Armed Forces Day

On this Armed Forces Day, a note of thanks to all our military servicemen and women.

(Photo: Department of Defense)

President Harry S. Truman led the effort to establish a single holiday for citizens to come together and thank our military members for their patriotic service in support of our country.

On August 31, 1949, Secretary of Defense Louis Johnson announced the creation of an Armed Forces Day to replace separate Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force Days. The single-day celebration stemmed from the unification of the Armed Forces under one department -- the Department of Defense. (Source: DoD DefenseLink)

Land of the Free. Because of the Brave. Thank you for your service.

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

Columnist Paul Valone answers the question: What's the big deal about background checks?:

... While reasonable and well-intentioned, the argument contains a presumption which, unfortunately, rarely pertains in politics: It presumes the intentions of the bill are honest. Below are the main three reasons why legislation purporting to require “background checks” is unacceptable.

NOTHING IN THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS HONEST

After 15+ years of political action, I say with certainty that subterfuge is the rule rather than the exception: I have seen politicians claim undying support for a bill … just before firing an arrow through its heart. I have sat in the chamber as a legislator killed a bill by offering a “poison pill” amendment while assuring everyone: “This amendment is intended to make a good bill better.” I’ve been assured by a subcommittee chairman that a bill I opposed would never get a hearing, minutes before being told by the chairman of the full committee that it would be heard on Thursday.

In teaching legislative tactics seminars, I tell students: “Lest you think the political process is designed to exclude you, let me assure you that it is.” With few exceptions, politicians are weasels, and the few legislators with character I’ve met will never advance to higher office precisely because they are trustworthy.

Lessons of the Brady Act: In 1993, we were assured by Handgun Control, Inc. and the NRA alike that the National Instant Check System (NICS) would never be used to register guns. NICS transaction records, we were assured, were required to be expunged. Unfortunately, the fine print didn’t say when they had to be expunged, and the Clinton administration immediately instructed the FBI to retain them indefinitely, creating a de facto gun registration system in violation of federal law. Although the Bush administration ordered transaction records expunged in 24 hours, Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand have already proposed again retaining them.

Conclusions: You cannot create a “background check” system that manipulative politicians can’t turn into a gun registration system, as they already have. The goal of “gun show” legislation, in truth, is to not only decimate the gun culture which reinforces itself via gun shows, but to register private gun sales – in the case of S. 843 – with both the Attorney General and the FBI. [emphasis added]

“Perhaps,” you say, “but what’s wrong with registering guns? It isn’t as though somebody is taking them away from you.” ...

Comment: Go read the whole thing. The government can abuse background check databases for backdoor gun registration, and registration is a necessary prerequisite for effective confiscation.


Bill aims to protect veterans' Second Amendment rights:

A bill aimed at protecting the gun rights of some veterans is under Senate consideration.

The Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, pending before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, would limit the circumstances in which a veteran’s name could be added to a federal database used to do instant background checks for gun purchases.

By law, anyone “adjudicated as a mental defective,” such as people found to be a danger to themselves or others or who lack the mental capacity to manage their affairs, must be registered in the database.

The bill, S 669, which has 15 co-sponsors, would prohibit VA from submitting names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check database unless a judicial authority finds the individuals to be a danger to themselves or others. ...

[New Jersey] Supreme Court considers challenge to one-gun-a-month ordinance:

TRENTON - The New Jersey Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the legal battle over a Jersey City ordinance that would limit handgun purchases.

The discussion centered on whether the 2006 ordinance improperly preempts existing state gun laws by limiting handgun purchases to one per person each month.

At issue is the ability of urban communities such as Camden, Newark, and Jersey City to reduce gun-related crime by more closely regulating handgun purchases.

Supporters of the Jersey City ordinance say urban areas need tighter handgun sale standards to prevent surrogates from buying weapons for criminals. Opponents say that existing laws offer sufficient protection and that the ordinance punishes law-abiding citizens to advance a national gun-control agenda.

"There's no legitimate reason on earth why anyone needs to buy five handguns a month," said Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy. [emphasis added] ...

[New York] More infringements may be on the way:

Nine gun-control bills are slated to come before the state Assembly this week.

One of the bills would impose new requirements on firearm dealers, including more stringent record-keeping and employee training and prohibition of so-called straw purchases, when someone purchases a firearm on behalf of someone prohibited from carrying such a weapon. Dealers also would need to carry at least $1 million in liability insurance for criminal acts committed using weapons they sold.

"The additional requirements set forth in this bill will help to reduce the diversion of firearms to the illegal market and will also assist police departments, prosecutors and other law enforcement officials in their efforts to trace and recover illegal weapons," the bill summary says.

Another bill would require firearm license holders to renew them every five years and take safety courses.

"It is incumbent upon us to make sure that handguns are kept out of dangerous hands so that we may better protect our citizens and prevent further tragedies like the melee in Binghamton," the bill summary says. ...

Gun Rights News Roundup

Articles, news stories, and op-eds of interest to gun owners:

[North Carolina] Lawmaker introduces bill to protect vets from losing gun rights:

North Carolina U.S. Senator Richard Burr, along with 14 other cosponsors, introduced legislation that would end a seemingly arbitrary process by which the government "strips" veterans and other Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights.

Currently veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to act on their behalf are deemed "mentally defective" and are reported to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a system which prevents individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States.

The Veterans' Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial authority to determine that a VA beneficiary poses a danger to themselves or others before VA may send their names to be listed in the FBI's NICS.

"Under current law, veterans who have come to (the) VA for help but who are determined to be unable to manage their own financial affairs are labeled as mentally defective and, on that basis alone, are denied their 2nd amendment rights," Burr said. "I am very concerned that government employees can so easily take away a veteran's right to bear arms. My legislation would protect the rights of veterans and their families by ensuring that only a proper judicial authority is able to determine who is referred to NICS." ...

[Massachusetts] Fewer gun dealers due to onerous regulations:

Fifteen years ago there were 23 federal firearms licenses issued in Belchertown.

Today, there are three.

"I would say that's a pretty major decline," said Rich Kimball, of R&R Gun Sales, 450 State St., and one of the three remaining license holders.

Stricter federal licensing regulations dating back to 1993, plus the overall climate in Massachusetts with some of the toughest firearms laws in the country, have made it tough for gun dealers in the Bay State, according to Kimball. The combination, he says, "caused a lot of dealers to get out of the business."

Since 1994, the number of federal firearm licenses - FFLs - issued in Massachusetts has declined from 4,109 to 531, or by 87 percent.
...
In 1993 there were 240,000 federal firearms licenses issued nationwide. As it was pointed out at the time by one pro-gun control group, there were more licensed firearms dealers in the United State than there were gas stations.

Since then the number has declined to about 109,000, or by 62 percent, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The decline is part of a national trend that dates back to two pieces of legislation, according to the federal agency that oversees the licensing.

The first is the Brady Bill, named after White House press secretary James Brady who was shot in an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It increased the license fee from $10 per year to $200 for the first three years and $90 for each three-year renewal.

The second piece of legislation was the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Crime Bill. It requires applicants for the federal licenses to notify their local police department, submit fingerprints and a photo with the application, and certify that their businesses adhere to local zoning regulations.

It also requires gun dealers to have an established location for their shops that must be separate from their residences. This eliminated many hobbyists and part-time dealers.
...
Ultimately the federal legislation and state regulations did little to fight crime, Wallace contends, but they have managed put a lot of honest dealers out of the business. He also cited the Massachusetts Gun Control Act of 1998, which, he said, enacted more layers of restrictions and regulations for the purchase and sale of guns. ...

[West Virginia] Lawmaker wants permitless carry ... for himself:

CHARLESTON — Controversy often inflames passions, and mindful of this lawless age and a propensity of some in society to go over the edge, a few lawmakers want the right to arm themselves without a weapons permit.

One sponsor of such a House bill, in fact, Delegate Mark Hunt, D-Kanawha, relayed a personal threat directed at him and his family, penned by the hand of a convict.

A self-described “monster,” the man behind bars warned of what he intended to do to Hunt and his children.

Hunt decided to leave nothing to chance and get a firearm, but was told he had to wait during a two-month concealed weapon application process. [emphasis added] ...

Comment: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Shouldn't the citizens Mr. Hunt represents have the same RKBA rights as their elected servants? Mr. Hunt's complaint appears to be that West Virginia law also applies to him.


[Ireland] From the "oops" file: Gangster shoots himself in head [hat tip to reader Jim P.]:

A WELL-known criminal who is a central figure in Limerick's ongoing feud was in a critical condition on a life support machine last night after he accidentally shot himself.

Feared gangster Philip Collopy (29) from St Mary's Park, Limerick is in the city's Mid-Western Regional Hospital where he has been since he shot himself in the head on Saturday morning.

The career criminal shot himself with a glock handgun at close range in a house at St Munchin's Street, St Mary's Park. He had been inspecting the gun and removed the loaded magazine from it while handling it. However, he failed to realise a bullet was still in the chamber before he discharged the weapon while it was pointed at his head. [emphasis added] ...

Comment: Well, at least he now knows the gun works. :)


Columnist asks: Would you know an "assault weapon" if you say one?

... If you answered "D)all of the above" congratulations, you qualify for a California Senate seat! You'd also be wrong.

Those who want to take away gun from civilians know they can't take them all at once. The only way to get them is to vilify and ban one class of firearms at a time. Two of the most frequent targets are handguns and "assault weapons." But, what exactly is an assault weapon, and why do they claim we need to ban them?

Actually, the term "assault weapon" is made up. It is a derivative of the real phrase "assault rifle" which is a selective fire (can switch between automatic and semi-automatic) rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and high-powered rifle ammunition. If you look at the above pictures again, only one of the above is an assault rifle, and that is "B", a M-16. Both the AR-15 (A) and the SIG 556 (C) are semi-automatic only. But the gun grabbers want to ban them because they are evil looking black rifles.

Since there is a very specific definition of an assault rifle, the gun control crowd needed something that sounded similar and scary so that they could apply that label to this scary looking class of firearms. So, they made up "assault weapon". Sounds close enough.

Looks are the only thing these firearms have in common with real assault rifles. No army or terrorist group in the world would limit themselves to such weapons as they are primarily suitable for sporting purposes and civilian self defense, not the battlefield. A study done by the US Department of Justice found that these kinds of guns are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes. And yet, these unscrupulous individuals have absolutely no qualms about lying to the public in order to sell their agenda.
...
One of the reasons this incident made the headlines is because how rare it is that such an incident occurs. That hardly makes for a description of our cities as "demilitarized zones." Much more troubling is the fact that witnesses to the crime were cheering the deaths of these officers. But, why focus on the root of violence and try to fix the real problem when you can just blame the gun and try to disarm innocent, law-abiding citizens?

One argument regularly used by those in favor of an AWB is that criminals can easily convert these semi-automatic firearms into automatic firearms (machine guns). If it is so easy, why isn't it being done? Right now, there is no AWB, so there shouldn't there be machine gun killings on the news every night? The ban is a farce for crime control, and they know it. ...

[Washington] Seattle mayor moves ahead with gun ban:

Mayor Greg Nickels is going forward with a controversial executive order which would ban "dangerous weapons" - including firearms - on Seattle owned parks and properties. An exact date has not been set yet for when the ban will go into effect. However, a spokesman for the Mayor's office said the ban is currently expected to begin sometime in May.

Coincidentally, this places the time somewhere around the one-year anniversary of the freak shooting incident at Folklife, last year, that left two people injured and was the casus belli for the order.

The move also comes in spite of legal concerns questioning whether the city can unilaterally prohibit firearms owners, particularly those possessing Concealed Pistol Licenses, from exercising their legal rights. ...

[Arkansas] Open carry bill dies in committee:

Yet another weapons bill hit committee this afternoon as the House Judiciary Committee considered Rep. Mark Martin’s legislation to allow people to carry firearms in plain sight. The bill’s lack of provisions for training and its apparent permissiveness toward the open-carry of machine guns was too much for the committee. Though Rep. Martin did not agree with these criticisms, he pulled the bill down for amendment to ensure that it would not be legal for children to wield a gun.

Several legislators suggested they might vote for the bill if it required some sort of permit or training for open carry, but Rep. Martin firmly resisted making a change. He argued that such a requirement would place a financial burden on impoverished people. The poor who couldn’t pay would be unable to exercise what Rep. Martin considers a constitutional right to bear arms in the open. In response to the comment that anyone who owns a gun can also afford a training course, Rep. Martin responded that a gun might be inherited or earned from some sort of program.

“[A fee] would have a chilling effect on people who were discriminated against before,” Rep. Martin said in reference to the 19th century slave laws he cited to justify the necessity of open-carry legislation. ...

American Legion: President Obama plans to charge wounded service members for treatment

From an American Legion press release:

The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!" ...

Read the rest here. Making wounded vets use their own families' private insurance (and likely max out that insurance in many cases) to pay for treatment of their service-related injuries is indeed shameful. But as our Socialist-In-Chief might say: Socialism ain't cheap, boys and girls.

The amount in question, $540 million (strange seeing "mere" millions when we're talking about government spending, isn't it?), is a mere rounding error in the $800 billion "stimulus package" we just passed (the real cost of which is likely over $1 trillion when you add in financing costs, i.e., interest on this debt). We can find billions of taxpayer money to give to other nations, directly and indirectly, but can't come up with half a billion to take care of our wounded vets? Unbelievable.

Oath Keepers: Orders We Will Not Obey

Another plug for the Oath Keepers project. From Oath Keepers:

1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.

2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people

3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control.”

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Read the full declaration here. Spread the word.

To protect and defend the Constitution ...

... From all enemies, foreign and domestic.

From Stewart Rhodes' new Oath Keepers blog:

About Oath Keepers: Oath Keepers is an association of currently serving military, veterans, and peace officers who will fulfill the oath we swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God.

Our oath is to the Constitution, not to the President, and we will not obey unconstitutional (and thus illegal) and immoral orders, such as orders to disarm the American people or to place them under martial law and deprive them of their ancient right to jury trial.

We Oath Keepers have drawn a line in the sand. We will not “just follow orders."

Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

If you, the American people, are forced to once again fight for your liberty in another American Revolution, you will not be alone. We will stand with you.

There is at this time a debate within the ranks of the military regarding their oath. Some mistakenly believe they must follow any order the President issues. But you can rest assured that many others in the military do understand that their loyalty is to the Constitution, and understand what that means.

The mission of Oath Keepers is to vastly increase their numbers. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our own troops. To win that battle, Oath Keepers will use written and video testimony of active duty military, veterans (especially combat vets), and peace officers to reach, teach, and inspire our brothers in arms in the military and police to fulfill their oaths and stand as guardians of the Republic.

If you are currently in the military, are a veteran, or are a peace officer, please submit your written and/or video testimony on your oath, so you can help us win that battle for hearts and minds. Your submission may be anonymous.

Guardians of the Republic, fulfill your oath. Join us.

Read a longer description of the project here. To those readers who are active duty military, veterans, or peace officers, please consider supporting this worthy project.

This is a new project, but you can read some of the testimonials already received here. Spread the word.

Texas veterans nursing home has own gun range

From the Lone Star State:

EL PASO -- Firing rifles and pistols at the new outdoor shooting range is one of the latest activities for residents of the Ambrosio Guillen State Veterans Home in Northeast El Paso.

On Friday, the scheduled day for shooting, a handful of Army veterans take turns shooting at targets, while recalling their days in the service.

"I was in the service for 28 years, and served in two wars, Vietnam and Korea," he said. "I like doing this."

Willie Brown, activities coordinator at the home, loaded the rifles and pistol with ammo, and reminded the shooters to keep the weapons pointed down range. The weapons fire only .22- and .177-caliber pellets.

"We started this about five months ago, and some of the residents really look forward to this," Brown said. "This is probably the only nursing home in Texas with a shooting range."

Article here. The range is only for .22s and pellet guns, but it seems like a great activity for these military veterans.

Marine amputee actuitted on gun charge

From the Center of Insanity our nation's capital:

After being deadlocked twice, a D.C. Superior Court jury yesterday acquitted a Marine amputee on felony charges of gun possession stemming from an arrest while he was on the way to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

In the 2006 incident, Cpl. Melroy H. Cort, 24, and his wife, Samantha, were en route from their home in Columbus, Ohio, to Walter Reed. Cort's legs had been amputated above the knees when he was wounded by a makeshift bomb in Ramadi during his third tour of duty in Iraq.
...
Cort, who said he had a permit to carry the gun in Ohio, said he had it with him because he had moved out of his house in anticipation of an extended stay at Walter Reed.

He said his commanding officer had advised him to take the gun to the armory on Walter Reed's base as soon as he arrived.
...
Although acquitting him of the gun charges, the jury found Cort guilty of possessing ammunition, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to time already spent in the D.C. jail.

Article here. Anyone think that prosecuting Mr. Cort was a good use of scarce criminal justice resources?

A word of thanks to all our veterans

Heartfelt thanks to all who have served or are currently serving our great Nation. May God bless you all for your honorable service, and may He protect those currently serving as they work to protect us from our enemies.

Dear Mr. Obama ...