Colorado – Gun Rights vs. Gun Control on University Campus

In March, Colorado’s Supreme Court ruled that students with concealed carry permits were allowed to carry concealed on campus. But since July’s mass shooting in Aurora, CO, some university officials, faculty, and students are troubled.

I quote a few paragraphs from the NYT’s article that seems to capture some of the debate:

. . . Some teachers have spoken out publicly against extending the concealed gun policy to campus, fearful that an unstable student — who now, ostensibly, could be legally armed in their classrooms — might hurt them or a fellow student.

Last month, the chairman of the Faculty Assembly at the campus in Boulder, Jerry Peterson, told The Boulder Daily Camera that he would cancel class if he discovered one of his students was carrying a gun. And on Friday, faculty members gathered to discuss how to overturn the policy through legislative channels.

Gun rights proponents, conversely, have argued that lawful gun owners should not be precluded from protecting themselves on college campuses, and they contend that gun bans make those campuses less safe.

Besides, they say, anyone disturbed enough to open fire is not going to heed university policy.

“This gives us the right to protect ourselves, where currently, many colleges suspend that right,” said David Burnett, a spokesman for Students for Concealed Carry, a national group that advocates for the right to carry legally permitted guns on public college and university campuses. . . .

So, what do you think? A disturbed student has access to a gun and might be a threat to his fellow classmates and teachers. So, change the policy and prohibit all students from carrying concealed on campus. Now, what will a disturbed student do? Of course, the disturbed student will follow the university policy and not carry. Are you sure? And, how do those who are not disturbed defend themselves against such a possibility?

I will take my chances with a law-abiding student who is legally carrying concealed.

Read more here.

Legislation Would Strengthen Self-Defense and Use of Reasonable Force – Iowa

Legislation Would Strengthen Self-Defense and Use of Reasonable Force – Iowa

Not everyone in Iowa agrees with the ‘reasonable force’ legislation. Law enforcement argue against it stating it is too broad and would allow almost anyone to hide behind the law.

A bill bolstering Iowans’ ability to use violent force in response to threats sparked heated debate between law enforcement officials and gun-rights advocates in a House subcommittee meeting Tuesday.

The bill, House File 573, rewrites the law on “reasonable force” so that a person may use force — including deadly force — against someone who they believe threatens to kill or cause serious injury, or who is committing a violent felony. . . .

Read more here.

Gun Rights and Drugs – The Government Must Prove the Case that Drugs are Linked to Gun Violence

Gun Rights and Drugs – The Government Must Prove the Case that Drugs are Linked to Gun Violence

Reason magazine discusses the issue of drug use and gun rights. Interesting article, worth a read.

The Federal Criminal Appeals blog reports on a decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding when the government can use drug possession as an excuse to deny weapons-possession rights. In short, it can’t just assert that there is a good reason to bar drug users from guns: it has to try to prove it. But the Court also seems to think such proof won’t be too hard.

Let’s take a walk through the decision to see what happened and why the Fourth Circuit decided as it did:. . . .

Read more here at Reason magazine.

Reason also discussed in a December article the issue of marijuana users and gun rights.

Read it here.

Gun Rights Legislative Alert – H. 3292 Anti-Gun Rights in South Carolina

Gun Rights Legislative Alert – H. 3292 Anti-Gun Rights in South Carolina

Anti-gun legislation (gun control) is being considered in South Carolina.

H. 3292 will be on the agenda of the full House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Jan 24 at 2:30 pm.

H. 3292 WAS the pro gun constitutional carry bill introduced by Rep. Mike Pitts. BUT, Rep. Thad Viers – the chair of the General Laws subcommittee – gutted the pro gun bill and substituted his Viers amendment. The Viers amendment replaced the Mike Pitts language with unconstitutional gun control. You can read all about the Viers amendment on the GrassRoots web site at www.SCFirearms.org GrassRoots has been prohibited by the court from updating the web site since last April, but the info is still accurate. See our post “What Happened to Grassroots” to the right hand side of our web site. We are acting because Grassroots has been silenced.

Unfortunately, due to the ongoing lawsuit and court restraining order against GrassRoots, GrassRoots can NOT appear at the meeting or contact any politicians explaining how the unconstitutional anti gun Viers amendment needs to be voted down and the GrassRoots proposed amendments to the original H. 3292 be adopted and passed instead. All of this can be found on the GrassRoots web site. . . .

Read more here on the anti-gun rights legislation.

If anyone reading this would like to comment and update us as to what did happen on the vote, please do. Thanks so much.

Armed Response Training – Are Pop Up Targets a Good Idea For Regular Target Practice? Not Always- Short Video

Armed Response Training – Are Pop Up Targets a Good Idea For Regular Target Practice? Not Always- Short Video

Good advice from Armed Response Training on why Pop-Up targets, on a regular basis, might be a bad idea for regular practice shooting.

A very important matter for gun owners who want to train properly and safely with their guns.

For more information on Armed Response products and training, please visit here

Black Man With A Gun – Video Kenn Blanchard Discusses Freedom and The Second Amendment

Black Man With A Gun – Video Kenn Blanchard Discusses Freedom and The Second Amendment

Great video on our freedom and the Second Amendment. Kenn is celebrating 5 years of podcasting, but for 20 years has actively defended a pro gun rights message. Congratulations and thanks for your efforts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86JTxJ9myU

Since 1991

I have been representing Americans for the firearm community since 1991. I’ve been the resource for all pro-rights organizations to fight against racist gun control.

I’ve been a firearms trainer since 1986. I poke fun at myself and share the knowledge of the racist roots of gun control, myths, lies and cultural taboos about law abiding firearms ownership.

I’ve been in pro-gun rights television commercials in California, lobbied on Capitol Hill, been on an international documentary, showing the world why I believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I have also been featured in three documentaries. I have testified for concealed carry reform for Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Maryland, Michigan, and Wisconsin. I have represented law enforcement officers rights and spoken publicly about self reliance, self defense and the rights of victims. . . .

Visit Kenn Blanchard’s site, Black Man With A Gun to learn more about gun rights here.

GOP Presidential Candidates – Principled or ‘Political Animals’? – Jeff Knox Discusses Their Views On Gun Rights, Economy, and Constitution

GOP Presidential Candidates – Principled or ‘Political Animals’? – Jeff Knox Discusses Their Views On Gun Rights, Economy, and Constitution

Jeff Knox has a thoughtful article on the various GOP Presidential candidates. ‘Political animals’, what a name.

. . . Among the Republican candidates we see plenty of narcissism with very little principled commitment to constitutional ideals. Gingrich, Romney, and Perry, while they display some differences on policy matters, are, above all, political animals running to be President and have demonstrated a willingness to shift their policies and agenda as needed to advance their political ambitions. Bachman and Santorum likewise show strong narcissistic aspirations, but with a bit more consistency regarding “social conservative” issues. Their dedication to those issues however, suggest a willingness to place the Constitution behind their own religious and social preferences – acceptable on a personal level, but not in an official capacity.

Of all of the candidates, the only one who could be characterized as being agenda-driven for restoration of the Founders’ Constitutional principles, and with personal ambition being a secondary, or even tertiary issue, is Ron Paul. Paul has a long and consistent record of unwavering support for, and defense of, the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The problem with Paul however, is that his agenda is perceived as too aggressive and there is significant doubt as to his ability to be able to put all of the pieces together to make it work. A president has only limited power and even if Paul exercised that power to its utmost, there is much to his agenda that would require support from the Congress – support that he simply would not get. As President, Paul would face constant resistance and undermining from not only Democrats, but from Republicans as well, along with opposition from the media and, perhaps most significantly, federal bureaucrats. Another challenge for Paul would be finding qualified people to serve in his cabinet who agree with his agenda and have the knowledge and experience necessary to be effective. . .

There are some interesting reader comments about the logic Jeff expresses here. We want to restore our country to the Constitution, defend gun rights, etc., but, but, but, but. . . Sorry, I just don’t share that view. Why even talk about the gun rights issues and then vote for someone else who doesn’t and won’t defend the gun rights of America’s millions of law-abiding gun owners?

Please click through to the article and read more here.

Pro-Gun Conservatives Will Challenge Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

Pro-Gun Conservatives Will Challenge Utah Senator Orrin Hatch

GunOwners of America announced that Orrin Hatch, not a friend of gun owners and gun rights, will be challenged by gun rights conservatives in the upcoming election. Read the following to see how many times Orrin Hatch has supported gun control. I’m glad he will be challenged.

Gun Owners of America
Orrin Hatch Picks Up Two Pro-gun Challengers;
Welcome News for Gun Owners

Two pro-gun conservatives recently announced they were running against Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

This is welcome news for gun owners. In a Senate career that has lasted more than thirty five years, Hatch has not been a particularly good friend of the Second Amendment.

During negotiations over the 1986 McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act — designed to protect gun owners from abuses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms — Hatch sat at the negotiating table next to officials of the ATF and argued against the pro-gun positions of Sen. Jim McClure.

Though a senior member of the Senate, Hatch did nothing to block camels-nose legislation slammed through by Republican leader Bob Dole in the late 1980s to regulate armor-piercing bullets and outlaw non-existent “plastic guns.”

As ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993-4, Hatch refused to filibuster the Brady Law, even though it would have been possible to kill it.

He supported the 1996 Lautenberg amendment to impose a lifetime gun ban on people guilty of “domestic misdemeanors” – a term so amorphous that it could apply to spanking your kid or engaging in a verbal argument.

In the wake of the Columbine shooting, Hatch voted for amendments which would have effectively banned gun shows, made it more difficult to keep a loaded gun in your home for self-defense, and codified the Bush-era semi-auto import ban.

This package of legislation was stopped in a conference committee only after Hatch and others were pummeled relentlessly by tens of thousands of GOA activists.

In 2007, Hatch supported the Veterans Disarmament Act—which could strip the Second Amendment rights of honorably discharged veterans who seek professional counseling following traumatic wartime experiences.

Over the following two years, while GOA was working with pro-gun Senators to repeal the gun ban in national parks, Hatch voted against repeal before voting for it in 2009.

Last year, Hatch opposed an amendment offered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to exempt gun buyer information from the Obama administration’s virtually unlimited ability to seize “business records” under the reauthorization of post-9/11 legislation.

Sen. Hatch hasn’t exactly stood up to the Obama administration, either. He voted in favor of regulatory “czar” Cass Sunstein, who favors a ban on hunting and who would grant animals legal protections in court.

And, despite repeated pleas from GOA members, he voted to confirm Eric Holder as Attorney General. In addition to being mired in the Fast and Furious scandal, Holder was the point man on gun control for President Bill Clinton and is a vocal supporter of banning many semiautomatic firearms.

Thankfully, Orrin Hatch is facing a serious challenge in this year’s Republican convention.

Former State Senator Dan Liljenquist is a stalwart pro-gun conservative who understands the dangers of compromising with the likes of President Obama.

And State Rep. Chris Herrod also jumped in the race because, he said, “we don’t have much time to fix our challenges” as a nation. Both Herrod and Liljenquist are “A” rated on gun rights issues.

The candidates will face off in the state Republican convention in April. If no candidate receives more than 60 percent of the delegate votes, the top two vote-getters will run in a June primary.

Gun Owners of America welcomes the challenge to a Senator with a long history of compromising on Second Amendment rights.

Read more and get involved at GunOwners of America.

Romney & Huntsman – No Response to GunOwners of America Candidate Questionnaire

Romney & Huntsman – No Response to GunOwners of America Candidate Questionnaire

What follows is part of a GunOwners of America Action Alert, or News Alert, that they send out from time to time. Very helpful for staying informed regarding a candidate’s position on gun rights and gun control. It is a fair indication, not perfect, of course, about what they will do if elected President.

Personally, I don’t know how Romney won in the Iowa caucuses with so many gun owners in that state.

Romney, Huntsman Stonewall Gun Owners

As New Hampshire voters get set to head to the polls, Mitt and Jon Huntsman continue to ignore requests from gun owners that he return the GOA candidate questionnaire.

Thank to your efforts, we’ve heard from most of the Republican candidates, including Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul. But Romney and Huntsman continue to turn a deaf ear to the Second Amendment community.

Romney’s stonewalling is no surprise. After all, he is on record supporting a semi-auto ban and waiting periods for gun purchases. Still, he has the audacity to travel around the country claiming to be a supporter of the Second Amendment.

If he truly has “changed his spots,” then why not commit in writing to support specific Second Amendment issues? . . .

Read more about Romney and Huntsman at Gunowners of America.

Gun Control Is Dead? Well, Not Exactly . . . Bloomberg Businessweek

Gun Control Is Dead? Well, Not Exactly . . . Bloomberg Businessweek

The headline of Bloomberg’s article gives it away.

Gun Control: A Movement Without Followers
More Americans favor Second Amendment rights, and lower murder rates in big cities convince some that tough laws are unnecessary

The evidence for the weakening of Gun Control is cited as:

In the year since the Tucson (Ariz.) massacre, in which a Glock-wielding gunman killed six people and wounded 13, the most famous victim, Gabrielle Giffords, has recovered admirably. The Arizona representative has co-authored a memoir and made appearances in the well of the House of Representatives and on national television. What Giffords and her fellow Democrats have not done is use the Tucson bloodshed to achieve tougher gun control laws.

The inaction, especially President Barack Obama’s passivity on the topic, demonstrates that gun control has expired as a national political issue. If Democrats can’t sell stiffer restrictions after a midday attack on a congresswoman, when can they? . . .

I would agree. Folks are beginning to understand that supporters of the Second Amendment are law-abiding and aren’t the ones committing violent crimes against their fellow citizens.

Read more on Gun Control is Dead here.