[D.C.] Gunowners of America warns that proposed government healthcare plan may feed gun-related data into central database:
... Currently, gun owners can avoid getting caught in this database by refusing to purchase health insurance or by purchasing insurance with a carrier that has not signed an agreement with the government to place your records in a national database.
But that's all about to change. A budget resolution -- to be voted on this Friday in the Senate -- will be the first domino in a process that could FORCE you to buy government-approved insurance, thus making it impossible to avoid the medical database.
Put another way: If you do not have health insurance -- or, potentially, if you do not have the TYPE of health insurance the government wants you to have -- the government will force you to purchase what it regards as "acceptable" health insurance. And, in most cases, you will have to pay for it out of your own pocket.
What would all this cost? Based on comparable insurance currently on the market, it could cost $10,000 a year -- or more.
If you were jobless, the socialists would probably spot you the ten grand. But if you are middle class and can't pay $10,000 because of your mortgage payments, your small business, or your kids' college education, you would be fined (over $1,000 a year currently in Massachusetts). And, if you couldn't pay the confiscatory fine, you could ultimately be imprisoned.
Scary, you say. But why is this a Second Amendment issue? Under the Massachusetts plan, your MANDATED insurance carrier has to feed your medical data into a centralized database -- freely accessible by the government under federal privacy laws.
So... remember when your pediatrician asked your kid if you have a firearm in the home? Or when your dad was given a prescription for Zoloft because of his Alzheimer's? Or when your wife mentioned to her gynecologist that she had regularly smoked marijuana ten years ago?
All of this would be in a centralized database. And all of it could potentially be used to vastly expand the "prohibited persons" list maintained by the FBI in West Virginia. ...
[Ohio] Gun, ammo getting scarce:
... Bullets are running low throughout central Ohio as a nationwide ammunition shortage hits the area.
The shortage is the result of a confluence of events, industry observers say: a run on guns by consumers since the election of President Barack Obama, more ammunition being sent to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the increased cost of raw materials needed to make bullets.
Shelves are almost bare at some gun ranges and Walmart and Dick's Sporting Goods locations. The demand is such that some retailers have begun to limit ammo sales.
"In the first three months of the year, we've already sold what we typically sell in an entire year," said Rex Gore, owner of Black Wing Shooting Center in Delaware. Sales now are limited to a few boxes at a time, depending on the caliber, he said. [emphasis added]
"We've never seen anything like this before," Gore said. "We've had spikes in demand before with other administration changes, after 9/11 and when people were preparing for Y2K, but nothing like this.
"It's taken us by surprise." ...
[Kansas] KSU student advocates for campus carry:
Recently, there have been several mass shootings — all in gun-free zones. Obviously, some murderers do not care about the law and seem attracted to areas where citizens are stripped of the right to defend themselves, like colleges.
...
In 2006, the Kansas Legislature passed the Personal and Family Protection Act, which allows law-abiding citizens who are not felons and have no history of drug abuse or violent domestic crime to obtain a concealed carry permit.
However, psychopaths usually don’t bother to apply for the card or the training course. Nor do they endure the background check. They get their guns on the street corner quite easily.
“Ban guns,” you say? That’s exactly what the violent criminals want. Banning guns turns good people into prey.
A March 13 article in the Kansas City Star informed us about the rapist who has terrorized Manhattan and Lawrence and raped 13 women. He hides in closets waiting until his victims are alone. Now, I suppose we could ban closets. Will the police stop him?
Many people who are against concealed carry are pro-pepper spray. But would they bring pepper spray to a gunfight? I’m not good with foul language, but maybe that would be a defense.
Another opposition to campus concealed carry is that “the answer to gunfire is not more gunfire.” Well, I believe that the answer to gunfire is most certainly more gunfire. That’s why when the police get a call of “shots fired,” they always bring plenty of guns. ...
[Kansas] Group wants (lawful) campus carry:
The Student Involvement and Leadership Center officially recognized the KU chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, or SCCC, as a student organization March 4.
The tragic campus shooting at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, initiated a national discussion about campus safety and sparked debate on the best ways to protect students.
In order to protect themselves and others in the case of a campus shooting, students at the University of Kansas began advocating several months ago for the right to carry licensed concealed weapons on campus.
“The whole point of the group is that there are a number of individuals who can carry anywhere else but on college campuses,” Derek Miller, SCCC president, said.
Miller, Kansas City, Kan., senior, participated in a training exercise with the KU Public Safety Office in 2007 as part of a military group who acted out a campus shooter scenario.
Miller called the response time and effectiveness of the KU Public Safety Office “atrocious.” Miller said the training exercise inspired him to get more involved in advocating for Second Amendment rights on campus.
“I was scared,” Miller said. ...
[Pennsylvania] Court upholds city gun law:
A new ordinance against firing guns in Lancaster City has passed its first test in court, and Mayor Rick Gray is calling it a victory for residents.
It was Gray who initiated the anti-discharge city ordinance in 2007, making it illegal to discharge a firearm in the city.
But it's Curtis Swinton who was the first person to be cited for violating the rule — shooting his gun in the air allegedly to frighten off men who were beating his cousin — and the first person to challenge the new law in Lancaster County Court.
On Monday, Judge Joseph Madenspacher handed down a ruling on the matter, upholding both the ordinance and prosecution under the state's criminal law.
The law provides enough exceptions for a person to use if he needs to defend himself in court for firing a gun, Madenspacher wrote.
...
Swinton, who has a permit to legally carry a concealed weapon, told police his cousin was being attacked and beaten by a group of assailants and that he fired a warning shot to disperse them. No one was injured. [emphasis added]
Police charged Swinton with recklessly endangering another person and the illegal discharge of a firearm in the city.
Swinton initially pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct in August 2008, but he withdrew the plea in November. His case is still pending.
Under the ordinance, discharging a firearm in the city carries a 90-day jail sentence and $500 fine for each shot.
State law gives a person the right to fire a gun if he or she believes another person is in imminent threat of serious harm, Crystle said at an appeal hearing in February.
The city ordinance, in contrast, says shooting is justified only in defense of one's home, business or "human life." The city can't deny a right to Swinton that he has under state law, Crystle argued.
Neil Albert, who argued the case for the city, said Swinton's reason for shooting is a question to be settled at trial, not a rationale for dismissing the charge. ...
Comment: As a general matter, warming shots are a bad idea, particularly in urban or suburban areas. You are responsible, morally and legally, for every single round that you fire. Generally, the only time deadly force is justified is when innocent life is unlawfully threatened with grave, immediate, and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or serious bodily injury.
[West Virginia] Conflicting privacy bills under consideration:
CHARLESTON — Conflicting bills on how West Virginia regards the privacy of a concealed weapon permit eased through both chambers of the Legislature in Wednesday’s sessions.
A Senate version contains a provision that denies the public access to the identities of anyone issued a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
This is the one pushed by the National Rifle Association.
But a House version, the one approved by the West Virginia Press Association, would allow the media to publish the names of anyone given a permit.
Before the Senate vote, Judiciary Chairman Jeffrey Kessler, D-Marshall, said he had two concerns about letting the general public see who has the permits.
One is that a thief would have immediate knowledge of homes where firearms are kept, and the other is that a woman fleeing a domestic violence scenario could be located by an estranged husband or boyfriend by getting access to the gun permit.
The press association considers it bad public policy to maintain a veil of secrecy around any government document. [emphasis added]
Before the unanimous passage of the House version, Judiciary Chair Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, made no mention of the public right’s to know.
Actually, the measure’s main thrust is to clarify reciprocity agreements West Virginia enters into with other states when it comes to recognizing citizens with conceal weapon permits. ...
Comment: Some of these privacy bills were introduced in states like Arkansas and Tennessee as a result of publication of permit holders' names and addresses, sometimes in searchable databases, by the media. Thus, any bill that allows the media unrestricted access to permit data is unlikely to stop such irresponsible behavior. If, as the press association asserts, any government document should be public, then why not release the names and addresses of, say, domestic violence victims, or rape victims. Or perhaps the state tax returns or state-run hospital medical records of newspaper reporters. After all, the public has a right to know. Right?
In a "may issue" permit issuance jurisdiction, public disclosure arguably makes sense, because permit issuance is discretionary, and the public ought to be able to see whether the government is abusing its discretion by only awarding permits to, say, the rich, or politically well-connected, or only to donors to certain political campaigns, etc. In a "shall issue" jurisdiction, however, where the government must issue permits to those who meet the objective, statutorily defined criteria, such abuse of discretion concerns don't exist.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment