himself against attackers. Later, during the 1920's Castle doctrine is increasingly getting affirmation in the United States, and in particular the expansion is experienced in the state of Texas (JP Neyland 14-15, Catalfamo 725-726). After Florida, which first adopted the Stand Your Ground law, ie, with certain modifications of which I already wrote, followed by more than 30 countries. Duty to retreat law is in force in approximately ten other.  And in the opinion polls of the United States, in the opinion of the citizens of the largest democracy in the world, it is a good law. So where is the problem?

If we look at the history of civilization, the history of democracy and the struggle for human rights, not only that a man has the right to defend his life, his  family and his property, but it is his obligation and responsibility.

In the following paragraphs we shall explore a few views and reasons why I think the Stand Your Ground law is  needed in our society and our community.

Let's start at the beginning of the Bible. If God created man free, and that it is man's freedom and his ability to choose, that his will can be directed where he wants, is what distinguishes him from other creatures. What makes a man himself  is the basic and first human freedom, the right to live, a right to be a person. It is something that nobody can take from him  threaten it. However, not everybody uses all their freedoms for doing good and noble things, but some people use it from  base motives, bringing benefit to  themselves and doing wrong to others. The Bible also speaks of this: ’’ 14 Stand your ground, putting on the sturdy belt of truth and the body armor of God's righteousness. 15 For shoes, put on the peace that comes from the Good News, so that you will be fully prepared. 16 In every battle you will need faith as your shield to stop the fiery arrows aimed at you by Satan. 17 Put on salvation as your helmet, and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Ephesians 6:14-17).

On this basis, after obscure Middle Ages famous theorist and philosopher Thomas Hobbes  said that man is wolf to a man:’’Homo homini lupus’’ (Rossello 1). Although he was a great liberal,  he felt that something must limit human behavior that interferes with  the freedom of others. And there may lie the answer to the question that we are considering in this paper. There must be something else to take a man as an individual and provide him with protection, to preserve his freedom and independence. The state is the one that operates at a higher level and through police and military guards  its citizens, but in order  to really act democratically, it must allow its citizens to protect themselves in those borderline situations when it can not protect them.

These are well predicted by the Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, who understood the essence of the problem and the Bill of Rights gives the opportunity for solution of the problem: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed '(Amendment II).  James Madison, one of the most important people in our history, a man who is the most responsible for the society that we have, anticipated and it is accepted that no one dares to hurt the right of citizens to own and carry a weapon.This was not for the reason to provide people with an excuse to kill each other, but to defend them from possible aggressors or burglars.

I would add one more benefit that we have from the Stand Your Ground law. How many times have we all had a chance to hear that a girl in self-defense killed a rapist or a murderer and was convicted. Or that a group of thugs break into a man's house, start to harass and disturb him, then, also in self-defense, to protect his family, property and himself, killed someone and was acclaimed as the murderer. Stand Your Ground is protecting the innocent, the helpless and oppressed. We had the opportunity to read in the press about cases of mass rape in India, even that in some cases the victims were found guilty. This question in general should not cause a dilemma in society, every man deserves the right to defend himself and to live.

Also, Stand Your Ground protects minorities. This perspective of the law is ignored. Minorities, especially in territories that are loaded with racial, social or religious reasons, where there are often conflicts of different social groups, can reliably protect themselves with the help of this law and be sure to keep the intensity of the conflict declining, if rambunctious masses had in mind that they can no longer terrorize innocent citizens.

I'll finish with the extract from the transcript of the conversation that took place between the 61 year old Joe Horn and the dispatchers from police. The conversation took place in late 2007 in Pasadena, when burglars broke into the building in which he lived ’

Horn: I have a right to protect myself.

Dispatcher: I’m, I’m right there with you.

Horn: And a shotgun is a legal weapon; it’s not an illegal weapon.

Dispatcher: No it’s not. I’m not sayin’ that.

Horn: Alright.

Dispatcher: I’m not wanting you to, you know, make a mistake.

Horn: He’s, oh, he’s coming out the window right now, I gotta go,

buddy. I’m sorry, but he’s coming out the window.

Dispatcher: Don’t, don’t—don’t go out the door. Mr. Horn? Mr.

Horn?

Horn: Goddamn it. They just stole something. I’m going out the window.

I’m sorry’’(Rice Lave 828)

How would most of us react to find themselves in such a situation? Would we warn the  intruders or would we fight for our lives?

By : Vladimir Milojevic - CATITX.com 

CATI Shows up at Ferguson Protest

CATI (Come Ant Take It Texas) is the frontline of gun rights here in the great state of Texas. That is made more evident daily as we are the boots on the ground walking the walk. Last Wednesday the 26th Matthew Short, Mark Nash And Guy Potter arrived at the Ferguson protest happening in downtown Dallas. They were open carrying and at first the protesters were unsure, even mad that they were there. The point that was lost on them was the fact that CATI members were not there against the protesters. They weren't there against the police either. As members of this community it is important that anyone is allowed to exercise their 1st amendment right to free speech. We are there in support of that. We also have pride in our community and don't want to see where we live destroyed like Ferguson. Where were the community patrols preventing the residents from themselves there? Here in Texas it is a different story indeed. We not only respect our right to free speech, we respect private business owners that have struggled to get the American dream. As concerned citizens will not stand idly by and watch either be violated. Lets all stand up for our rights as Americans, despite our differences one thing is clear; you don't have to agree with someone to help protect their right to speak that opinion. Open Carry On.

 


 

NEWS STORY LINKS:

WFAA8

The Blaze

 

Harris Teeter To Moms Demand Action: We Will Not Change Gun Policy

Harris Teeter Gun PolicyOn November 20, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America delivered a petition to the Harris Teeter grocers asking them to bar law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in their stores. Harris Teeter responded by saying they have no plans to change their policy, which allows the carrying of guns in states and municipalities where doing so is legal.

According to The Charlotte Observer, North Carolina-based Harris Teeter issued a statement expressing its position: "We have and will continue to adhere to the firearms and concealed handgun laws as outlined by states in which we do business. We believe this issue is best handled by lawmakers, not retailers."

Breitbart News previously reported that Moms Demand was rebuffed by Kroger in August, after they pressured that grocery chain to bar law-abiding citizens from carrying guns in its stores. Kroger told Moms Demand they abide by state and local laws and trust their customers "to be responsible" to carry guns where allowed.

Source:  Breitbart.com 

 

Facebook Bans Gun Safe Ads – In The Name of Safety

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns

moms

You may recall that Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America demanded that Facebook prevent netizens from selling firearms via the service. The social media giant agreed to “delete reported posts that indicate that the seller will not conduct a background check or that a buyer is seeking to avoid a background check” and “block all children (under 18) from viewing reported posts from individual gun sellers or gun pages where guns are sold or traded.” The former depends on snitches and the latter is unenforceable. But that hasn’t stopped Facebook from [further] trampling gun rights on the advertising side . . .

Grass Roots North Caroline press release [via Ammoland.com]:

Hyatt Guns, in Charlotte, North Carolina, recently posted an ad for safes and vaults on their Facebook page as part of a Veterans Day promotion. Almost immediately, Facebook’s speech police swooped in and ripped the ad from Hyatt’s page.

The social networking giant asserts that since Hyatt sell guns, which are banned from Facebook advertising for these other, innocuous products is also banned, although Facebook’s official policy does not seem to support that.

Facebook seems concerned that clicking on a safe ad might lead to another click that could lead to another click that could lead to a gun advertisement somewhere else . . . or something like that.

This is what Facebook’s representative had to say about it:

“Your ad was rejected because it violates the Ad Guidelines. Ads may not promote firearms, ammunition or weapons (ex: paintball guns, BB guns, knives, etc)… This decision is final. Please consider this the end of our correspondence about your ad.”

This must be corporate Facebook’s version of “free and open dialogue.”

Facebook ‘Unlikes’ Gun Safety

It is so-called “gun safety” groups that initially pressured Facebook to ban certain discussions and images from its site, and certainly it’s safety that is used as the overall pretense for the site’s gun ban. With “safety” as cover for an anti-gun stance, it is then painfully ironic that Facebook has now banned a business from advertising products that are about nothing BUT gun safety.

Safes are not weapons, so they do not violate Facebook’s policy. And clearly, the sole purpose of safes and vaults is to keep weapons out of the wrong hands—burglars, children, etc. This is the very definition of smart, responsible gun safety.

As though it weren’t bad enough that Zuckerberg’s censors have banned gun talk, now they’re banning anything that might make one even think of gun talk. Below, see how you can quickly and easily send a message to Mark Zuckerberg about his policing of gun-related speech, and his corporation’s inexplicable ban on gun safety products.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

Use the information below to contact Mark Zuckerberg. Let him know that you don’t appreciate his censorship of speech on Facebook. Point out to him that promoting gun safety products, like safes and vaults, does not violate Facebook’s stated policies, and banning them is counterproductive if one believes that gun safety is a worthy pursuit.

Phone Mark Zuckergerg, CEO of Facebook at this number: (650) 543 4800. Deliver the following message:

I’m calling because as a Facebook user and someone who is interested in gun safety, I am shocked to hear that Facebook bans the promotion of safes and gun locks. These items are not on your list of banned products, and in fact are used to promote and implement safe practices. Gun safety is a worthy pursuit, and it ought to be embraced by Facebook, not rejected. I strongly encourage you to lift the ban on safety-oriented products such as gun safes, vaults and locks. Thank you.

E-mail Mark Zuckergerg using this address: mark.zuckerberg@fb.com. Use the copy/paste message in the “Deliver this Message” section, below.

Tweet Mark Zuckerberg using the following text and Twitter handle:

Why has Facebook banned ads for gun safety products? Gun safes save lives!http://tinyurl.com/q8ewfqy @finkd @GrassRootsNC

Post to Mark Zuckerberg’s Facebook page here: www.facebook.com/zuck?fref=ts. Use this copy/paste message:

Why is Facebook banning ads that promote gun safety? Safes and vaults save lives and aren’t on FB’s list of banned products (xxx).

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Don’t ‘Unlike’ Gun Safety”

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg:

I have recently been informed that you have banned the advertisement of gun safety products from your social networking site, Facebook. Some time back, you elected to censor speech regarding guns and other weapons, and although I see this as misguided, you certainly have the right to police speech on your own site. However, if gun safety is truly a concern of yours, denying companies the ability to advertise products such as safes, vaults and gun locks is entirely counter-productive. I will also note that safes and vaults are not on Facebook’s list of banned products (they are not weapons).

I ask that you please review your company’s policy of censoring ads depicting gun safety products such as safes and vaults. I do not believe these products violate Facebook’s anti-gun policy. Conversely, these products promote safety, a worthy pursuit that ought to be embraced by Facebook.

Thank you in advance for your serious consideration on this matter. I will continue to monitor this issue via alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully,

About: Grass Roots North Carolina is an all-volunteer organization dedicated to preserving the freedoms guaranteed us by the Bill of Rights. Our main focus is the right to keep and bear arms. GRNC was central to drafting and passing North Carolina’s concealed handgun law and since that time has continued to push for improvements to gun laws. Visit: www.grnc.org

Israel Eases Restrictions on Carrying Guns after Synagogue Killings

Robert Farago - The Truth About Guns

Jerusalem-synagogue-attac-012

“In the coming hours, I will ease restrictions on carrying weapons,”Israeli Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch announced today on public radio. Aharonovitch indicated the liberalization would only apply to licensed gun carriers, such as private security guards and off-duty army officers. The change does NOT mean that anyone with a gun can carry a gun, or that the State will make it easier for Israeli citizens to get a gun license. As TTAG has reported, the Jewish State has been moving in the opposite direction, towards civilian disarmament, for years. If that blows your mind check out the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel’s reaction to today’s synagogue slaughter [via jta.org]. . .

Following the attack, Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, the Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel, said that Jews in Israel should not pray in a synagogue unless there is an armed guard. Yosef called on the government to help in funding the extra security.

“In every other public place security guards are stationed; there is no reason synagogues should remain defenseless,” Yosef said, according to the NRG news website.

The slaughter of four unarmed rabbis in Jerusalem may trigger something a sea change in terms of Israelis looking to exercise their natural and practical right to keep and bear arms. We shall see. [h/t AP, Pascal]

 

DC Police: Even Female Assault Victims have No Right to Carry Firearms

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

Emily Miller is the senior editor for the Washington Times Opinion pages. She served as the Deputy Press Secretary at the U.S. State Department for Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. She is the author of 'Emily Gets Her Gun: But Obama Wants to Take Yours' which details her struggle to legally own a handgun Washington D.C.

 Emily Miller, FOX 5 WASHINGTON D.C. -

I am a registered gun owner, but I feel that I'm in more danger on the streets of Washington, D.C. than inside my home. So when D.C. recently passed a new law allowing for some rights to carry a gun outside the home, I decided to apply for a permit. I quickly found that it is still impossible to exercise my Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Until July, Washington, D.C. was the only place in the country did not allow for any right to carry a gun outside the home. A federal district court judge ruled in the Palmer case that the total ban was unconstitutional.

The D.C. attorney general said last week that the city will appeal the ruling. While the issue goes through the courts, the Metropolitan Police Department has started giving out applications, so I went to the firearms registration office to start the process.

Milton Agurs, a civilian police department employee was at the front desk. I told him why I was there.

“You need to meet two criteria,” Agurs explained. “First that your life is in danger, your family or your property, or you have the type of business you carry large sums of money, jewelry. Under those circumstances, you can get a carry permit in DC.”

“To prove my life is in danger?” I asked. “Obviously there is a rising crime rate and a high rate of murders and sexual assaults in D.C. -- is that enough to say I want this for self-defense?”

“You have to prove you need concealed carry as opposed to just wanting one,” he replied.

Prove a need for a constitutional right? That's what D.C.'s new law says.

DC News FOX 5 DC WTTG
The application that Agurs gave me said that living and working in a high crime city is not enough to get a carry permit. I read further down where it says that it has to be “a special danger to your life."

What's the difference between a regular danger -- like getting raped and murdered on the street --- and a special danger? You have to prove you are being targeted.

“Do I have to give evidence?” I asked.

“Yes ma'am,” said Agurs.

“I was a victim of a home invasion. And I've gotten a threat against me. Do I just give the police records?” I asked.

“Yes, ma'am,” he said.

I asked Agurs who will decide whether or not my self-defense needs are special?

That's something the chief of police will do,” he said, referring to Chief Cathy Lanier.  “But you'll have your reasons why you feel like you need it.”

“The chief of police personally will decide whether or not I get a carry permit?” I asked.

“You know it usually works-- it's going to be her or someone on her staff,” he said.

Proving a “need” is just one part of the carry permit application.  You have to do 16 hours of classroom training, plus two hours at the range.

“Where do I go to do that?” I asked Agurs.

“Unfortunately, I think they are still setting up the classes,” he replied.

There's the rub.  The city isn't actually abiding by the court decision. No one can apply for a carry permit because the police haven't certified any trainers for the mandatory classes. That might be partly because D.C. charges trainers $400 to be certified.

In contrast, Virginia accepts any class that is certified by the NRA. And there's no minimum time requirement for training.

So I asked Agurs:  "The Second Amendment right to bear arms just doesn't fully apply here?"

"I believe when the Second Amendment was written, that was more or less for when the British were coming."

When the British were coming? The Bill of Rights is no longer relevant?

Well, I spoke with Alan Gura, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Palmer case. He said that the city's new carry permit law is unconstitutional and does not adhere to the court ruling. Gura has filed a request for a permanent injunction, which a district court judge will hear on Nov. 20.

So I can't go any further in the application process until the police certify someone to teach the 18 hours of classes. The police gun registration office told me to keep calling to find out when that happens.