CHICAGO (AP) — With frustration mounting over lawmakers’ inaction on gun control, the American Medical Association on Tuesday pressed for a ban on assault weapons and came out against arming teachers as a way to fight what it calls a public health crisis.
At its annual policymaking meeting, the nation’s largest physicians group bowed to unprecedented demands from doctor-members to take a stronger stand on gun violence — a problem the organizations says is as menacing as a lethal infectious disease.
The action comes against a backdrop of recurrent school shootings, everyday street violence in the nation’s inner cities, and rising U.S. suicide rates.
Remember little stories like this when your neighborhood anti-2nd Amendment zealot says stupid stuff like, “we don’t want to take your guns” or “we just want sensible gun control.” Yes they do, and no they don’t.
The ordinance enacted April 2 by the Deerfield Village Board gives residents until June 13 to turn in any guns that fit the village’s definition of assault weapons, remove them from the village or modify the guns so they’re no longer considered assault weapons. The ordinance empowers the town’s police chief to confiscate the assault weapons of anyone charged under the ordinance.
Owners found in violation can be fined up to $1,000 a day, according to the ordinance.
[…]
In the ordinance, the definition of an assault weapon includes, among others, semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition; shotguns with a revolving cylinder; and semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines and possess one of a list of other features. Among the dozens of specific models cited are the AR-15, AK-47 and Uzi, according to the ordinance.
Kaitlin Bennett graduated from Kent State University in Ohio with a degree in biology.
The following day, the 22-year-old returned to the campus with an AR-10 semi-automatic rifle strapped to her back and posed for photographs while holding a graduation cap emblazoned with the words “come and take it”.
Bennett, who later posted the photographs on Twitter, says she was protesting against a university policy that prohibited students, professors and employees from carrying “lethal weapons” on campus – but allows “guests” to possess them on school grounds (but not in buildings).
She noted that Kent State was the location where “four unarmed students were shot and killed by the government” – a reference to the 1970 incident where soldiers clashed with Vietnam War protesters, firing shots that hit 13 protesters and bystanders.
Dick’s Sporting Goods has reportedly retained several lobbyists to urge lawmakers to take action on gun control, months after restricting gun sales in its stores.
The sporting-goods chain is working with three lobbyists from the Glover Park Group to take on the topic, Bloomberg reported Thursday, citing a disclosure form filed late last month.
The move comes after Dick’s announced in the wake of the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school in February that it would stop selling assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.
by Owen | 0656, 3 May 1818 | Politics | 3 Comments
While I appreciate their effort to answer the anti-gun protests of last month, they should still stay in school.
(CNN)Some students who support gun rights walked out of school on Wednesday in a coordinated event to “Stand for the Second.”
Lane Cooper, 16, is an 11th-grade student in the Schoharie Central School District in New York, and he was one of those who walked out of class.
He was part of a group of 22 students at his school Wednesday morning who recited the Pledge of Allegiance, held pro-Second Amendment signs, and talked about how the Second Amendment was about defending against tyrannical government or any other threats.
“I do think there are way too many gun control laws, especially in New York where I am,” he said.
The student March for Our Lives scheduled for March 24 in the nation’s capital might well be the largest demonstration for gun control ever, as its organizers predict, but out in the grassroots, and far away from TV cameras and the mainstream media, another story is being written: Rising membership in gun-rights groups, increasing intensity among existing members of those groups, and even growing numbers of young people expressing support for gun rights.
[…]
Specifically, the Second Amendment Foundation said it had experienced a 1,200-percent increase in the number of 18-to-20-year-olds joining or supporting the organization.
“We normally don’t get that many members or donors in that age group, since the gun rights movement typically trends toward older Americans,” SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb said. “But the 18-to-20-year-olds have never been specifically targeted before, and they are obviously alarmed. This influx of young Americans into the gun rights movement is important, not just to respond to the current gun control threat, but as the movement has gotten older, it is encouraging to see so many young adults getting involved in support of Second Amendment rights.”
While SAF has always conducted leadership training conferences, Gottlieb said, the group will now increase its emphasis on a younger audience and on efforts to integrate them into leadership roles.
David Hogg, one of the Stoneman Douglas survivors who has been at the forefront of the issue ever since, spoke confidently about the event on Saturday morning in an early interview with GMA.
‘Today we are going to start a revolution. This is the beginning of a lifelong marathon not only for me but for my generation.
‘We are sick and tired of the inaction here in Washington and around the country at different state capitals and different cities, of politicians that are owned by the NRA and not listening to the constituents of America.
‘We are the children. We are making our voices heard and we will change America with or without these politicians and today is the beginning of that revolution,’ he declared.
Hogg, who complained on Friday that his parents ‘don’t know how to use a f****** democracy so we have to’ and said he was ‘tired’ from his advocacy work, said he was saddened by another shooting in Maryland this week which he said forced him to ‘relive’ his own experience.
Students across the country and around the world are expected to take part in a National School Walkout today in a call on Congress to pass tighter gun control laws.
The ENOUGH National School Walkout will be held this morning — exactly one month after the mass shooting at a Florida high school that killed 17 people and sent shock waves across the nation.
I disagree with Owen Robinson’s Feb. 27 article, “Defending Our Kids.” He appears to be OK with the public purchasing semi-automatic rifles. I’ve learned through others that this is what AR15 type guns are called. Sandy Hook happened (20 children killed in 2012) and we did nothing other than decide, by default, that killing children was bearable. Six years later, 14 kids killed and … well, we’ll see what gets done.
Owen said “preserve the footings of individual liberty” and in his summary said “the violence only stops when met with equal force.”
I am just asking for a change. Change the law to put semi-automatic weapons in the same folder as automatic weapons. In 1986, a line in the sand was drawn and fully automatic machine guns were no longer for sale. Recorded Vote 74 was the Hughes Amendment which called for the banning of machine guns. The bill was passed and signed May 19, 1986, by President Ronald Reagan to become Public Law 99-308, the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. Upon Reagan’s signature, the sale of new machine guns to or between civilians was banned.
However, you can, even today, still buy a machine gun legally along with other, even more destructive weapons.
Also on the books, on page 54 of Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s 2008 majority opinion, D.C vs. Heller he wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Mental illness, government buildings, school, felons, etc. are existing exceptions.
I know there are several contributing factors to this issue but the elephant in the room is semi-automatic guns. Pareto analysis says work on the biggest issue first. Don’t ignore the others, just focus on the thing that will effect the most change, the quickest.
Bruce Wilk West Bend
For the record: yes, I am OK with the public buying semi-automatic firearms.
“Strong leaders don’t automatically agree with the last thing that was said to them. We have the Second Amendment and due process of law for a reason,” Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska, said in a statement. “We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them.”
House GOP leaders downplayed the need for Congress to pass expansive new gun control measures on Tuesday, instead turning their ire on the FBI and local law enforcement for failing to prevent the Parkland, Fla. school shooting.
Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters at a press conference that “we shouldn’t be banning guns for law-abiding citizens” but “focusing on making sure that citizens who shouldn’t get guns in the first place, don’t get those guns.” Ryan — who said arming teachers was a “good idea” but a local issue that Congress should not infringe upon — touted a House-passed bill to reinforce background checks under current law.
My column for the Washington County Daily News is online. Here you go:
The summer of 2016 will be remembered for many things. It was the summer when America came to grips with the fact that Donald Trump was the Republican candidate. It was the summer when terrorism swept across the world from Nice to Dhaka to the Pulse nightclub in Orlando. It was the summer of Brexit when Britain voted to leave the European Union.
It is also the summer of watching hordes of people stumble through public places staring at their smartphones as they tried to capture animated creatures in the augmented reality of Pokemon Go. While the Pokemon Go craze has come and gone, it has left some interesting legal ramifications in its wake.
During the Pokemon Go phenomenon, the leaders of Milwaukee County became frustrated that so many people were wandering through public parks playing the game. The huge influx of people enjoying the public parks damaged landscaping, left trash, and sometimes disrupted other visitors. Rather than just enforce the existing rules against such damaging and disruptive behavior, Milwaukee officials decided to go after the businesses that make games like Pokemon Go. In January, the Milwaukee County Board passed an ordinance that required the companies who created virtual and location-based augmented reality games to get a permit and post a $1 million certificate of insurance in order for people to play their games in the park.
On its face, the ordinance was ridiculous and unenforceable. The fact that the users of a game might damage flowers in a county park hardly makes the producers of that game responsible, nor should a county be able to arbitrarily restrict access to public property for people engaging in legal activities. But the Milwaukee Common Council is not known for its logical dexterity. In response to the ordinance, a company called Candy Lab Inc., which makes a different augmented reality game, sued the county.
Last week, U.S. District Court Judge J.P. Stadtmueller issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Milwaukee County from enforcing its ordinance saying that it likely violates the First Amendment. This might be the first time in the nation’s jurisprudence that First Amendment protections have been expressly extended to augmented reality games.
In his ruling, Stadtmueller systematically dismantles Milwaukee County’s ordinance and all of its flaws. He says in part, “the Ordinance thus dooms itself in its failure to provide ‘narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards’ to guide the County officials who must apply it,” and that the game in question, “contains the least minimum quantum of expression needed to constitute protectable speech.” In a final slap at Milwaukee County officials, the judge states, “the Ordinance is revealed for its strangeness and lack of sophistication.”
This ruling is a good reminder that while technologies change, constitutionally protected rights do not. In his ruling, Stadtmueller correctly cites and earlier case, Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, in which the Supreme Court clearly stated that, “whatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to everadvancing technology, ‘the basic principles of freedom of speech and the press, like the First Amendment’s command, do not vary’ when a new and different medium for communication appears.”
That statement is a recognition of the fact that rights are endowed upon individuals. Our right to free speech is inherently individual and deserving of protection irrespective of the medium of transmission. The men who wrote our Constitution likely never envisioned telephones, the internet, or Pokemon Go, but they did not need to in order for the protections they wrote to apply. The right is to be protected. The technology is irrelevant.
This same principle applies to other rights as well. We also have a right to keep and bear arms (which is actually a more specific declaration of our broader right to property). And while our founders never envisioned the complexity or sophistication of modern firearms, they did not need to. The right is to be protected. The technology is irrelevant.
Our Constitution is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a living document. It does not need to be. Its brilliance rests in the understanding that human rights live in the bosom of each and every person. We must protect those rights whether they are being exercised with a quill, pen, keyboard, smartphone, musket or AR-15.
West Bend, WI – The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) today announced that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has disinvited the organization from its 2017 Annual Meetings & Exhibits and the 2018 Great American Outdoor Show because of “concerns regarding its programs.”
The move shocked the leadership of the USCCA because they were given less than two weeks notice that they had been banned from the annual show, even though they had attended for the past several years. This decision also came as a surprise because over the past two months, the leadership from the NRA and the USCCA met twice to discuss the shared goal of the two organizations in support of the Second Amendment.
In a note sent to millions of USCCA supporters, Founder and President Tim Schmidt said that even though the NRA might be fearing the competition, USCCA will still support the NRA’s efforts to protect the Second Amendment.
I suspect that the real reason is that the NRA offers a competing insurance product and the USCCA has been gaining too much market share for the NRA’s liking. What’s unfortunate for 2nd Amendment supporters is that we have two advocacy organizations who won’t work together due to competing business interests.
First, one must note that Feingold is raising money in California. He does seem quite a bit more comfortable out there. Second, I don’t think it is any surprise that Feingold opposes the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment or that he would support the Executive Branch usurping the Legislative branch for the cause of tamping down our civil rights. It is pretty much par for the course for Feingold.
The video from James O’Keefe shows theconservative activist and his Project Veritas team impersonating a liberal donor giving money to Feingold at a Palo Alto fundraiser and asking whether Clinton could issue an executive order to tighten restrictions on firearm sales. In the video, Feingold says Democrats should work to win control of the U.S. Senate and pass legislation to regulate gun sales but also points to a position on Clinton’s website — that like President Barack Obama she could do an end run around Congress and issue an executive order to expand background checks on gun show sales.
Feingold, a former Democratic U.S. senator, is running against Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson.
“Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold tells a disguised O’Keefe and other wealthy liberal donors. “…But what we all need is to win the Senate, have (Clinton) there, and then put pressure on the (GOP-controlled) House. And we might even win the House.”
In a blockbuster announcement today, Governor Christie conditionally vetoed two pieces of anti-gun legislation (A3689 and S816), imposing dramatic conditions that would change them into pro-gun measures establishing shall-issue right-to-carry and repealing New Jersey’s 2002 “smart gun” law mandate with no strings attached.
The “conditional veto” procedure allows the governor to reject legislation that reaches his desk and propose a re-written version to the legislature. If the legislature concurs in the conditions imposed by the governor, then the measure as re-written becomes law immediately. Otherwise, the legislation dies.
First, good for him and good for the citizens of New Jersey.
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. I’ve spent the past few days in the cradle of American rebellion and walked the path that patriots trod. It was a moving experience – especially when all of us were celebrating Independence Day.
The Fourth of July is a time of reflection and celebration for Americans. As our nation suffers another bout of agitation at the hands of bullies and opportunists to restrict our right to keep and bear arms, a look back at the Declaration of Independence and the events leading up to it serves as a healthy reminder for why our Founders understood the need to protect that right from our new government in the first place.
The Declaration of Independence is one of the most stirring and consequential documents in history. While its official purpose was to list the Americans’ grievances against the British government and inform said government the colonies were breaking off into a new nation, Thomas Jefferson’s beautiful affirmation of individual rights and self-governance is unparalleled.
In three short paragraphs, the Declaration lays out the argument that individual people have unalienable rights and that governments are instituted by the consent of the governed to protect those rights. When a government becomes destructive to those rights, it is both the right and duty of the governed to change or overthrow that government and institute a new one. The truth of this argument is the cornerstone of our Republic and the wellspring of our American Experiment.
But the men who signed the Declaration of Independence knew that the task of actually overthrowing a government was not done with petitions or speeches. It was done with blood and iron. Jefferson conveys this truth in the fourth paragraph of the Declaration when he wrote, “…it is their right [the People’s], it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
By the time the Declaration was written, much blood had already been spilt trying to cast off the yoke of an oppressive government. Six years prior, in response to continued agitation over heavy taxes imposed by the Townshend Acts, British soldiers who were quartered in Boston gunned down protesting citizens, killing five of them, in what became known as the Boston Massacre.
Conditions continued to deteriorate between the government and the governed. In April 1775, British soldiers marched out of Boston to Concord with the intent of seizing weapons that were being used by the colonists. The battles of Lexington and Concord ensued. After killing eight militiamen in Lexington, the British pushed on to Concord and torched the few remaining weapons that had not already been spirited away. As the British marched back to Boston, the famous Minutemen, called that because they could grab the guns in their homes and respond to a threat at a minute’s notice, swarmed through the woods and harassed the British column until they reached the safety of their Navy.
In retaliation, the British laid siege to Boston. On June 17, 1775, the Americans fought a pitched battle against the occupying force as the British moved to fortify the hills around Boston. During the Battle of Bunker Hill, the British regulars trudged up a bloody hill to force out entrenched American militiamen to win the day. For the price of their victory, the British suffered more than a thousand casualties and came to the realization that the price of continued subjugation would be very high.
The men who wrote and ratified the Declaration of Independence, and later, the Bill of Rights, knew full well that it is a bloody business to battle a tyrannical government, but it is sometimes the only way to preserve the rights of the people. They also knew full well that if it were not for the arms that the Minutemen and thousands of other Americans brought with them to fight the British, the Revolution would have been lost.
The reason that our right to keep and bear arms is preserved in our Bill of Rights is precisely to preserve our ability to “throw off such Government.” An armed citizenry can never be subjugated except by its own consent.
As our politicians debate more gun control laws using arguments about hunting or self-defense, we must remind them that the use of firearms for those purposes is a beneficial byproduct of our right to keep and bear arms. But the reason for preserving that right is far more important than those uses. Our right to keep and bear arms must be preserved as the last bastion of defense of our liberty.
Hawaii Governor David Ige signed the bill Thursday, which allows police to enroll firearms applicants and individuals who are registering their firearms into “Rap Back,” a Federal Bureau of Investigation database that monitors criminal activities by people under investigation or in positions of trust, Reuters reported.
The law takes effect immediately. “Rap Back” allows Hawaii police to be notified when a Hawaii firearm owner is arrested anywhere in the U.S. In addition, the law allows Hawaii police to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue owning a gun after being arrested.
Excellent. This is very good to see. Ryan is exactly right on all points.
But Ryan, who’s opposed similar legislation in the past, suggested Thursday that he hasn’t changed his tune following the Orlando tragedy. He cited several reasons for his reluctance to consider the proposal.
First, he said the bill, dubbed “No fly, no buy,” could trample on Second Amendment rights if it blocks gun sales to those put on the lists erroneously.
“We want to make sure something like this doesn’t happen again. … But as we look at how to proceed, we also want to make sure that we’re not infringing upon people’s legitimate constitutional rights,” Ryan said during his weekly press conference in the Capitol. “That’s important.”
Second, Ryan suggested the system currently in place — under which law enforcers are notified when those on the watch lists purchase firearms — is a suitable line of defense. He cited warnings from FBI Director James Comey that the Democrats’ bill could compromise federal investigations by potentially tipping off suspected terrorists to those probes.
“If we do this wrong, like the president is proposing, we can actually blow our ongoing terrorist investigations,” he said, paraphrasing Comey. “So we want to get this right so we don’t undermine terrorist investigations.”
And third, Ryan said the focus on guns, post-Orlando, is misplaced. Congress instead should be looking at ways to tackle mental illness and rein in homegrown terrorism, he said.
“Is going after the Second Amendment how you stop terrorism? No,” Ryan said.
“Let’s not take our eye off the ball here. This is a person who was radicalized by Islamic radical terrorists, he claimed it was by ISIS,” he added. “So we need to make sure that we’re focusing on the real issue here, which is terrorism, the fact that people are becoming radicalized and committing these horrible acts of terrorism in our country. … We need to have a better handle on homegrown jihad.”
Republican Donald Trump has said he would like people on terror watch lists to be prevented from buying guns, in the wake of the Orlando shootings.
Do you know how you get on a watch list? Me either. I suspect it happens when someone in some government agency thinks that you might be up to no good, so they put you on a list to keep an eye on you. Do you know how to get off of the list? You can’t. If you believe that you are on a watch list by mistake, you can go through a lengthy and laborious process where you have to prove your own innocence to get a redress number, but the ultimate decision of whether or not you stay on that list is up to the government agency.
In America, we have a long-standing principle that the government is not permitted to curtail a citizen’s Constitutionally protected rights without being afforded due process. We do not permit our rights to be taken away based on the arbitrary decision of an unelected bureaucrat. We must adhere to our principles here, but I do recognize that Trump is devoid of principles.
MADISON (WKOW) — In the wake of the recent tragedy involving a Metro Market employee who was gunned down by a former coworker, there’s been a renewed interest to restore a law for a 48-hour hand gun waiting period.
State Rep. Chris Taylor (D-Madison) says it’s become her calling to bring it back soon, especially after the phone call she received Saturday morning from victim Caroline Nosal’s mother, Jane.
Our 27 News cameras were rolling when Jane Nosal called Kathryn Larson as she was interviewing Rep. Taylor on her efforts to re-introduce the repealed measure. What happened next was a spontaneous conversation; between a lawmaker and a heartbroken mother, an unrehearsed emotional exchange –one mother to another.
“This is so senseless, and so devastating,” Rep. Taylor told Jane Nosal as the two teared up and cried about Tuesday’s murder outside the Metro Market.
The suspect, Christopher O’Kroley, was fired from the grocery store on Monday. According to the criminal complaint and Madison Police, O’Kroley bought a gun at a store. A little more than 24 hours later, police say he killed Nosal.
“I don’t think waiting 48 hours to purchase a handgun is a huge burden, I don’t think if you ask the parents of the young woman killed that they will say that it is too much of a burden,” Rep. Taylor said about her work to re-introduce the 48-hour wait-period law.
You’ll notice that the entire rationale for reinstating the 48-hour waiting period is based on emotion. Taylor had an emotional conversation, so the rest of us have to be regulated.
In truth, she’s right. The 48-hour waiting period isn’t a huge burden. It’s annoying, but not a huge burden. It’s also useless as a crime prevention measure. The notion that waiting another 24 hours would have prevented the killer from acting is completely hypothetical. He might have cooled off. He also might have stewed in his own juices a bit longer and decided to kill more people. Or he may have done exactly what he did – just a day later. We will never know.
The 48-hour waiting period is also completely arbitrary. It isn’t based on any evidence whatsoever. Why 48 hours? Why not 72? 3 weeks? Why just handguns? Would this killer have been less deadly if he had bought a shotgun instead? Again, the rule was completely arbitrary and useless, which is why we did away with it.
The 48-hour waiting period is just a useless hurdle for gun owners that makes anti-gun folks feel like they are “doing something.” Well, I’d rather not be hassled just to make Rep. Taylor feel better.
