On Monday, March 28, the Senate Codes Committee voted along party lines to defeat a mandatory storage bill that would have forced gun owners to lock up their firearms, thereby rendering those firearms useless in self-defense situations. S.04291, sponsored by state Senator Liz Krueger (D-28), would have imposed felony penalties for failing to keep guns under lock and key. The Assembly has passed this legislation in previous years, but it has stalled in the Senate. Your NRA-ILA also lobbied against this bill last year when it was defeated in a Senate Committee. The Assembly still has a pending companion version, A.00053a, sponsored by Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-88).
Gun safety and storage is a matter of personal responsibility and every person’s situation is different. Gun owners who live in high crime areas, who want access to a firearm for personal protection, should not be forced to give criminals the upper hand. This bill could have drastic, unintended consequences. Unsatisfied with the harsh SAFE Act, anti-gun politicians continue their onslaught in Albany against law-abiding gun owners while failing to go after criminals.
Despite the rhetoric from enemies of the Second Amendment in the Empire State, this bill is about more gun control and a political agenda, not public safety. The National Rifle Association is the country’s leader in firearm safety with hundreds of thousands of certified gun safety instructors across the country.
Please continue to follow NRA-ILA alerts for updates as we work to defeat the dozens of anti-gun bills that are introduced each session in New York.
SOURCE :: NRA-ILA
Senators from Illinois and New York are making a bid to bring back legislation that would make selling guns to a prohibited possessor worth 20 years in federal prison.
The proposal, to be filed this week in Washington, is sponsored by U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY, and co-sponsored by Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. It is a repeat of a failed bid last session to make gun trafficking a crime.
The earlier attempt by the same two lawmakers, the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, never made it out of committee but Gillibrand is more hopeful this time around.
“I am not willing to throw my hands in the air and say nothing can be done while lives are being senselessly lost due to weapons being in the hands of criminals,” Gillibrand told the New York Daily News. “We all have a moral obligation to make our voices heard and say enough is enough.”
The new bill, termed the Hadiya Pendleton and Nyasia Pryear-Yard Gun Trafficking and Crime Prevention Act of 2015, is named after two teens killed in New York with guns traced to out-of-state origins.
In her standard stump speech, Hillary Rodham Clinton talks about fighting income inequality, celebrating court rulings on gay marriage and health care, and, since the Emanuel AME Church massacre, toughening the nation’s gun laws.
That last component marks an important evolution in presidential politics. For at least the past several decades, Democrats seeking national office have often been timid on the issue of guns for fear of alienating firearms owners. In 2008, after Barack Obama took heat for his gaffe about people who “cling to guns or religion,” he rarely mentioned guns again — neither that year nor in his 2012 reelection campaign.
But in a sign that the political environment on guns has shifted in the wake of recent mass shootings — and of Clinton’s determination to stake out liberal ground in her primary race against insurgent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — Clinton is not only initiating a debate about gun control but also vowing to fight the National Rifle Association.
“I’m going to speak out against the uncontrollable use of guns in our country because I believe we can do better,” Clinton said Tuesday in Iowa City.
He said this in response to Tapper’s question about Sanders’s vote for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). That act protects gun manufacturers from lawsuits tied to the misuse of their products. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2005.
Tapper said to Sanders, “Your Democrat rivals are starting to hit you with the fact that you have in the past sided with the NRA on some gun issues.” He then referenced the dismissal of the lawsuit against ammo retailer Lucky Gunner—a retailer from whom Aurora shooting suspect James Holmes allegedly bought ammo and other supplies.
Tapper explained that the suit against Lucky Gunner quickly fizzled out and was dismissed because of PLCAA.
Then Tapper asked Sanders to explain why he voted for PLCAA?
Sanders responded by first explaining that the NRA has opposed him in “virtually every campaign” he’s been in. And he tossed out his gun control bona fides—”I voted to ban semi-automatic assault weapons, I voted to make sure that there’s an instant background check, I voted to make sure that guns do not get into the hands of people who should not have them by doing away with the loophole exists in the gun show legislation.”
Then he explained why he opposes frivolous lawsuits against gun makers:
Now… if somebody has a gun, and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not any more than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beats somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.
Sanders went on to say “99.9 percent” of gun owners “obey the law,” and no progress is going to made on gun control until “extreme positions” are abandoned.
Sanders did not address his own conundrum—if “99.9 percent” of gun owners are law-abiding, why do we need more gun control? Why not instead practice criminal control of the .1 percent of gun owners whom Sanders sees as problematic?
SOURCE :: Breitbart
New York, NY – -(Ammoland.com)- Hello Mr Trump. Many of our readers are very excited that you have thrown your hat in the ring to run for president in 2106.
They like the idea that you have nothing to do with politics and that you have real experience running large, successful business, successful being the key word. I hope you and your family are up for the challenges of running for president.
AmmoLand: Speaking of family I know you and your sons recently attended the 2015 NRA Annual Meeting, where you were asked to speak. How long have you been active with the NRA and what do you think about the influence the NRA has in politics?
“I am a Life Member of the NRA and am proud of their service in protecting our right to keep and bear arms. The NRA’s efforts to stop dangerous, gun-banning legislation and regulation is invaluable. The media focus on those efforts overshadows the great work the NRA does on behalf of safety and conservation.
I have a permit to carry and, living in New York, I know firsthand the challenges law-abiding citizens have in exercising their Second Amendment rights. My most trusted sources are my sons, Don, Jr. and Eric. They are fantastic sportsmen and are deeply involved in hunting, competitive shooting, and habitat conservation.”
AmmoLand: The deceptive term “Assault Weapons” has proven to be a buzz word among the anti-gun media. Back in 2000 in your book “The America We Deserve” you wrote “The Republicans walk the NRA line and refuse to even limited restrictions. I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.” Since that time the AR15 rifle, what the media calls an “assault weapons“, has become America’s most popular firearm with millions and millions of them owned by good people.
Do you still stand by this quote or has your thinking evolved over the 15 years since you wrote that line?
“I certainly stand by my opposition to Gun Control when it comes to taking guns from law-abiding citizens. You mention that the media describes the AR-15 as an “assault rifle,” which is one example of the many distortions they use to sell their agenda. However, the AR-15 does not fall under this category. Gun-banners are unfortunately preoccupied with the AR-15, magazine capacity, grips, and other aesthetics, precisely because of its popularity.”
“To the Left every gun is an assault weapon.”
“Gun control does not reduce crime. It has consistently failed to stop violence. Americans are entitled to protect their families, their property and themselves. In fact, in right-to-carry states the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the United States and the murder rate is 28% lower. This should not be up for debate.”
AmmoLand: You have been a long time resident of New York City and we can only assume that you know former Mayor Michael Bloomberg pretty well. We have followed his efforts to undermine the Second Amendment through his various anti-gun front groups. What does he have against the RKBA and why don’t we see wealthy conservatives making a similar ‘all in’ push to support gun rights?
“Mayor Bloomberg and I are friends. However, on this we agree to disagree. I believe there are two reasons you do not see a similar effort from Mayor Bloomberg’s polar opposite. ”
“First, many wealthy live behind gates, armed security, and away from crime. They may have little understanding of how fellow citizens are challenged in defending themselves and their property. The second reason is that we have the NRA and other groups already in the arena.”
“The Trump family knows these organizations are the best investment if we are to defend the right to keep and bear arms.”
AmmoLand: Karl Rove recently voiced support for a repeal of the Second Amendment as a way to stop gun violence. What do you think of this suggestion or, as our readers believe, is it a God given right that can not be repealed by politicians?
“Karl Rove is a proven loser. He wasted $400 million in 2012 and did not win a single race.
“The Second Amendment is a bedrock natural right of the individual to defend self, family, and property. It is a ridiculous notion to ever repeal it.”
“For Rove to even think it shows a lack of respect for all of the freedoms in our Constitution and a complete ignorance of our shared American inheritance.”
AmmoLand: As we have reported on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, two of your sons, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., have been the target of harassment by anti-hunting groups after they posted pictures of their successes while hunting in Africa. What advice do you have for other hunters that maybe be being bullied online or elsewhere by this shrill minority?
“My advice is to remain vigilant. Harassment of this nature will always be with us, but we know that Americans have inherited a strong outdoor and shooting heritage that we are happy to defend.”
“The 2nd Amendment is right, not a privilege. The small minority of anti-everything activists may be vocal, but we have facts, and the Constitution, on our side.”
“I would also add that hunters contribute more to the preservation of game animals and their habitat than any of these protesters. Hunters are the original conservationists. To see this historically you have to look no further then Teddy Roosevelt and his creation of the National Parks System.”
AmmoLand: Universal Background Checks to acquire guns is something President Obama has long been pushing for, yet background checks would not or did not stop any of the recent shooters from getting guns. What is your position on Background Checks? And do you see a need for even more government approval for someone to own a gun?
“I do not support expanding background checks. The current background checks do not work.”
“They make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to acquire firearms while consistently failing to stop criminals from getting guns. We should re-examine our policy to make sure that these prohibitions do not impede law abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.”
AmmoLand: A lot of Democrats in politics today are crying for firearms magazine restrictions. But as we saw just with the Charleston, S.C. church killer, he used standard capacity magazines and quickly changed them out five or more times. So how does it make any sense to have gun magazine size limits?
“Gun magazine limits do not make common sense. I have long opposed such limits. For instance, I fought the SAFE Act in New York, which I call the “Unsafe Act.” I also spoke at a rally in Albany championing gun rights and protesting the Unsafe Act. The law limited capacity to seven rounds, as if criminals were going to take rounds out of their magazines before committing a crime. It was later changed to a limit of ten rounds, but the entire episode was a complete disaster.”
“Never mindful of the results, this effort was just one more attempt to erode the Second Amendment.”
AmmoLand: Lots of AmmoLand’s active duty readers have complained that many, if not all, of our military bases are “Gun Free Zones” and that these highly trained war fighters are left defenseless and disarmed against murderers, like the Fort Hood Shooter, when they are stationed on U.S. bases. Would you have a problem allowing our military bases to set their own polices with regard to personal weapons and do away with the “Gun Free Zones” death trap?
“[gun free zones] No, not optional. As Commander-in-Chief, I would mandate that soldiers remain armed and on alert at our military bases.
President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed.
They will be able to defend themselves against terrorists. Our brave soldiers should not be at risk because of policy created by civilian leadership. Political correctness has no place in this debate.”
AmmoLand: Thank you for taking the time to answer some of our questions today. We wish you the best of luck in your presidential run. As we leave you would you like to tell our readers what the Second Amendment means to you and your family?
“The Trump family will stay vigilant in our support of right to keep and bear arms. And given today’s threats across the United States it is as important now as ever. National Security begins in our homes. All citizens must have the ability to protect themselves, their families, and their property. The Second Amendment is a right, not a privilege. Our safety and defense is embodied in the Second Amendment and I will always protect this most important right.
“Our country is ready for a bold new direction. We can bring common sense to Washington. This is our time to Make America Great Again!”
SOURCE :: AMMOLAND
The study was conducted by assistant professor of epidemiology Bindu Kalesan and included an examination of “gun ownership information gathered from study subjects aged 18 years old and above from all 50 US states, including the District of Columbia in October 2013.”
According to Tech Times, the study found that 1 in 3 Americans own guns and that the “percentage of gun owners are highly varied depending on the state.”
For example, the study found that the lowest gun ownership rate in any state was in Delaware at “5.2 percent.” The highest was in Alaska at “61.7 percent.” Divided by regions, Rhode Island had lowest gun ownership in the Northeast at “5.8 percent,” Ohio had the Midwest’s lowest rate at “19.6 percent” and California had the West’s lowest at “20 percent.”
The West’s highest was Alaska at “61.7 percent,” the Midwest’s highest was North Dakota at “47.9 percent,” and the Northeast’s highest was Vermont at “28.8 percent.” The South’s leader was Arkansas at “57.9 percent.”
The study found that most gun owners were white males age 55 and above. “The majority of these gun owners were married.”
The Columbia study presents a conundrum for gun controllers who have, for years, been claiming that rising gun sales, soaring concealed carry applications, and record breaking background check figures all indicated gun ownership was shrinking. For example, a 2014 General Social Survey study claimed that approximately 1 in 5 Americans owned a gun and that the number was diminishing.
None of the pollsters inclined toward gun control seem to take into account that Americans often refuse to admit owning a gun for fear of being included on a government, or government-agency, list.
SOURCE :: Breitbart
ALBANY – The state Legislature left the Capitol early Friday without making any changes to the controversial gun-control law installed in 2013.
After some Senate Republicans ran for office last year vowing to seek a repeal of the gun-control law, they were unable to reach a deal to reform the SAFE Act, drawing the ire of gun-rights groups.
“Am I disappointed? Absolutely, and I think the gun owners of New York state are going to be disappointed also,” said Thomas King, the president of the state Rifle & Pistol Association.
Senate Republicans passed a bill to make a variety of changes to the measure, which was championed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo. But Assembly Democrats and Cuomo showed no appetite to follow suit.
The lack of action on the SAFE Act will create further friction within the Republican Party: upstate GOP members loathe the law, but Long Island Republicans voted for it in 2013 — including new Senate Republican Leader John Flanagan, R-Suffolk County.
“Flanagan had a chance to unite the Republican Party, but he didn’t,” Assemblyman Bill Nojay, R-Pittsford, Monroe County, a gun-rights advocate, said.
Nojay said Flanagan should have pressed harder in negotiations for SAFE Act changes, saying Flanagan had leverage when it came to New York City Democrats who wanted rent-control laws.
“This is a huge disappointment for the Second Amendment community, and it’s not a good omen for the Republicans in the state Senate,” Nojay said. “They always ask for our support for the past two and a half years. They have failed to deliver on anything.”
Flanagan and other senators, however, said they tried to get an agreement with Democrats, but were unsuccessful. Some Assembly Democrats want more gun-control laws.
“For the first time since it became law, we’ve made real headway. However, because the bills failed to pass in the Assembly, there is still clearly work to be done to fully restore our Second Amendment rights,” Sen. Sue Serino, R-Hyde Park, Dutchess County, said in a statement.
Serino, along with Sens. Rich Funke of the Rochester area and George Amedore of the Albany area, were among new state GOP senators who pledged to try to get a repeal of the law as they successfully beat incumbent Democratic senators last November.
Among the changes approved by the Senate would have dropped a requirement that every purchaser of ammunition undergo a background check. The ammunition database that was part of the SAFE Act has yet to function, and the state allocated $27.7 million in 2013 to implement the law, including the creation of the database.
“I will be the first to acknowledge that there is unfinished business – further economic development, more mandate relief, SAFE Act repeal and reform – are all issues that I will continue push,” Sen. James Seward, R-Milford, Otsego County, who sponsored the bill, said in a statement.
A Siena College poll last month found that 62 percent of voters supported the SAFE Act.
Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said the law has worked to limit gun violence, require greater registration of weapons and kept guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
“None of the parties are inclined to anything about it. And the reason they are not is because it is actually working,” Barrett said. “People support it because it’s commonsense: It’s background checks on all guns sales; it’s an assault weapons ban; it’s a five-year renewable permit; tougher penalties for bringing guns on school grounds. These are all commonsense measure. We have an epidemic of gun violence in this country.”
Flanagan narrowly beat out Syracuse Sen. John DeFrancisco for the Senate leadership post last month after the resignation of Dean Skelos as leader amid corruption charges. Six upstate senators went with Flanagan over their fellow upstate member, which irked upstate leaders and led Flanagan to pledge to revisit the SAFE Act.
The Republicans who voted for Flanagan behind closed doors were: Cathy Young of the Southern Tier; Michael Nozzolio of the Finger Lakes; Hugh Farley of the Albany area; Seward of the Mohawk Valley; and William Larkin and John Bonacic of the Catskills.
Stephen Aldstadt, president of the Shooters Committee on Public Education, said talk of primaries against Senate Republicans who backed Flanagan will likely grow after the SAFE Act was left untouched.
“There are a lot of people angry” over the law, Aldstadt said. “They are still as angry as they ever were.”
SOURCE :: Poughkeepsie Journal
Sen. Chuck Schumer vowed Sunday to make a major push to get new gun control legislation through Congress, connecting the Charleston massacre to other mass killings that have rocked the country.
“Everyone in the world scratches their heads and says what is wrong with America here,” Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, listing the Newtown, Conn.; Aurora, Colo., and Virginia Tech mass killings.
Schumer proposed three components of “common-sense” legislation: increasing the strength of gun background checks, particularly to weed out mentally ill individuals; requiring background checks at gun shows, and cracking down on the flow of guns from the South to cities in the Northeast.
SOURCE :: NY Daily News
Whether to capitalize on a tragedy for political purposes, or because their urge to “do something” isn’t tempered by a sense of reality, Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) reacted to the deplorable murders at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, last week by saying that they may reintroduce so-called “universal” background check legislation to require background checks on private sales and trades of firearms, including those between many family members and friends. NRA members and supporters will recall that a previous version of the Manchin-Toomey “universal” background check legislation was soundly defeated in the U.S. Senate in 2013.
As we noted at that time, such a system could only be enforced through national gun registration. But don’t just take our word for it, even Obama administration “experts” wrote that the effectiveness of “universal” background checks “depends on . . . requiring gun registration.”
Earlier this week, The Washington Post reported that Manchin wants to focus on preventing the acquisition of guns by people diagnosed with a mental illness. However, the person who admitted to the South Carolina church shooting had no such diagnosis in his background. Like the perpetrators of a large percentage of other multiple victim shootings, he passed a background check to acquire a gun because there was nothing in his record to prohibit him from doing so.
Background checks don’t stop criminals from stealing guns, or buying them on the black market, as noted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in Table 14 of a May 2013 report. And they don’t stop criminals from getting guns through straw purchases—using people who can pass background checks to buy guns for people who cannot pass them—as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives indicated in a separate report.
In addition, there is another reason to oppose expanding the scope, intrusiveness and record-keeping practices of so-called “universal” background check systems. Giving in to what gun control supporters call “common sense” restrictions would simply take us closer to their ultimate goal.
Last year, Hillary Clinton said that people shouldn’t be allowed to even have an opinion in opposition to gun control. And just last week, former president Bill Clinton, who would presumably wield significant influence over public policy if Mrs. Clinton is elected president in 2016, said people shouldn’t be allowed to “walk around” with guns in public. At the same time, the Violence Policy Center encouraged people to believe there’s not much to be gained by carrying guns in public in the first place, falsely claiming that “Guns are rarely used to kill criminals or stop crimes.”
And then there’s former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, who’s made it very clear that he supports a ban on the private possession of firearms. O’Malley’s position reflects gun control supporters’ refusal to recognize that people have a fundamental right to possess guns for self-defense; that guns are often used for self-defense; and that criminals would reap an enormous advantage from any gun-ban that is effectively implemented. As civil rights attorney Don Kates and Professor Gary Mauser have noted, “violent crime would not fall if guns were totally banned to civilians . . . . [I]ndividuals who commit violent crimes will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons to use.”
Indeed, the FBI reports that one-third of murders, 59 percent of robberies and 78 percent of aggravated assaultsreported to law enforcement agencies are committed without firearms. As an example of the first of those statistics, Charles C.W. Cooke noted for National Review earlier this month that a woman was brutally killed by a knife-wielding attacker recently, unable to defend herself because her pending New Jersey handgun permit application hadn’t been approved.
Meanwhile, the Sydney Morning Herald reports that President Barack Obama, always enamored by gun bans in other parts of the world, cited, as he has previously, Australia’s massive gun ban and confiscation via a mandatory “buy-back” in the 1990s as an example of what he’d like to see happen in America.
Obama also blamed the Senate’s rejection of his 2013 gun control proposals on that perennial anti-gunner bogeyman, “the grip of the NRA on Congress.” What he fails to realize is that the NRA’s strength comes from its millions of members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country. As a result, to gun control supporters’ everlasting regret, public opinion places more faith in guns and gun ownership than in gun control.
SOURCE :: NRA-ILA
“According to Bloomberg Business, gun deaths will exceed traffic fatalities in America this year. Can’t put a seatbelt on a semi-automatic,” he wrote on Twitter.
“Too many closed minds on gun control. Worse, far too many PROUDLY closed minds. Meanwhile, the American shooting gallery remains open.
“Until responsible gun owners support responsible gun control laws, innocent blood will continue to flow. How many times must we see this?”
The shooting at the historic black church, Emanuel AME Church, claimed the lives of nine parishioners. Although the gunman, who was allegedly motived by a belief in white supremacy, passed a background check when he bought his .45-caliber Glock pistol, he had recently been arrested on a misdemeanor drug charge.
“The Confederate flag flying over a state capital is disgusting, but it’s a sidetrack. The real problem comes with a 30-shot clip,” King wrote.
King expressed support for gun control measures following other tragedies. A month after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six educators, he penned an essay calling out gun-rights advocates and the National Rifle Association.
“In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings gun advocates have to ask themselves if their zeal to protect even the outer limits of gun ownership have anything to do with preserving the Second Amendment as a whole, or if it’s just a stubborn desire to hold onto what they have, and to hell with the collateral damage,” he wrote.
King has put his money where his mouth is. In the early 1990s he pulled a novel he wrote under a pen name in which the plot described a school shooting. Once he learned the book was been associated with shooting incidents, King allowed the novel to fall out of print.
Source :: Guns.com
As with the current NY SAFE Act, having more than 7 rounds of ammo in your magazine is defined as criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, a Class D Violent Felony. A felony is defined as a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. We consider these crimes below to be WORSE than having more than 7 rounds, however, New York State disagrees. These crimes below are lesser crimes than possessing more than 7 rounds of ammunition.
120.70 – Luring a child | E Felony
121.11 – Criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation | A Misdemeanor
125.10 – Criminally negligent homicide | E Felony
130.20 – Sexual misconduct | A Misdemeanor
130.25 – Rape 3rd degree | E Felony
130.40 – Criminal sexual act 3rd degree | E Felony
130.52 – Forcible touching | A Misdemeanor
130.53 – Persistent sexual abuse | E Felony (repeat child molester, must be caught and convicted in two separate cases before the charges even reach this level)
130.65A – Aggravated sexual abuse 4th degree | E Felony
130.85 – Female genital mutilation | E Felony
135.05 – Unlawful imprisonment 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.10 – Unlawful imprisonment 1st degree | E Felony
135.45 – Custodial interference 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
135.50 – Custodial interference 1st degree | E Felony
135.55 – Substitution of children | E Felony (switched at birth type of thing)
135.60 – Coercion 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
150.01 – 5th degree Arson | A Misdemeanor
150.05 – 4th degree Arson | E Felony
178.10 – 4th degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | A Misdemeanor
178.15 – 3rd degree Criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions | E Felony
220.28 – Use of a child to commit a controlled substance offense | E Felony
240.05 – Riot 2nd degree | A Misdemeanor
240.06 – Riot 1st degree | E Felony
240.08 – Inciting to riot | A Misdemeanor 240.10 – Unlawful assembly | B Misdemeanor
240.15 – Criminal anarchy | E Felony
240.20 – Disorderly conduct | Violation
240.61 – Placing a false bomb or hazardous substance 2nd degree | E Felony
250.45 – Unlawful surveillance 2nd degree | E felony (Hidden cams for sexual gratification)
255.25 – Incest 3rd degree | E Felony
263.11 – Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child | E Felony
263.16 – Possessing a sexual performance by a child | E Felony
Something to think about….
Breaking News. President Obama formally proposed the most expansive gun-control policies yet, and initiated 23 separate executive actions.
You can download the PDF here: Gun Violence Reduction Executive Actions.
As this wild year and even wilder week begins to come to a close, I finally felt compelled to write a bit about what has transpired. First off, I am proud to the core of my bones to be an American. I have served and defended this country in one capacity or another for the last 20 years, and will continue to do so as long as I am able. But let’s be honest…
America has an asshole problem.
Blame has swirled for the past week over Connecticut, mass shootings and probably the cause of pinkeye. But few if any choose to assign it where it lays most. In the hands and mind of the now deceased assailant. This is not to oversimplify, but if we held people responsible for their actions, prison sentences, incompetency hearings and intervention would have a greater level of import. But of course nothing is anybody’s fault anymore. Especially when you rob liquor stores since your daddy wouldn’t let you play soccer.
America, you see, has an asshole problem.
During the Watergate investigation of the early 70’s, Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee forced his reporters to independently corroborate every nugget of information they had (at times thrice) before he would run it. These days are gone. In the rush to be first in the news cycle, any network will run anything heard from anyone to sell airtime or an online banner. In the pre-OJ days, news was 90% info and 10% editorial. Now we are subjected to agenda-driven vitriol masquerading as news by the Matthews, the Hannitty’s, the Maddow’s, the O’Reilly’s et alia. Accuracy is not issue (even if you’re moderating a presidential debate). Somewhere it became OK for a reporter to shove a microphone in the face of a six-year-old minutes after a shooting. Of course there’s no shortage of sycophantic honey-boo-boo parents who allow (or even encourage) this to happen.
America, you see, has an asshole problem.
When you obsess over irrelevant details nobody gives a shit and you will never get your point across. If you argue the existence of the bible with an atheist by quoting scripture, trust me he will laugh in your face. So, for you “gun rights” folks, stop saying that an AR15 isn’t an “assault rifle.” It’s semantics and you sound stupid. To a non-gun owner, it’s black and looks the same. It was made by the same company, in the same factory, takes the same accessories, runs on the same ammo, and performs the same ballistically as it’s M4 brother. For you “anti-firearm” folks, if an assault is committed with a baseball bat, that makes it an “assault weapon.” Assault or military style weapons are efficient, effective killing tools. Good for taking lives. And if those lives happen to be criminals in the act of perpetrating violence against the law-abiding citizens of the US defending themselves or loved ones, I can’t imagine anyone being against it. To ask the question “why would anyone want or need a gun?” we can draw several conclusions: 1. You have never been a victim of crime, 2. Like an ostrich with it’s head in the sand you believe in the innate good nature of all people and an oversimplification of the hunter/victim relationship, 3. Like those who rely on the state for most, all or a growing number of necessities in life, you believe that someone else will intervene to save you… (Katrina anyone?)
And what of law enforcement? Ask a cop if he carries off duty. He’ll look at you and laugh… of course he does. Ask him if he keeps a weapon in the home. Of course he does. Why? Does he have no faith in his on-duty brothers to keep the peace and protect he and his family? The reality is that nobody has a greater grasp of the response time, capabilities and limitations of law enforcement, than cops themselves. So they carry.
During the Los Angeles riots post Rodney King verdict, Korean store owners kept looters and criminals bearing Molotov cocktails at bay from the roofs of their businesses while overwhelmed law enforcement were powerless to respond. Americans taking responsibility for their own safety and livelihood.
Stop talking about hunting, this is not a discussion regarding deer.
America, you see, has an asshole problem.