CATI Blog

Gun Control

Viewing posts tagged Gun Control

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

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.

Federal Judge Rules Aurora Victims Were ‘Sitting Ducks’

In a move that could signal a positive change in movie theater policies regarding a patron's right to self-defense, a Federal Judge has ruled that Cinemark Theaters in Aurora, Colorado should have had more security measures in place prior to the July, 2012 massacre. Obviously one of the most basic security allowances that Cinemark could implement would be allowing customers to be armed on the premises in accordance with state law.

A 2009 Federal Court ruling condemned Alamogordo, NM police officers that forcibly disarmed a moviegoer that was openly carrying a firearm in accordance with state law. [click for article]

A 2009 Federal Court ruling condemned Alamogordo, NM police officers that forcibly disarmed a moviegoer that was openly carrying a firearm in accordance with state law. [click for article]

U.S. District Court Judge R. Brooke Jackson's ...ruling does not decide the lawsuits' ultimate question: Did Cinemark do enough to try to prevent the shooting? The lawsuits argue Cinemark should have had extra security measures in place to discourage the attack and to stop it more quickly once it began.

Instead, Jackson's ruling denies what is known as a "motion for summary judgment" filed by Cinemark. Similar to a previously denied motion, the theater chain had argued that the lawsuits should be dismissed because the attack was "legally unforeseeable."

The trial is set for February.

[h/t] - Denver Post

The Smart-Gun Maker Who Told Holder Off

The setting was a behind-closed-doors meeting at the National Institute of Justice, the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. The place was Washington, D.C. The time was April 2013. It was months after the Sandy Hook massacre, and Attorney General Eric Holder was quietly meeting with some gun manufacturers.

pic_giant_081114_SM_Intelligun“I then had the biggest development in smart-gun technology coming together at my facility in Utah — the Intelligun” says W. P. Gentry, president of Kodiak Arms. The Intelligun uses scanners on a pistol’s grips. If a person’s biometrics — essentially, the patterns of his fingerprints — have been added to the gun’s software, the pistol will activate within one second of being touched.

 “This interested Eric Holder,” Gentry says. “He wondered how we might be able to control who was or wasn’t authorized. I stopped him right there. I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, ‘If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I’ll burn it down.’ The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom.”

 That ended the meeting, but not the fight for freedom. Anti-gun groups are now spreading the narrative that gun-rights advocates are preventing the development of these guns. The Washington Post’s Michael S. Rosenwald wrote that American gun owners see eric_hoderthe German gun designer Ernst Mauch — formally with Heckler & Koch — as a “traitor” for joining a German company called Armatix and developing a .22-caliber smart gun called the iP1. Rosenwald also wrote: “The National Rifle Association and other gun groups fiercely oppose smart guns.”

The truth is the NRA hasn’t presented an official position on smart guns in general, and that’s not unusual. The NRA typically lets the market determine the viability of gun technology. The group has, however, officially opposed “requiring guns to be made with electronic equipment that would allow the guns to be deactivated remotely...

Read Full Story: National Review

PROOF – BLM Stealing Texas Land

According to a recent Bureau of Land Management statement, the Federal Government is not expanding it's holdings on the Red River between Texas and Oklahoma.

However if that were true, why would prominent and established politicians such as Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, risk their careers and reputations by speaking out against an eminent BLM land grab in Texas?

A BLM spokesperson also assured me during a recent interview that the BLM is not interested in the "surface management" of what they refer to as the "Red River Management Area" (RRMA) but just like their claim of Red River Management Area Map Astewardship over 116 miles (or more than 90,000 acres) of Texas land, this is utter falsehood.

The fact is, the Bureau of Land Management is expanding  their holdings along the border between Texas and Oklahoma and I can prove it.

 

Concerning the issue of Surface Management:

On the Bureau of Land Management's website there is a recent document that mentions the RRMA, only once, under the sub-heading: BLM Oklahoma Field Office Mission – Surface Management. How about that? The very first area mentioned in the portion of the document dealing with surface-management is none other than RRMA!

Oddly enough, in my second interview with the same Oklahoma BLM spokesperson, I was told some of the specific ways in which the BLM intends to manage the surface of the RRMA.

ATVs RedRiver

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For all of you that enjoy your weekends along the Red River, near the HWY 79 bridge between Beyers, TX and Waurika, OK, enjoy it while you can. The BLM was there just recently with Texas DOT officials and in their estimation your recreation is damaging the bridge supports in addition to ruining the environment.
 

 Over the past few weeks there's been a lot of talk concerning exactly how the Red River has changed its course over the years and thereby altered the land around it. Presumably, this disputed fact has some bearing on who owns and/or manages the land on either side of the river.

There is a legal tradition for this, know as Riparian Law, which dates back to Roman times. However, according to the Bureau of Land Management, this common law standard has no bearing on their position. In fact the BLM operates under the US Dept of Interior's Riparian Policy. In interest of full disclosure the DOI itself lists this policy as an opinion, as it's web address makes clear: http://www.doi.gov/solicitor/opinions/M-37028.pdf .

Now here's where things get really strange.

The BLM states that according to a survey done in 1923, the southern boundary of federally held lands was marked along the median line of the Red River. Everything south of the midpoint of the river was Texas. This survey line was marked with wooden stakes which, obviously, are no longer present. There seems to be no argument that the river has moved northward but the BLM states that regardless of this fact, their 'border' remains in that fixed spot on the planet. I pressed the BLM spokesperson on how they can sure of where their 'border' lies given the fact that the stakes are gone and that the survey team in 1923 had no GPS technology. The BLM could not answer this question.

At the time that the survey was done however it was understood that the river shifted and yet no mention was made that the 'border' would remain fixed. In fact the only datum by which the 'border' can be delineated (according to the survey) is the course of the river itself.

It certainly seems like the BLM is making up the rules as it goes along doesn't it?

Yet the most damning evidence against the BLM's unlawful land-grab comes once again from their very own documents. Much of the information that I used for this article can now be easily found on the internet; but when I first started investigating this issue any mention of the Red River of the South by the BLM was completely absent on every search engine. Humorously enough it was only after speaking with the BLM the first time that I was able to find these documents that so clearly dispute their claims.poster

This link will take you to the BLM's Oklahoma Resource Management Plan (RMP). If you follow that link and scroll down to document page 101 or .pdf page 107, you will find the section labeled THE RMP FOR ISSUE 4. RED RIVER MANAGEMENT.

The first sentence states: "A unique situation exists in relation to the issue of the Red River area management. The area itself cannot be defined until action by the U.S. Congress establishes the permanent state boundary between Oklahoma and Texas."

Another undeniable fact in this case is that in the year 2000, U.S. Congress did in fact make a decision regarding the state boundaries between Texas and Oklahoma, a fact that is not disputed by any of the interested parties. The northern boundary of Texas is the vegetative line of the south bank of the Red River.

referenced here by the State of Oklahoma and here by the State of Texas

The Oklahoma RMP goes on to lay out three scenarios for management based on speculation on how the U.S. Congress was expected to rule at the time that the plan was accepted.

  • In plan 4a, the BLM would gain no additional land and be left with it's contemporary holdings of 958 acres.
  • Plan 4b would provide for an additional 1,400 acres but states that the BLM could end up acquiring  upwards of 46,000 acres should they manipulate the courts successfully.
  • The scenario imagined in Plan 4c, in stark contrast to what Congress actually decided, envisions the BLM being granted 90,000 acres of land that was then and is still owned by Texas farmers and ranchers.

This 1994 OK RMP is still the plan under which the Bureau of Land Management operates. While this plan is currently under revision in regards to future management of currently held land, it makes clear that the Red River Boundary Compact decision of the U.S. Congress did not grant any additional acreage to the federal government. As it stands, the BLM's Red River Management Area consists of 958 non-contiguous acres, all of which lay beyond that vegetative line on the south bank of the Red River.10172630_10200910729210864_3202847317246571132_n

It is for this reason that Texans will be coming from across the state to rally, celebrate and make claim to our sovereign land. Our
gathering will be a peaceful one, so long as our public servants are mindful of their place.

GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!

James Robert Franklin - dontcomply.com & Come and Take It Texas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Control Is Racist!!!

Gun control....That's racist

1640    -Virginia       Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. “Prohibiting Negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” (Los Angeles Times, To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control, January 19, 1992)

10306260_476305045804865_4466831399592517460_n1640    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattos, Negroes and Indians … shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W. W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

1712    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.” (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1712    -South Carolina  Race-based total gun ban. “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves.” [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D. J. McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1791    -United States  2nd Amendment to the U. S. Constitution ratified. Reads: “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.”

1792    -United States  Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]

KKK-pic41806    -Louisiana      Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code, ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)

1811    -Louisiana      Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Apr. 8, 1811, ch. 14, 1811 Laws of La. 50, 53-54, forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (Id.)

1819    -South Carolina Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave. Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S. C. 28, 31 prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)

1825    -Florida        Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8provided that white citizen patrols “shall enter into all Negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away such arms, weapons, and ammunition …” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.” (Id.)

AfricanAmericanSoldierbetween1860-70-5001828-   Florida Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)

1831    -Florida        Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)

1831    -Delaware       Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. In the December 1831 legislative session, Delaware required free blacks desiring to carry firearms to obtain a license from a justice of the peace. [Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion, p. 74-75 (1966).](GLJ, p. 338)

1831    -Maryland       Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Maryland entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 75) (GLJ, p. 338)

1831    -Virginia       Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Virginia entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 81) (GLJ, p. 338)

1833-   Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Feb. 17, 1833, ch. 671, Sec. 15, 17, 1833 Fla. Laws 26, 29 authorized white citizen patrols to seize arms found in the homes of slaves and free blacks, and provided that blacks without a proper explanation for the presence of the firearms be summarily punished, without benefit of a judicial tribunal. (Id. p. 338)

1833    -Georgia        Race-based total gun ban. Act of Dec. 23, 1833, Sec. 7,

1833-Ga. Laws 226, 228 declared that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire 12257866171225786857larms of any description whatever.” (Id.)

1840    -Florida        Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Feb. 25, 1840, no. 20, Sec. 1, 1840 Acts of Fla. 22-23 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (Id. p. 337)

1840    -Texas  Complete gun ban for slaves. “An Act Concerning Slaves,” Sec. 6, 1840 Laws of Tex. 171, 172, ch. 58 of the Texas Acts of 1850 prohibited slaves from using firearms altogether from 1842-1850. (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University, Vol. 85, No. 3, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point”, T. Markus Funk, 1995, p. 797)

1844    -North Carolina Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In State v. Newsom, 27 N. C. 250 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a Slave Code law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens. (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1845    -North Carolina Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Jan. 1, 1845, ch. 87, Sec. 1, 2, 1845 Acts of N. C. 124 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (GLJ, p. 337)

1847    -Florida        Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Jan. 6, 1847, ch. 87 Sec. 11, 1846 Fla. Laws 42, 44 provided that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1848    -Georgia        Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1852    -Mississippi    Race-based complete gun ban. Act of Mar. 15, 1852, ch. 206, 1852 Laws of Miss. 328 forbade ownership of firearms by both free blacks and slaves. (JCLC NWU, p. 797)

1857    -United States  High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U. S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations” applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the Negro race … full liberty of speech … to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p. 417) U. S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.


1860    -Georgia        Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Dec. 19, 1860, no. 64, Sec. 1, 1860 Acts of Ga. 561 forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (GLJ, p. 337)

1861    -United States  Civil War begins.

 

images

 "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do
it;... What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." - Abraham Lincoln


1861-   Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Dec. 17, 1861, ch. 1291, Sec. 11, 1861 Fla. Laws 38, 40provided once again that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave, and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1863    -United States  Emancipation Proclamation President Lincoln issued proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”

1865    -Mississippi    Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military“ and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p. 291, Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.] (GLJ, p. 344)

1865    -Louisiana      Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns, unless in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from “carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons … without the special permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280) (GLJ, p. 344)

1865    -United States  Civil War ends May 26.

1865    -United States  Slavery abolished as of December 18, 1865. 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: “Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

1866    -Alabama         Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black. [The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)] (GLJ, p. 345)

1866    -North Carolina Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N. C. Sess. Laws 99 BLAKE10stated “All persons of color who are now inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)

1866    -United States  Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit any Negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D-Del) added “In my State for many years … there has existed a law … which declares that free Negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power …” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec. 1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”

1866    -United States  Proposed 14th Amendment to U. S. Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its
adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Senator Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Indiana) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the Negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Senator Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e. g. Florida has as “a misdemeanor for colored men … and the punishment … is whipping …” [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June1866)].

download
1866    -United States  Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who voted; temporarily disbanded in1871; reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon peaceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the Negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge … ; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]

1867    -United States  The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that KKK-pic4under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H. Hyman, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 71)

1868    -United States  14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

1870    -Tennessee      First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and blacks could not. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.)165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as ”Suicide Specials,“ the ”Saturday Night Special“ label not becoming widespread until reformers and politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent concern about cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ”It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the “Saturday Night Special” is emphasized because it is cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence -- the reference is to “niggertown Saturdaynight.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law,William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1871    -United States  Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That whoever shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H. R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]. Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under color of any law, … of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person … to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which … he is entitled under the Constitution … shall be liable … in any action at law … for redress … .”
15129_476305089138194_388478187635167965_n
1875    -United States  High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the rights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U. S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and … With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

1879    -Tennessee      Second “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Tennessee revamped its economic handgun ban nine years later, passing “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols,” which was upheld in State v. Burgoyne, 75 Tenn. 173, 174 (1881). (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1882    -Arkansas       Third “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers, which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1893    -Alabama        First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes“ on the sale of handguns in an attempt ”to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.“ (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)
gun-control-is-racist
1902    -South Carolina First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special deputies, which included the KKK and company strongmen. (Kates, ”Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States“ in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)

1906    -Mississippi    Race-based confiscation through record-keeping. Mississippi enacted the first registration law for retailers in1906, requiring them to maintain records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)

1907    -Texas  Fourth ”Saturday Night Special“ economic handgun ban. Placed ”extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt “to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1911    -New York       Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law” enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun. Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (Gun Control: White Man’s Law, William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3, 000 permits in New York City, and 25, 000carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump, Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran, Racism and the Firearms Firestorm, Legal Times)

1934    -United States  Gun Control Act of 1934 (National Firearms Act) passed.

1941    -Florida        Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of Negro laborers … The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)


The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968:


1954    -United States  Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools violates 14th Amendment.

1955    -United States  Alabama bus segregation ordinance held unconstitutional after boycott and NAACP protest.

1956    -United States  Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling called for by 101 Southern congressmen.

1957    -United States  Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks. Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order that Guardsman be removed.

1960    -United States  Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students in Greensboro, NC, refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more than 700, 000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.

1962    -United States  3,000 troops were required to quell riots after University of Mississippi accepted first black student.

1963    -United States  200, 000 people participated in March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. President John F. Kennedy assassinated in November.

1964    -United States  Omnibus civil rights bill barring discrimination in voting, jobs, discrimination, etc.; three civil rights workers reported missing in Mississippi, found buried two months later, 21 white men arrested, seven of whom an all-white federal court jury convicted of conspiracy only.

1965    -California     34 dead in race riot in Watts area of Los Angeles, CA.33_HarryBenson_GodisLove Wattsreplacement scan

1966    -United States  First black U. S. senator in 85 years elected (Edward Brook, R-MA)

1967    -United States  Race riots in Newark, NJ, kill 26, injure 1, 500, with over 1, 000 arrested. Race riots in Detroit, MI, killed at least 40, injured 2, 000 and left 5, 000 homeless; was quelled by 4, 700 federal paratroopers and 8, 000 National Guardsmen. Thurgood Marshall sworn in Oct. 2 as first black justice of the U. S. Supreme Court.

1968    -United States  Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June.

1968    -United States  Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of
1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CRLJ, p. 80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun … The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shell game, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)

1988    -Maryland       Fifth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passes. Ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” i.e. inexpensive handguns, passes.

1988    -Illinois       Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois. Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives, including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants who objected or attempted to interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on December 16, 1988, as Case No. 88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was entered on November 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p. 98)

1990    -Virginia       Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects. The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made the city’s 14, 000 public housing residents second-class citizens. [Richmond Tenants Org. v. Richmond Dev. & House. Auth., No. C. A. 3:90CV00576 (E. D. Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p. 97)

1994    -United States  President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton Administration introduced H. R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee reject edit. Similar legislation was filed in
1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.

1995    -Maine  Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland, Maine, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.



Peace out~ Jason Orsek

1797521_476305105804859_2675582878838317594_n

War on Guns: Report from the Front Lines

Update: Andrews, TX Open Carry

Come and Take It Texas members in Andrews County, Texas are continuing to gain community support even within the Andrews Police Department which has been so hostile towards gun-rights activists.

On Saturday 4/12/14 demonstrators held a three-hour open carry walk including a break for lunch at Cassidy's Sub Shop, a local eatery owned by 2nd Amendment supporters.

On Saturday CATI also saw their first local detractor in Andrews.  A local man repeatedly drove past the group [which included women and children] cursing and making offensive hand gestures at them. Andrews Police officers spoke with the man and discouraged him from using obscenities should he decide to express himself further. The officer later stated that the offender is known to them as a difficult individual so it's no surprise that, like most of the anti-gun crowd, he maintained a classy and mature demeanor while expressing his opinions. (sarcasm intended)

Liberation of Andrews

Though CATI Andrews County has earned the respect of local law enforcement, many remain confounded by what seems to be an absence of logic within the Andrews District Attorney's office as the case against CATI member and former Army Sergeant Michael Keoughan moves forward.

Michael is now urgently seeking donations to help him raise $10,000 for legal representation in a case of clear-cut financial intimidation and abuse of office intended to discourage activists from demonstrating in Andrews, TX.

The small town has a history of intimidating and unlawfully arresting gun-rights activists. Andrews residents first approached Come and Take It Texas concerning this problem in November of 2013 and currently CATI is seeking the resolution of two separate cases involving the unlawful arrest of a military veteran and the prolonged confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

There is ample evidence that Michael Keoughan violated no laws and the dash-cam footage from the arrest makes it clear that the arresting officers were aware of this. Law enforcement was also previously aware of Michael's identity and the reason he was in Andrews that day. CATI Midland/Odessa looks forward to making more footage and recordings available as soon as Michael's trial is over. 

The DA's office has had plenty of time to research the facts in the case and make comparisons to preceding incidents around the state; assuming that they have done this, one wonders what motivates the city to waste taxpayer funds in order to soothe the wounded ego of their Chief of Police shortly before he vacates his office.

Although the town 12,000 still requires CATI to file permits for their educational walks, the situation in Andrews, TX is radically improving. Come and Take It Texas regards the situation as a textbook example of how their reasoned methods and educated activists can powerfully restructure a governmental body that has neglected the Constitution and overstepped it's lawful authority.

- James Franklin, Regional Director Come and Take It Texas, writer at DontComply.com

I Will Not Comply!

7 20 perfect smaller

Roughly a year ago I saw the video below and it inspired me. I sent a Facebook friend request to Connecticut fireman John Cinque and quietly studied Connecticut's descent into tyranny with the aid of local insight. A few weeks ago John made a chilling post about how odd it was to go to bed not knowing if he would awaken to his door being kicked in. He's shown the courage and conviction to stand up for what's right and like it or not, it almost certainly has made him a target for the socialist legislators in Connecticut.

When I re-posted this video on my Facebook page this month I was assuming that everyone had already seen it, but now with Connecticut in the news again John's defiance to anti-American gun laws has gone absolutely viral. I'm glad for that, the people of Connecticut need to know that we support them. It can't be easy standing alone at the front lines of a battle like theirs. Like you, I am a gun-owner, a Liberty-lover and I have a family that I intend to keep safe. While gun-confiscation and arrests may not yet be happening where you are, you would be fooling yourself to believe that it won't be attempted. If we each demonstrate the strength that this man has shown we will save our country and restore the republic. If we fail, then all is lost and our children will bear the worst of what would follow.

It's high time that we send a chilling message to the enemies of Freedom that have infiltrated our halls of government. Share this video with everyone you know and join the thousands of us that are pledged to stand and declare as John did: "I WILL NOT COMPLY!"

Thank you John,

your Brother-in-Arms,

James Franklin

Connecticut – Confusion Reigns as Gun Control Law Takes Effect

Connecticut State Police admitted to NRA that the (confiscation) letter was authentic and that it had been sent to a number of individuals whose registration paperwork was received after the deadline.

Ammoland.com - On April 4, 2013, Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy (D) signed Senate Bill 1160 into law, unleashing one of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation on his constituents.Among other things, the 140-page law bans large classes of firearms and magazines that had been obtained lawfully by tens of thousands of Connecticut residents.

Connecticut State PoliceLimited grandfather provisions apply to those who registered otherwise banned items before January 1, 2014.  Others in possession could face felony penalties for violations.  President Obama himself was in Connecticut four days after this bill became law, praising it as a model for the nation.

Throughout the Connecticut lawmakers’ efforts to attack law-abiding gun owners, your NRA has been actively involved in fighting to vindicate the Second Amendment rights of Connecticut’s citizens.  Shortly before the bill was rammed through the state legislature with no opportunity for public debate or even for adequate committee review, the NRA helped organize a huge lobby day protest rally in conjunction with the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen.  Thousands turned out peacefully to protest the proposed legislation and the incursions on their rights that would undoubtedly result from it.

I will not register my guns

The NRA is currently backing a lawsuit, Shew v. Malloy, to challenge the constitutionality of several provisions of the law, including its expanded bans on semiautomatic firearms and its restrictions on magazine capacity.  Some have wondered why the NRA has not appeared as a named plaintiff in the suit.  Simply put, experience has often shown that NRA is more effective in lending its expertise and resources, rather than its name, to litigation.  Many within the legal elite have been slow to embrace the fundamental, individual rights protected by the Second Amendment, and getting a fair hearing on these matters is difficult enough.  When NRA participates in a legal case as a plaintiff, its involvement attracts a traveling media circus eager to criticize and attempt to discredit whatever it does.  This can further inhibit courts from giving the merits of the case a thorough and impartial hearing.  Unlike some groups who will eagerly tout their participation in any “gun rights” case, no matter how ill-advised or unlikely to succeed, the NRA is more interested in advancing our Second Amendment freedoms through litigation, rather than just using lawsuits for publicity or fundraising purposes.

In any event, a federal district court judge has, for now, upheld the contested provisions of the law.  An appeal is already underway.  The court’s ruling, while unfavorable on the law, contained important factual findings, including that the newly-banned firearms and magazines are, in fact, commonly owned and legally used nationwide, including in Connecticut.  These findings could well make a difference as the case makes its way through the appeals process.

While relief through the court system is at best a long and incremental process, the effort continues with NRA’s full support.

Meanwhile, reality is setting in for Connecticut lawmakers and enforcement officials, who now must deal with the effects the new law is having on ordinary persons who have never been at odds with the law.  As in other states that have recently enacted draconian gun control measures, SB 1160 has caused good jobs and honest business interests to leave the state, unwilling to shoulder the blame for acts committed by criminals that tore at the heart of the business owners and their employees along with all of the good people in Connecticut.

guns-confiscatedEven supporters of the law now widely acknowledge that tens of thousands of existing firearms and untold numbers of magazines have not been registered as required.  In other words, Connecticut’s politicians have created from whole cloth an entirely new class of criminals.  These are otherwise ordinary people who work at legitimate jobs, pay taxes, and undoubtedly in many cases are raising families and running businesses that employ others and contribute to the general welfare of the state.

These are individuals who have never used firearms unlawfully and have no intention of ever doing so.  They had merely chosen to protect their homes and families and pursue their sporting interests with what federal judges are now recognizing as common firearms used in-state and throughout the nation for lawful purposes.  At the time they acquired the firearms, they were perfectly lawful.  Now, these people have become the scapegoats for the heinous acts of a handful of criminals.  Now, they are the pawns in a larger political fight going back decades, when gun control supporters realized that handgun bans would not work, and other avenues would have to be used to condition the public to accept gun bans.

Only last week, multiple reports surfaced of a disturbing letter that had reportedly been sent to Connecticut gun owners who tried to register their firearms but whose paperwork arrived at the Connecticut State Police (“CSP”) after the deadline.  That letter, dated January 2, 2014, and containing the signature of a State Police lieutenant, gave recipients four choices for disposition of their firearms, none of which indicated they would be given a pass for their late submission.  Rumors swirled, as some claimed this was the precursor to a later campaign of outright confiscation, even by those who tried to comply with the registration aspects of the law but failed because of early Post Office closures or mistakes in paperwork.

The Connecticut State Police did nothing helpful to alleviate these concerns.  As one rumor after another was reported in breathless media accounts, your NRA was diligently working behind the scenes to learn the truth.  Our experience was consistent with other reports that have since emerged, in that answers received from CSP officials seemed to vary with whoever happened to answer the telephone.  Some said a letter was being drafted but had not been sent.  Others denied the existence of the letter categorically.  Finally, after NRA personnel identified themselves as such and demanded to speak with high ranking officials, confronted these officials with the CSP’s inconsistent answers, and insisted on knowing the truth, the CSP reversed course and admitted to NRA that the letter was authentic and that it had been sent to a number of individuals whose registration paperwork was received after the deadline.  Nevertheless, the officials insisted it was not a warning of later confiscation but a “public service” to advise gun owners whose registrations were rejected of their options.

Media reports also indicate that the CSP in some cases is willing to grant limited “amnesty” to persons who are believed to have completed the registration requirements prior to the deadline but whose paperwork was received late because of circumstances beyond the registrant’s control.  We find none of this reassuring.  Simply put, the rule of law has broken down in Connecticut and the Malloy administration’s and CSP’s credibility on this issue has been severely compromised.  Nobody seems to know what the state’s intentions are toward residents who have committed purely technical violations of the law, whether or not they unsuccessfully attempted to register their firearms on time.  While we agree that evidence of unsuccessful attempts at registration should not be used to prosecute the registrants, the process of choosing who is and is not eligible for “amnesty” seems to be wide open, with no oversight to ensure consistency or fairness.

In short, Connecticut’s approach to this issue is a glaring example of arbitrary and capricious enforcement of what was bad public policy in the first place.

The only safe choice for those Connecticut gun owners who have not successfully registered their firearms (whether or not intentionally) is to assume enforcement action remains a very real possibility with very serious consequences.  Nevertheless, we certainly hope the Malloy administration and the CSP will devote their limited resources to focusing on truly dangerous individuals who have no regard for any laws or the lives or well-being of others.  They are the proper targets of law enforcement efforts, and not responsible gun owners who were in perfect compliance with the law until a rushed and deeply flawed bill was passed with no chance for public input.

Dump CT Governor Malloy

As for the legislature, they should repeal this ill-considered, politically-motivated law with the Orwellian title of “An Act Concerning Gun Violence Prevention and Children’s Safety.”  Children are not safe when their parents are classified as criminals subject to arrest and imprisonment for the earlier acquisition of property that was undertaken lawfully and in good faith and which threatens harm to no one in the present.  Children are not safe when the next knock at the door could be an armed squad of policemen who are serving warrants against a class of citizens who have done nothing to harm others but have summarily been condemned as “armed criminals.”

The rule of law is in tatters in the “Constitution State,” and whatever ambiguities remain or misadventures may yet come to pass, one thing is crystal clear: Governor Malloy and those who voted for SB 1160 in the state legislature are responsible for them.

In the meantime, Connecticut gun owners can be sure that the NRA is standing with them to fight this injustice every step of the way.