INSURRECTIONIST TED CRUZ AT ODDS WITH FELLOW REPUBLICANS

Ted Cruz says "that the Second Amendment 'includes a right to revolt against government tyranny.'” This Tea Party crackpot is determined to bring this country to its knees with his radical idealism. Adam Winkler, Second Amendment expert and UCLA law professor, says that those passionate over gun rights might espouse this idea but usually not a presidential candidate. It's one of the many reasons Ted Cruz shouldn't be a presidential candidate. In rebuttal, Lindsey Graham says “I think an informed electorate is probably a better check than, you know, guns in the streets.” At the very least, these people are scary. At worst, old crazy Cruz could just drum up enough halfwits to march on the U.S. Capitol. It's time to send all these fruitcakes to the pasture or farther.

GUN CONTROL BUILT INTO 2ND AMENDMENT

Adam Winkler is a Constitutional Law Professor at U.C.L.A. and author of the book "Gunfight." He is an expert on the legality of gun rights and I have corresponded with him regularly on this subject. I asked him two questions recently: 1) Is there any constitutional law validity in the premise that based on the many revisions of the 1st Amendment, that the same could apply to the 2nd Amendment? I refer you to Barry Lyga's "Second Amendment Loopholes." 2) Do you see any loopholes in the 2nd Amendment that people like the Brady Organization or CSGV, or the individual American could pursue legally? His answer was not a direct response to the questions but more pointed to the issue of gun control.

First, he says he "wouldn't call them loopholes, but the Second Amendment does include space for legitimate gun control." I used the term "loophole" for its obvious meaning, "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc." However, Adam's answers are much more directed at the need for gun control. He continues: "There's some reference to gun owners being 'well regulated' in the text itself. Well, it's government that does the regulating. And we know that the founders who wrote the Second Amendment supported gun regulation, including gun bans, gun registration, and safe storage laws." Two direct hits on gun rights so should we call it quits here? No way!

Adam Winkler confirms the legal possibility of gun control with, “More importantly, the scope of the right as it has been shaped over the course of American history permits government significant leeway to regulate the right so long as the right is not nullified or destroyed.”

Seems to me like prohibiting assault rifles, requiring universal background checks and limiting open and concealed carry to only those with a specific need does not nullify or destroy the right of an individual to have a weapon in his or her home for protection as the Supreme Court recently ruled.

With these hard facts and a Constitutional Law Professor like Adam Winkler to back them up, why haven't the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence gone to court?

 

 

  

 

 

JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY COULD DECIDE GUN CONTROL FATE

Adam Winkler...Gunfight

SCOTUS has refused to hear several gun control cases brought by the National Rifle Assn. that would allow broader open and concealed carry. Although D.C. v. Heller only clarified possession in the home, carrying a firearm outside the home is still up for grabs. The Courts have ruled against straw buyers--those purchasing guns for a third party--so what's left is background checks and open and concealed carry outside the home. Congress will probably eventually rule on the background check issue; only an idiot cannot see the benefits of making sure who is buying guns. But SCOTUS must address the 2nd Amendment issue of whether a citizen can lawfully carry a gun outside his or her home for protection.

The key vote could come from Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; he joined the liberals in the straw buyer vote. Adam Winkler, a UCLA law professor who wrote Gunfight: The Battle Over the Rights to Bear Arms in America, thinks Kennedy is "willing to read gun control laws broadly." Winkler also thinks Kennedy "...insisted that the opinion establishing the individual gun ownership right, District of Columbia v. Heller, contain language that it was not calling into question reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The door is obviously open and Kennedy could be our man.

Gun deaths escalate while an impotent Congress of deadbeats just hovers in limbo

Mindy McCready

I am not a country music fan but it was tragic to hear that singer Mindy McCready had taken her life…with a gun.  On Monday, 4 people were shot in Spokane, 2 at a night club, 2 more nearby.  And then on Tuesday a gunman went on a shooting spree in Southern California that left 4 people dead, including the shooter.  Does the question, “What does it take?” come to mind?  Abby Rogers in Business Insider says, “A History Of Gun Control Laws Shows US Citizens Don't HaveAn Absolute Right To Bear Arms.”  Something I have blogged about for months. 

Rogers tracks the history of gun control laws from 1860 through 2010.  There were the early laws in the 1930s covering the manufacture and transfer of firearms along with another that regulated interstate commerce in firearms.  Then came the 1968 Gun Control Act following the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King.  There were others like California’s law restricting the use of assault rifles, the Brady Act of 1993 imposing background checks and then the federal assault weapons ban in 1994 which was allowed to expire in 2004.

Most recently New York passed one of the toughest gun control laws ever and they did it with a GOP controlled Senate along with a Democrat-dominated assembly.  Are the Republican politicians more intelligent in New York, or do they simply favor human life over worshipful gun ownership?  And then on Monday, the Colorado House voted in a package of gun control measures that included a ban on concealed weapons on college campuses.  Also included is a fee for state background checks.  It now goes to the Senate.

Adam Winkler on gun control:

Former U.S. Rep. from Arizona, Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly have formed a gun control group called Americans for Responsible Solutions.  Giffords was seriously wounded in the 2011 Tucson massacre by Jared Loughner where 18 others were shot and 6 died including a nine-year-old girl.  And then less than a week ago, MoveOn.org announced it will spend six-figures on a TV spot titled, “The NRA doesn’t speak for me.”  Jerry Thompson, a gun owner and defender of the 2^nd Amendment is the spokesperson who says in disgust:

“For years I’ve watched Congress take money from the NRA and then oppose any kind of reform that helps keep us safe.”  Further, "I've had enough. So here's my message to Congress. You take money from the NRA and then continue to do their bidding, we're going to remember that come election time. The NRA doesn't speak for me, and they don't speak for the vast majority of Americans so stop taking their money"

81% of gun owners support background checks which would close the gun show loophole.  40% of gun buyers purchase their weapons at gun shows where private sellers are not required to make background checks.  Seem like a no-brainer?  Not for Wayne LaPierre and his gang of gun bubbas at the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  These gun nuts are fighting background checks as well as any other meaningful gun control legislation.  Other gun rights advocates say:

 “Our backs are against the wall,”  “We are in for the fight of our lives. I have never seen anything like it.”  This is a statement by Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun rights group following the Sandy Hook Elementary carnage.  The CCDL also conceded that the assault weapons and high-capacity magazine bans just might make it through Congress.      

What is it about New York, Illinois, Colorado and California gun control reasoning that the rest of us don’t seem to assimilate?  New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg credits the state’s tough gun laws for decreasing his city’s gun violence significantly.  If it can work in the largest metropolitan area in the country, it should be able to work anywhere.  Contact your congressional leaders, U.S. House, here, U.S. Senate here.

I want concealed carry permits revoked for all except those with special needs…especially in Arizona



Arizona gun nuts



I can hear the screaming already from those gun bubbas that have to pack heat just to prove their masculinity.  And don’t throw the 2^nd Amendment at me because I really don’t believe the right to bear arms includes necessarily outside the home.  And if you people keep pushing this you are going to find yourselves without the right to even own a firearm, putting your buddy Wayne LaPierre and his organization the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) fanatics out of business.

For years the NRA has refused to budge on even negotiating over new gun control regulation.  And this has now come back to haunt them simply because the American public no longer believes the NRA’s bullshit about your “absolute” right to own a gun.  Nothing, particularly in respect to the U.S. Constitution, is absolute and this will be a key factor on any future decisions by the Supreme Court in deciding on gun control.  Just get used to being on the defense.

The Associated Press is reporting, “The next big issue in the national debate over guns — whether people have a right to be armed in public — is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.”  It’s time to get these cowboys off the street and restrict the right to law enforcement and those with special needs.  I mentioned Arizona in the headline because there are people walking around all over this state that shouldn’t be carrying a gun.

Because of loose Arizona gun laws, loosest in the nation, you can buy a gun with no background check, use it without any training, and carry it anywhere you want to, including a bar.  Thanks to a Republican legislature that is one bullet short of a full cylinder, the gun nuts thrive here brandishing their toys with relish.  And although an Illinois federal appeals court struck down a state ban on carrying concealed weapons, there is disagreement here with other federal courts.

These courts have upheld state and local laws banning concealed weapons based on the Supreme Court’s ruling that individuals have the right to have a gun for self defense.  In Dist. Of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled in favor of Dick Heller that allowed him to own a handgun in D.C. for self defense in his home.  Many have interpreted this to mean that the Supremes just might consider the banning of concealed weapons permits outside of the home.

The AP article points out that these split decisions between appeals courts is the very thing that whets the Supreme Court’s appetite for a juicy case.  UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who published his book, “Gunfight,” last year believes SCOTUS just might take on the challenge.  Winkler thinks the Illinois statute would fall if put to a test before the Supreme Court.  He just isn’t sure how far the decision might reach re. an outright ban.  We’ll take our chances.

I’ll settle for the high Court to take a look at the whole concealed weapons issue, which could put yet another nail in the coffin of Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  This organization and its radical management must be stopped and now is the time with the recent gun carnage in Newtown Sandy Hook School and other mass killings.  There is no doubt that gun control is on the move and the momentums is very encouraging.

Gun control…a nada in the second Presidential debate



Bloomberg announces Super PAC



Neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney provided satisfactory answers to what they would do about gun control, especially according to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is an avid proponent of taking illegal guns off the streets.  Bloomberg was so upset that he pledged millions through a new super PAC backing candidates and ballot initiatives in favor of gun control.  This could very well be the turning point to challenge NRA political contributions.

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) has bought and maintains the U.S. Congress.  These wimps in Washington are scared to death of what wacky Wayne LaPierre and his gang of lackeys will do if they don’t toe the line and support their style of gun rights.  Innocent Americans’ lives be-damned.  As an example, over 9,000 people died from gun-related homicides in the U.S. in 2011.  VOXXI reports:

“This is an astounding total when one considers that the death of 2,000 people in an organized military conflict is considered to be a major war.”

Video of debate gun control questions:

VOXXI also tells us that if the gun show loophole had been closed, the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting wouldn’t have happened.  The shooter, James Holmes, “got his semi-automatic rifle from a friend who bought it for him from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show.”  These unlicensed dealers aren’t required to make background checks, and didn’t even after the woman buying the weapon told the dealer it was for someone too young to buy a gun.

It has been established that over 70% of the guns used in crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.  This, after the U.S. recently withdrew its support for the global Arms Trade Treaty.  And you guessed it, the NRA opposes this treaty making the organization not only responsible for innocent deaths in the United States, but all over the world.  Another case of illegal guns going out of the U.S., 3 men were recently arrested in Nashville for buying firearms and shipping them to Australia.

 In the second debate, Obama said he favored renewing the assault weapons ban, a statement he has made before with no follow through.  He also wants to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, and wants more “conversation” on the issue.  That’s when the ammunition hit the fan and Bloomberg said we’ve already talked enough.  The Mayor says it’s now time for action and put his money where his mouth.  Romney is against any new gun regulation.



Adam Winkler's latest book

Adam Winkler, a specialist in American Constitutional Law at UCLA, says in the Daily Beast that an assault weapons ban is not the answer since the gunman can come armed with multiple weapons, in case one jams.  Contrary to that belief, if semi-automatic weapons were banned, another thought is that, at least, the assailant would kill less people.  Winkler continues, mass shootings aren’t the real problem, it’s gun violence like Chicago’s where assault weapons aren’t used. 
Rebekah Metzler on NPR corrected the Romney comment that it is illegal in this country to have an automatic weapon.  Metzler said:

“It's not entirely correct. For those who had automatic weapons prior to the ban, which happened in 1986, they're still allowed to have those as long as they're registered with the federal government. Those same weapons prior to 1986 that were registered with the federal government are also allowed to be bought and sold if you jump through some hoops.”

VOXXI contends that undercutting the power of the NRA “will require a major public outcry that will make politicians realize that there is a political price to be paid for opposing gun control.”  That is what we gun control advocates have been trying to accomplish for years.  Maybe NY Mayor Bloomberg’s distress over the lack of attention to the issue in the debates and his subsequent super PAC to address gun control will finally provide the answer.

Gun rights fanatics and some moderates say gun control is racist

Ladd Everitt Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has written an article on racism as a concept to explain gun control.  You might laugh at the thought that the gun nuts would come up with this ridiculous hypothesis, but in his piece, Ladd quotes author Adam Winkler, who is a UCLA Law Professor, as declaring that “gun control is racist” in his new book, Gunfight. 

According to Everitt, Winkler implies that gun control is defined by extremists who want to take away all guns from owners and establish a system much like the United Kingdom.  I have been writing on gun control for over seven years now and know this is not true as Ladd Everitt confirms.  He even cites others who concur like Sen. Chuck Schumer, (D-NY) and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. 

See Ladd Everitt question Adam Winkler over racism and gun control below:

There are others that add to this misconception like historian and author, Clayton E. Cramer, who says, “The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws -- and not in any subtle way.”  He underlines that with, “Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics "in their place," and to quiet the racial fears of whites.”  Shades of Mississippi and Arizona.

Cramer continues in his article with examples like the French Black Code that required Louisiana colonists to stop and if necessary beat blacks carrying any weapon, even a walking cane.  He also talks about the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the fear of the first North American English colonies slave revolts, and the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution that allowed only “white” men to bear arms in their defense. 

The author sums up the article with the statement, “…gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence.”  Interesting, but still not proving a real connection between gun control and racism other than the fact that the days of slavery in this country were violent ones.

Everitt says that Winkler “…even acknowledges that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans today support strong, strict gun laws.”  And he adds that “Winkler can cite no example of the contemporary gun control movement being racist.”  This is a modern day comparison unlike the historical one by Cramer. 

And growing up in the South in Mississippi and Tennessee, I was well aware of the killings of the Ku Klux Klan. 



KKK hanging



Once, after I was old enough to drink I said to my father when we were having a beer together in a local Tennessee tavern, that I thought the KKK was a bunch of illiterate barbarian murderers.  He quietly let me know that this wasn’t something you said in this part of the country, particularly in a saloon where everyone had been drinking.  Actually, I grew up in this West Tennessee small town thinking I was the one that was crazy because of my beliefs, but I never gave them up.  I was for gun control then and not once experienced anything racist about it.

If you are interested, I would suggest that you Google “gun control is racist” to see a multitude of sites on the subject.  The gun rights extremists will go to any length to try and prove their point that everyone should be able to own a gun, no matter what their status, and be allowed to take their firearms anywhere in the USA—perhaps even the world—they want to.  But connecting gun control to racism is just wrong.

Wild West gun laws looser today than during Wyatt Earp’s fight at the O.K. Corral

You can read all about it in Adam Winkler’s new book, Gunfight, The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America, published on September 19, already available on Amazon.com.  Winkler is a professor of constitutional law at the University of California, Los Angeles, and writes for The Daily Beast and Huffington Post.  He is an expert on gun law whose statements you can take to the bank.  In his research for the book, he confirmed that gun control can work.

The author says in a recent article in HuffPost, quoting Chicago Mayor Richard Daley following the supreme Court’s decision confirming the rights of individuals to own guns, "Then why don't we do away with the court system and go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we'll settle it in the streets?"  Winkler adds, “Gun control advocates fear -- and gun rights proponents sometimes hope -- the Second Amendment will transform our cities into modern-day versions of Dodge.”

From the comments I have received from my gun control articles, that is exactly what the gun bubbas want.  In the untamed West you needed a gun to protect yourself from the bad guys and wild animals.  Today we have law enforcement protection to fill that void, and, although strained, manages to do a damn good job taking care of the American public.  What we don’t need is a bunch of untrained vigilante gun slinging cowboys that don’t know what they’re doing like the two at the Rep. Gabby Giffords massacre in Tucson.

But returning to the Old West, Winkler describes the dusty streets of a typical town like Dodge City in 1879 with this huge billboard exclaiming, "The Carrying of Firearms Strictly Prohibited."  Even Tombstone, AZ, location of the “Shootout at the OK Corral,” barred the carrying of guns openly.  It took Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce and Gov. Jan Brewer to open the state up to the loosest gun laws in the U.S. and make Arizona a laughing stock of the country.

And the gun fanatics should take notice; in the Wild West, law enforcement and the general population did find out that gun control can work.  As Winkler put it, “We've always had a right to bear arms, but we've also always had gun control.”  He closes by asking, “Even in the Wild West, Americans balanced these two and enacted laws restricting guns in order to promote public safety. Why should it be so hard to do the same today?”

There is much more on the long time political battle over gun control and the individual’s right to bear arms.  This is a must read for the gun control folks as well as the gun rights activists.