 |
| PLEASE RECYCLE YOUR OLD THINGS HERE |
|
|
| HELP WANTED ON MAKING OF THE 2 Amendment BUS & Van AND UPDATEING THE WEB SITE PLEASE CALL ME or e-mail cheryl@parighttobeararms.com |
|
| Help me make the 2 Amendment Bus a Learning Center that everyone will be happy for and your name will be add to the back of the bus to show your support Thnk You Michael Ruoss ( Founder )
|
| Obama Threatening to Pass Anti-gun Health Care by Cheating |
|
Thursday, February 25, 2010
He's like a playground bully -- on steroids!
According to a recent poll, only 23% of the American people want Congress to pass the anti-gun ObamaCare bill.
And the President's response to this? He believes Americans are just too stupid to understand what geniuses like him, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid are trying to do for us.
So what is Obama's current plan?
Cheat.
ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.
In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget. Senators could reduce the deficit with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than getting the 60 needed votes to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process -- called "reconciliation" -- can ONLY be used for balancing the budget.
To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.
So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)?
He lies.
He fraudulently pretends the anti-gun ObamaCare legislation would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs and pretending he's going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).
And he intends to use this fraud scheme to cram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people against their will.
Americans don't want the increased taxes and gun control that have been injected into the bill. Remember, Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to claim his legislation fixed the problems that Gun Owners of America had with this legislation.
But in reality, the bill still allows the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.
ACTION: Please contact your two senators and your representative. Tell them that using the budget-balancing "reconciliation" process to pass ObamaCare is nothing but cheating.
You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send a pre-written message to your legislators.
----- Pre-written letter -----
Dear
ObamaCare is already the product of fraud, secrecy, bribery, and corruption. But Obama is preparing to ratchet up this corruption to a whole new level.
In 1974, Congress created a special process for balancing the budget -- with a simple 51 votes in the Senate, rather than the 60 needed to stop a filibuster. Under the rules, this process -- called "reconciliation" -- can ONLY be used for reducing the deficit.
To repeat, it cannot be used for anything other than reducing the deficit. By contrast, ObamaCare would INCREASE the deficit by at least $500 BILLION.
So what does Obama do (with the help of crooked congressional accountants at the Congressional Budget Office)? He lies. He fraudulently pretends ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. And he does this by hiding costs (the $247 billion "doc fix") and pretending he's going to make cuts he never intends to fully implement ($465 billion in Medicare cuts).
This "reconciliation" scheme is nothing more than a fraud on the American people, who, according to every recent poll, oppose ObamaCare by overwhelming majorities.
Understand this: I strongly object to this "cheat scheme."
Majority Leader Harry Reid has tried to claim his legislation fixed the anti-gun problems in ObamaCare. But in reality, it will still allow the ATF to troll a health/gun database in order to take away firearms from tens of millions of Americans.
Please oppose the use of "reconciliation" to pass ObamaCare.
Sincerely, |
|
| Pa Right To Bear Arms Song Below |
|
Steve Bryant
Nashville, TN
http://stevebryant.tv
To Whom It May Concern,
As a passionate supporter of the Constitution, I have long tried to write a song about The Second Amendment, which deals with our right to bear arms.
Like most songwriters, I write a lot of songs, some good, some mediocre and some truly awful. The Second Amendment is an important issue for all Americans, but, because it is also a very personal issue for me, I had difficulty writing a song about it that wasn’t sappy and maudlin. I started several tunes but abandoned each one because, honestly, I thought they were horrific. I abandoned the project for a while and concentrated on writing political satire and song parodies, many of which are featured on the Cable TV news channels as well as radio shows around the country.
Rollye James, whose show is on Sirius/XM, has played my material for years. She is an ardent supporter of the Constitution and is very vocal about the importance of The Second Amendment. Michael Ruoss, the head of PA Right to Bear Arms (http://parighttobeararms.com) heard my material on Rollye’s show. He sent me an email saying he liked my parodies and asking when I was going to write a song about gun rights.
I was most impressed with Michael’s passion. I pulled out my notebook and proceeded to write a couple more terrible songs. Then I wrote “The Right to Bear Arms.” I believed that I had captured the spirit of the issue and immediately recorded it in one of the studios located on Nashville’s Music Row.
While it is my ultimate goal to have the song recorded by a known country artist, the demo recording has already received a great deal of airplay on radio and TV and continues to do well. I want to thank Michel Ruoss for believing in my talent and encouraging me to write this extremely important song. His work in support of The Second Amendment is exemplary! Thank you, Michael!
Sincerely,
Steve Bryant
|
|
THANK YOU STEVE FOR THE SONG NOW ALL WE NEED IS TO HAVE TRACE ADKINS DO IT THANK YOU MIKE RUOSS
|
By Jordy Yager
A Virginia-based gun rights group has taken issue with the Democrat-led healthcare proposals, saying that the proposed plans could strip citizens of their rights to own a gun.
The Gun Owners of America group, which boasts more than 300,000 members, has been warning its ranks that the proposed healthcare legislation would compile the information of Americans into a government database. The group says that by using this data, the government could deem a citizen “medically unfit” to carry a gun.
“All of the proposals that we’re aware of would handle people’s health data that way,” said Larry Pratt, executive director of the group.
“And then you end up having a gazillion people lose their gun rights because of some medical record that someone doesn’t like, where they say, ‘Oh, that might be a danger to their self or others.’ No trial, no due process, just gone.”
The group also objects to Health and Human Services Secretary Katherine Sebelius, saying that she is prone to restrict gun rights.
“It wouldn’t be any problem for her to drag up some old discredited study from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and say, ‘Guns are contagious and they’re a public health menace. This is another reason for someone to pay a surtax on their insurance because they’re causing all of that trouble in the emergency room,'” Pratt said. “That means that we have a dog in this fight.”
But Paul Helmke, president of the gun control group Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Pratt has the wrong linkage between gun rights and healthcare.
“One of the burdens on our healthcare system are the 70,000 to 80,000 people that suffer gunshot wounds every year and survive, ending up in wheelchairs, or showing up in emergency rooms without insurance after being shot. There is a connection [between healthcare and gun rights] but it’s not the connection that Larry Pratt is talking about. We as a society are paying a large portion of the cost for this gun violence.”
While Pratt said he has not expressly asked his group’s membership to brandish their firearms at political forums, he fully supports the demonstrators who were seen earlier this week with their licensed guns protesting outside the Phoenix convention center where Presdent Barack Obama was speaking.
Pratt said it helps draw attention to their objections of the healthcare bill and that it could help spur the public to not be shocked when citizens are seen carrying legal firearms in public.
“I think it’s been helpful,” Pratt said. “These fellas hit the jackpot with national publicity. Hopefully a discussion [will result] that will make it plain that good gun control is when a cop or a citizen has their gun in their holster. Just as we’d typically be unalarmed to see a cop with a piece on his hip, we shouldn’t have any different reaction to anybody else. A cop is just us with a uniform.”
But Helmke, a former mayor of Fort Wayne, Ind., says that the presence of guns makes attendees at these forums nervous and it stifles political debate.
“Our system of government is built on a robust system of public debate and how much are you going to argue with a guy that’s carrying a gun?” Helmke said. “It’s a level of intimidation, a level of bullying that is inappropriate in our public discourse. You worry enough about people carrying signs on sticks; well, guns are a whole new level of escalation. It endangers people at these events.”
© 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp
|
| PLEASE HELP ME AND GET VOIP YOUR LIFE PHONE SERVICE |
| Vote on Right to Carry Coming Soon |
| -- Please urge your Senators to vote YES!
Friday, July 17, 2009 A vote to protect your right to travel out-of-state with a firearm could come to a vote next week -- even as early as Monday! Senators John Thune and David Vitter are the sponsors of S. 845 -- a bill that will establish concealed carry reciprocity amongst the several states. Senators Thune and Vitter offered the bill as an amendment (#1618) to the Department of Defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647). This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of every other state (Article IV). The benefit of the Thune/Vitter legislation is that -- unlike other, competing measures -- it would protect the right of any U.S. citizen to carry out of state (regardless of whether he possesses a permit), as long as he is authorized to carry in his home state. This is important because of states like Vermont and Alaska, where residents can carry concealed without prior approval or permission from the state... in other words, without a permit! ACTION: Please urge your Senators to vote YES on the Thune/Vitter concealed carry reciprocity amendment that will be offered to the Department of Defense authorization bill and NO on any modifying amendments. This vote could come as early as Monday, so please act on this right away! You can use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator: Please support the Thune/Vitter amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill. This amendment will protect the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of their home state without violating the rights of the other states. Thus, the reciprocity language masterfully protects the principle of federalism while also promoting Second Amendment rights. A person's right to defend himself and his family should not end at the border of his state. I urge you to vote for the Thune/Vitter concealed carry amendment and to oppose any modifying actions that seek to weaken their amendment. Sincerely, |
|
 |
| Wild Life Interiors |
|
|
 |
| Michael & Cheryl & Dakota |
|
|
 |
| M.Ruoss Founder / Owner |
|
|
 |
| Michael Jr & Dakota |
|
|
 |
| Michael Jr & Michael Sr |
|
|
Welcome to the PA Right to Bear Arms Website. This is a place where you can find support , encouragement and education on II Amendment .
Help us to preserve and save our rights to bear arms according to the II Amendment . With the growing crime rate we should have the right to protect ourselves as our forefathers stated.
Residents that rely on hunting for food or sport, should be able to do so without hesitation and infringement. The hunter safety course provided by the state of Pennsylvania is a wonderful source of education for a hunter of any age. A legal hunting license is not only recommended, but required and necessary by the state.
Proper education of gun safety and the legal permits to carry firearms are encouraged. Firearms training courses are highly recommended.
Illegal use, ownership and sales of firearms are not supported by this site.
FOUNDER
Michael S.Ruoss
Former Pa State Constable
Security Guard For 29 Years
In Memory Of
Grand Father Vernon T Ruoss
" Former Pa State Constable & Fire Police Capt Longwood Fire Co
Father Vernon C.Ruoss
U.S.Navy War II
A Former Pa State Constable & Police Officer For Kennett Sq Boro Police Dept & New Garden Twp Police Dept & Birmingham Township Police Dept and the First Dispatcher of the Chester Co Police Radio
Brother Glen A.Ruoss
Bell Of Pennsylvania,
Uncle Samuel Pierce
Fire Police Capt Longwood Fire Co
Security Guard Longwood Gardens
Uncle Richard Carey
Us Navy War II
Peco Elect
|
 |
| My Dad In Navy War II |
|
|
 |
| Dad With Kennett sq Police Dept Pa |
|
|
|
Kennett district recognizes 14 veterans who left school to serve in World War II
Monday, May 27, 2002 3:00 AM EDT
By David Bernard
A culmination of the school district's "Operation Recognition" program, the ceremony awarded diplomas to honorably discharged veterans who left high school prior to graduation in order to serve in the U.S. armed forces between 1940 and 1946.
Held the week before Memorial Day, the federal holiday remembering American soldiers who sacrificed their lives, the Tuesday ceremony also took place as graduation season begins, recognizing those who deferred normal life for the good of their country.
"I was very proud, and I appreciate it," said Mario Calvarese, 78, of New Garden. "I didn't expect it, you know, when I applied (for the recognition). I was really tickled and surprised."
Calvarese, who enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1942 and became a quartermaster in the infantry and artillery divisions, returned to Kennett Square in 1945 to become a mushroom farmer.
The ceremony recognized five veterans who served in the Navy, four from the Army, two each from the Army Air Forces and Marines and one former Merchant Marine.
Kennett Consolidated Superintendent Rudolph F. Karkosak announced the veteran graduates at the ceremony, and Kennett High School Principal James Calhoun and school board President Catherine Townsend also played roles in presenting their diplomas.
"Of course, I don't need it now. I'm retired," Calvarese said of his diploma. "But, now I can go get a really good job."
Leedom R. Smith, 75, of West Grove, said one of his three daughters had encouraged him to apply to the "Operation Recognition" program after reading about it in the newspaper.
"I never thought about anything like this happening," said Smith, who served in the Navy's South Pacific operations from 1944 to 1946.
His wife, daughters and sons-in-law joined him at his long-delayed graduation. "They wanted to come, they really wanted me to go through with it," he said. "So I did."
Members of the Kennett High School student council interviewed each of the veterans in the weeks before the graduation, and the high school's show choir performed patriotic music for the event.
"I hope the young people came to realize what the veterans did," said Nicholas V. Angelucci, 74, now of Hockessin, Del. "People gave their lives for the freedoms of this country."
Rodger F. Bailey, 75, of Chadds Ford, agreed. "It must have been a good experience for them," he said. "I think they got a pretty good history lesson out of it."
Angelucci followed his father into the service, joining the Army Air Forces in 1946 and taking aerial photographs over Korea. When he returned to Chester County, he became a tailor.
He said that he knew most of the other veterans at the ceremony, having been in smaller classes with them before they left for the service. "Everybody knew everybody back in those days," he said.
Bailey was one of 14 children in his family, seven of whom served in the war. Two of his sisters were nurses overseas, and a brother died in Europe.
"My thoughts were with him, the night of the ceremony," Bailey said.
Trained as a tank driver and radio operator in the Army, Bailey said he spends "about 90 percent" of his time woodworking these days.
"It was a very good honor after 57 years to even be thought about," he said. "It was a great feeling to get the diploma."
Bailey said he was surprised by the size of the event. "The audience was pretty big for a bunch of old-timers," he said. "And the nice thing was, when it was over, to get congratulations from your children, your grandchildren, your wife.
"It was an emotional experience," he added. "The thought that people still care about World War II vets."
In addition to Calvarese, Smith, Angelucci and Bailey, the following veterans were also recognized at the Kennett High School ceremony:
Richard F. Boyd, Joseph H. Day, Mark R. Fidanza, Manly J. Hendrickson, Robert J. Hopkins, Thomas Allen Kelly, Vernon Charles Ruoss, John Albert Sharp, William R. Wells and Warren R. Yarnall.
|
| Virginia Senate to Vote on Right-to-Carry Reform Measure Tomorrow! |
| |
| Monday, February 02, 2009 |
| |
|
Tomorrow, Tuesday, February 3, the Virginia Senate will vote on Senate Bill 1035.
Sponsored by Senator Emmett Hanger, Jr. (R-24), SB1035 would permit a Right-to-Carry permit holder to carry a concealed firearm into a restaurant, provided they notify a designated employee that they posses a concealed handgun and do not consume any alcohol. This bill is similar to last year’s bill that was passed and ultimately vetoed by Governor Tim Kaine (D).
Currently, concealed carry permit holders dining in restaurants that serve alcohol must leave their firearm at home or locked in their vehicle where it is at risk of being stolen. Despite passing a background check and possessing a state issued permit to carry, law-abiding permit holders are forced to give up their right to self-defense when dining in establishments that serve alcohol. The need for this legislation is clear.
Please contact your State Senator TODAY and respectfully urge them to support SB1035. Contact information can be found by clicking here. You may also contact your Senator at their Richmond office at (804) 698-7410 or (804) 698-1470.
While this legislation is clearly important to law-abiding gun owners of the Old Dominion, please do not forget to make your voices heard in opposition to Senate Bill 1257 which could also be voted on tomorrow. For more information on SB1257 and how to take action against it, please click here. |
|
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CROCK OF B.S.
HERE WE GO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY AND LIVE IN FEAR THE REST OF YOUR LIF
Crime and Law Enforcement
- Support Local Law Enforcement: President Obama and Vice President Biden are committed to fully funding the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and help address police brutality and accountability issues in local communities. Obama and Biden also support efforts to encourage young people to enter the law enforcement profession, so that our local police departments are not understaffed because of a dearth of qualified applicants.
- Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Supports: America is facing an incarceration and post-incarceration crisis in urban communities. Obama and Biden will create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership, and work to reform correctional systems to break down barriers for ex-offenders to find employment.
- End the Dangerous Cycle of Youth Violence: Obama and Biden support innovative local programs, like the CeaseFire program in Chicago, which implement a community-based strategy to prevent youth violence and have been proven effective.
- Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
|
DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand
Lakeland Times ^ | 9 January, 2009 | Richard Moore
Posted on 01/10/2009 10:36:44 AM PST by marktwain
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a simple, blunt message for hunters in Wisconsin: When a DNR warden asks you to give up your legal firearm, do so, plain and simple, no matter what.
What's more, that goes for all citizens, the agency has asserted. Citizens with firearms, the DNR argues, should always do exactly what law enforcement officers tell them to do, regardless of the circumstances of the situation.
To which one former hunter education instructor for the department has an equally simple and blunt response: The agency's directive is unconstitutional, plain and simple, and citizens don't have to hand over their firearms without any probable cause.
That viewpoint is the reason Mark Palan, the owner of Palan's Outpost Sporting Goods in Iowa County, has the word 'former' attached to his title. After 14 years as a volunteer instructor, the DNR cast him out last year for, in the agency's words, misrepresenting agency standards to hunter education students.
The issue promises to affect many more people than hunters in the coming year. In fact, the DNR's foray into gun rights issues on the Palan matter represents just one cloud in a growing storm over what authority law enforcement officers actually have to seize openly carried but legal firearms, whether it's from a hunter in the field or a citizen on the street.
Wisconsin is ostensibly an open-carry state; the media debate thus far has focused on whether to extend so-called carrying rights to concealed weapons.
But the latter could soon be yesterday's news; the DNR's excommunication of Palan, and its subsequent articulation of a broad grant of power for law enforcement to confiscate legal firearms, has suddenly called the legitimacy and reality of open carry itself into question.
Just as important, along with an ongoing non-DNR case in West Allis, the agency's expression of support for the ability of police to take away legal firearms upon simple command has in effect opened the door for a de facto state policy for all law enforcement.
The question is, is it constitutional, or, as Palan contends, does the DNR's position characterize an unconstitutional breach of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure?
Simply asked, can law enforcement take a person's legally carried firearm without any probable cause that a crime is being committed? Must a hunter in the field surrender his firearm just because a conservation warden tells him to?
Palan's encounter
To Palan, the answer is no.
"For 14 years, I've been teaching my students the same thing, over and over and over," Palan told The Lakeland Times.
The first thing he teaches is, he said, when a person is on private property and a warden stops and asks to see a license, the first thing to do is ask the warden for his credentials. The second thing, Palan said, is to boot the warden off the property because he's trespassing.
"And when they start throwing their weight around, you just reach in your pocket and dial 911 and have the police come out and have them removed," he said.
Being approached by a warden on public land is different, Palan said.
"If you are on public ground and a warden stops you and wants to see your license, you should ask him for his credentials, then you show him your license," he said. "And when he says, give me your gun, you show him your gun. You set it down on the ground or you can hand it to him. But your right is that you do not have to give him your gun. And if you set it down on the ground and he picks it up, now he's taken your gun without your permission. I've been teaching that for 14 years."
But, Palan said, his instruction collided with DNR attitudes last March when a local conservation warden lectured at one of his classes and discovered what Palan was teaching.
A confrontation ensued, Palan recalls, both in the class that night and a few days later in his store, and Palan says the DNR gave him a choice - either admit to the class that what he had been teaching was wrong, or get kicked out.
Palan got kicked out.
For the record
DNR documents corroborate Palan's version of events.
In an April 28, 2008, letter, DNR hunter education administrator Timothy Lawhern told Palan he was being ousted as a DNR instructor for a variety of reasons, including Palan's alleged refusal to abide by a program instructor code of conduct, his refusal to accept constructive criticism from local conservation warden Joe Frost, and his refusal to teach the program as the DNR wanted.
The removal applied to all recreational safety programs, Lawhern stated, boater education as well as snowmobile education, ATV education as well as hunter education and bow hunter education.
"You have trained many hunter education graduates contrary to our program standards of how to handle a firearm when approached by a law enforcement officer," Lawhern wrote. "This training has now placed those students in a potentially dangerous attitude which could have catastrophic results for themselves and members of the law enforcement community."
Palan certainly had the right to disagree with the DNR's approach, Law- hern added, but that did not give him any authority to teach one of their programs contrary to the agency's guidelines.
"You may disagree with our required training as you have every right to do so," Lawhern wrote. "However, you have no authority to teach our program contrary to our guidelines."
Lawhern followed his April 28 letter to Palan with a May 19, 2008, missive to Palan's former students. That letter instructed them to always follow the commands of a law enforcement officer, no matter the circumstance and even if it meant giving the officer the firearm.
"It has come to our attention that a portion of the training you received while taking the Department of Natural Resources Hunter Education Course in Iowa County was not in compliance with our program policies," Lawhern began. ". . . . The portion of the training I need to clarify for you is what is expected of citizens when they are contacted by a law enforcement officer."
Lawhern didn't name Palan but said the "instructor" had misrepresented the DNR's program training standards regarding such contacts.
"What you should have been taught was to maintain good muzzle control and then follow the instructions of the law enforcement officer," Lawhern wrote. "This will vary depending on what type of contact it is, where it is taking place, the circumstances behind the contact, the officer's intuition or concern about safety and your demeanor during the contact."
What the DNR teaches in its hunter education program must carry over to everyday real-life situations, Lawhern continued.
"That is why it is important to understand that law enforcement communities, regardless of their branch of service (i.e. state trooper, county deputy, municipal police, conservation warden, etc.), have expectations that their instructions will be followed," he wrote. "This is for your safety, the safety of the officer as well as any other citizens that might be nearby."
For the most part, Lawhern wrote, wardens were simply checking for legal firearms for the game being pursued, magazine capacity (waterfowl hunting), and legal ammunition types - all the while maintaining a safe environment.
Examples of instructions a person might receive during a hunting situation might include the following, Lawhern stated: "Please open the action of your firearm"; "Would you mind safely unloading your firearm"; "You may place your firearm safely against that tree until we are finished"; "I'll hold your firearm while you check for your license"; "Allow me to check your magazine for a plug while you find your license."
Listening to law enforcement, no matter what, was the proper course of action, he wrote.
"Your cooperation with law enforcement is vital no matter what the situation is," Lawhern concluded. "To act any other way could result in a tragedy easily avoided by simply following their instructions. "
The letter stunned Palan.
"They took the time and the taxpayer dollars to send a letter to every student that I've taught in 14 years, telling them that they were misrepresented by an Iowa county instructor," he said.
But the former instructor said he was more interested in what the letter did not say.
"Now what is expected of citizens?" he asked. "It doesn't say here that the law says that you will hand over your firearm."
To the next level
Even after removing Palan as an instructor, Lawhern wasn't content to leave the issue alone. He also addressed it in the April 2008 issue of the Wisconsin Hunter Education newsletter, which is distributed to hunter education instructors.
In the article, entitled "When a Warden Approaches, What Do I Do with my Gun," he expanded the scope of authority to include all law enforcement and all citizens. In so doing, he put the DNR on a collision course with the state's open-carry law.
"About 8 years ago the International Hunter Education Association raised the question about what is being taught in hunter education courses relative to how hunters should handle their firearms during license checks in the field," Lawhern wrote. "The aftermath of the debate was that a survey should be done within the law enforcement community to determine what they expected as appropriate behavior. The debate caused us to ask all manner of law enforcement since what we teach we wanted to meet every cop, state trooper, county deputy or municipal officer's expectations. "
Law enforcement wanted just two things, he said of the survey's results. One was to maintain good muzzle control. The other was to "do exactly what the officer tells you to do."
"This may seem a bit odd as it's a standard that could be different from one officer to the next or different when situations are different," Lawhern wrote. "The officers instructions can and will vary depending on the situation."
Lawhern them moved on to address the likely response of law enforcement in general when officers see someone openly carrying a firearm, which, again, is not illegal per se in Wisconsin.
"Note that the officer on the street doesn't expect to see firearms openly exposed," he wrote. "In most cases when they do see a firearm, they draw theirs and tell the person 'Let me see your hands! Don't move!' In some cases they yell, 'Put the gun down,' or "Drop the gun!'"
Similarly, he stated, there would be times when a warden would ask a hunter to put down a gun or unload it or hand it to the warden.
"The point is, we must be teaching our students to follow the officer's instructions, " he concluded.
To Lawhern, then, the mere presence of a firearm was reason enough for the police to give commands that must be obeyed, in addition to launching preliminary use-of-deadly force tactics such as drawing weapons.
Mystified at that reasoning, Palan sought out a legislative viewpoint, asking his state senator, Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), whether a DNR warden in fact possessed any authority to take custody of a legal firearm, absent any probable cause.
Schultz retrieved an opinion from a senior staff attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The answer was vague, at best. Still, the attorney, Mark Patronsky, could find no blanket authority, except that arising from certain specifically defined statutory reasons.
"Within the scope of the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the courts have carved out authorization for law enforcement officers (such as conservation wardens) to take control of a firearm to protect the safety of the law enforcement officer," Patronsky wrote. "The officer, after further investigation and determination of a probable cause, may proceed to arrest the individual and seize the firearm."
Other situations in which a firearm might be seized included violations of various ammunitions and transporting regulations or the creation of a public nuisance.
The bottom line was, though, police needed some reason for the seizure.
"The statutes and administrative rules described in this memorandum, as well as a variety of other statutes and rules, do allow a warden to take a person's firearm for various reasons," he wrote.
Palan says that means a warden simply can't take a firearm without some probable cause.
"Nowhere in the hunters' education manual, nowhere in the instructors manual, nowhere in any state statutes that I can find, does it say you must hand over your firearm," he said. "Nowhere."
Real-life impact
One practical effect of Lawhern's expansive grant of confiscatory powers to police, not to mention their supposed prerogative to draw their weapons on gun-carrying citizens, would be a practical evisceration of Wisconsin's open carry status.
That status is already murky.
On the one hand, despite Lawhern's drawn-gun scenario, the heads of multiple Wisconsin law enforcement agencies told The Lakeland Times their officers would not act in the manner Lawhern described upon merely seeing someone with a gun. They acknowledged the legality of open carry.
In addition, the Use of Deadly Force policy of the Oneida County Sheriff's Department would seem to prohibit such conduct, without some other probable cause or suspicion.
"In any use of force decision, the officer must be certain that he or she has the right to make contact," the policy states. "The intervention must have legal beginning based upon articulable facts or circumstances. Officer presence can be based upon invitation, reasonable suspicion, community caretaker function, probable cause, exigent circumstances or other 'legal beginnings.' "
According to the policy, officer presence - which presumably could include a drawn gun - is the lowest level of use of force, but, the policy emphasizes, "an excessive or negative presence must be avoided or, if used, must be justified."
How could Lawhern's scenario be reconciled with such a policy? That could only logically occur if open-carry was by itself illegal, by definition constituting reasonable suspicion, probable cause, exigent circumstance or some other "legal beginning" that justified police contact and presence.
Then, too, both the state, under then attorney general Jim Doyle, and the Supreme Court recognized open-carry rights in State of Wisconsin v Hamdan, in which the High Court carved out a concealed weapon exemption for small storeowners.
The Department of Justice argued against the exemption, citing the ability of citizens to already possess and carry an open weapon: "The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the [concealed carry] statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open - holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall, or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view," the court stated in summing up the DOJ's brief.
In her dissent of the final decision, chief justice Shirley Abrahamson went even further.
"That is, [the law] does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes," Abrahamson wrote. "Rather, it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person's reach not be concealed. The gist of the offense is the concealment. "
Then again
On the other hand, police have increasingly begun to cite those openly carrying firearms for "disorderly conduct", which a September 2000 memorandum by the Legislative Reference Bureau warned could happen. [Carrying a weapon is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment and the Bible - Luke 22:36 It is NOT "disorderly conduct" - it is self defense. Talk about stretching meanings ! How can they possibly call that "disorderly conduct" ? Insanity !]
"Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested, and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety," the brief stated.
If that's the case, then police departments and the DNR could effectively make open carry illegal by defining it as disorderly conduct from the get-go, making an end run around both the Supreme Court and the Legislature. Using the same logic, any law enforcement commands not obeyed could result in a disorderly conduct citation.
Until recently, those charged with disorderly conduct for carrying open firearms have not fought the issue. That changed last year.
In West Allis, in August, in a scenario eerily similar to the one Lawhern outlined, West Allis police drew their weapons and arrested Bruce Krause, who was wearing a holstered legal pistol while planting trees on his own property.
In a case that could finally clarify both police authority to seize firearms and the state's open carry law, Krause is fighting back, and a landmark U.S. Court of Appeals decision last month could be decisive in the outcome.
Those cases will be discussed in the next article.
But he will never get his weapon back - no one ever does - that is booty for the cops ! Once you give up your gun - you will never see it again no matter what. And you are out all that money they cost.
|
Provisions of H.R. 45
This bill was proposed before Obama took office.
You will have to carry a photo ID firearms license.
A training class is required to be licensed.
Disclosure of your storage method is required for license.
A thumb print is required for license.
Every sale recorded by the federal government.
If you move, and don't tell the Attorney General within 60 days, you are a criminal.
If a firearm is stolen and you don't report it, you are a criminal.
There will be no grandfathered firearms. If you do not obtain a license and report every firearm you currently own, you are a criminal.
There will be a license fee and a fee for the "services" provided at purchase time.
Licenses must be renewed every 5 years.
|
Brady Sends Obama Its Pre-Inauguration Wish List
Friday, January 16, 2009
No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady "no," because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That's demonstrated by Brady's statement that their current request "is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point." It includes:
A California-style "assault weapons" ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California's ban--which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004--as the "model" for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn't say so, but it clearly supports--as does the Violence Policy Center--the California--like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as "assault weapons." And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well.
A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them "high-capacity," but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense, as demonstrated by the fact that most guns that use standard defensive magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds) are handguns designed for self-defense, and used for that purpose by private citizens, law enforcement officers, and military personnel alike.
Now's as good a time as any to dispel one blatant lie that Brady includes with its wish list. Brady says, "Beginning with the Brady Law in 1993, the assault weapon ban in 1994, and other Clinton Administration policies, our nation experienced an historic decline in gun crime and violence," adding, "during the Bush years, gun crime increased as the Administration and Congress . . . allowed the assault weapons ban to expire [and] gave the gun industry special legal protection."
The truth is, violent crime began declining in 1991, three years before the Brady Act and the semi-automatic firearm ban, and more than a year before Bill Clinton took office. And, the nation's violent crime rate has declined another eight percent since President Bush took office.
Moreover, in 1998, the Brady Act's waiting period on gun sales ceased, because it was replaced by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which the Brady Campaign has always opposed (though they try to take credit for it today, inappropriately referring to NICS checks as "Brady checks.") And, contrary to Brady's prediction that crime rates would soar if the semi-automatic firearm ban expired, the ban expired in 2004, and since then violent crime rates have been lower than anytime in the last 31 years.
Repeal the recent Department of the Interior rule allowing state law to determine how firearms may be carried in National Parks and wildlife refuges. Brady offers no evidence to support its hunch that allowing permit-holders to carry concealed firearms "would increase the risk of gun crime, injury and death in the parks and wildlife refuges." But as for Brady's hunches, for the last 20 years it has predicted that allowing people to carry guns for protection will cause murder rates to soar, but people now carry guns for protection in 40 states and since 1999, murder rates have been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s.
Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Brady complains that the Tiahrt Amendment "restricts disclosure of the data to law enforcement," and prevents the BATFE from disclosing firearm-tracing data to the public. The first claim is a lie. The amendment allows BATFE to provide the data to any law enforcement agency involved in a bona fide investigation related to a traced firearm.
Tracing data is not released to the public so that, among other reasons, criminals won't know that the police are investigating them. Brady should just tell the truth, for once: even though the BATFE and Congressional Research Service repeatedly state that tracing data are not reliable enough to draw conclusions about the criminal use of guns generally, Brady wants the data so it can concoct bogus claims to use in lawsuits against firearm manufacturers who comply with every applicable firearm law. These lawsuits are currently prohibited by the PLCAA, which Brady hopes to overturn.
Require all firearm sales to go through NICS (advocated by Mr. Obama's choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder), and allow the FBI to retain the records of all NICS-approved firearm transfers. It used to be that Brady claimed that the only private transfers that it wanted run through NICS were those taking place at gun shows. Now, it's all private transfers, including gifts between family members and sales or trades between friends. And, it wants the FBI to record all transfers. Translation: Gun and gun owner registration, no two ways about it.
Allow a NICS check to reject someone whose name is on an FBI watch list. This is yet another idea recommended by prospective Attorney General Holder and Obama adviser Rahm Emanuel. The obvious problem with it is that you can get on one of these lists by having the same name as a suspected criminal or terrorist, and if you are on a list, you may not be able to determine which one you are on, much less get yourself removed. Sen. Ted Kennedy even ended up on a "no fly" list, for reasons that have not been made public.
Prohibit the sale of more than one handgun to a single individual in a 30-day period, in order to thwart "large-volume" illegal gun traffickers. Federal law already requires a dealer to report to law enforcement authorities whenever a person buys more than one handgun in a five-day period. This proposal amounts to the rationing of a constitutional right with no crime-reduction benefit.
Require all new guns to micro-stamp ammunition with serial numbers linking the owner in a federal gun-owner registration database. Most crimes are solved by other means, not by ammunition markings, and criminals could easily deface the firearm parts that would bear the serial numbers. Brady's agenda isn't about solving crimes; for them micro-stamping is another way of achieving gun and gun owner registration.
Require consumer safety standards for firearms. Even the vehemently anti-gun Violence Policy Center has said this would lead to standards too difficult for firearm manufacturers to achieve, thus ending firearm production.
We close with yet another Brady lie, "These proposals are clearly constitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Second Amendment decision in District of Columbia v. Heller and they pose no threat to the interests of law-abiding gun owners." Heller clearly said that laws cannot deprive people of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for defensive purposes. As for "the interests of gun owners," we'll follow the Supreme Court's example, and let gun owners speak for themselves. The Court declared D.C.'s handgun ban unconstitutional because gun owners consider handguns to be the type of firearm best suited for self-defense.
|
 |
| Guns Don't Kill People |
|
|
| New Rules On Right-To-Carry In Our National Parks Take Effect Today |
| |
| Friday, January 09, 2009 |
| |
|
In early December, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), through the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announced the final amended version of a change to rules on carrying firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The change will restore the right of law-abiding gun owners to transport and carry concealed firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, according to the laws of the states in which these public lands are located.
The new rule, which takes effect today, allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges in states that recognize their permits. The new rule will also put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while lands managed by DOI did not.
The change was obviously necessary, given the passage of Right-to-Carry laws in so many states over the past two decades. As expected, of course, anti-gun activists are adamantly opposed to the new rule, and are already seeking to block the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while on DOI lands.
Not surprisingly, the first to jump on the "banned" wagon was the anti-gun Brady Campaign, in a lawsuit filed against the DOI in federal court, seeking to have the new rule struck down. The National Parks Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees have also filed a similar suit.
Brady contends that people have a right to visit parks without fear of permit-holders carrying guns. The contention is ludicrous, of course, since to get to a park requires people to travel through places where permit-holders abound, without posing any threat whatsoever.
Using the same hyperbolic rhetoric and fear-mongering claims that are the mainstay of their anti-Right-to-Carry crusades, the Brady Campaign alleges that Right-to-Carry equals danger and violence, when countless studies and reams of data have repeatedly and consistently proved otherwise. Remember, the new rule will extend only to law-abiding citizens who have met the strict safety and background check requirements necessary to acquire a carry permit, and who are legally allowed to carry in the state in which the park is located.
|
|
YOU MAY FIND THIS OF INTEREST
Gun Law Update
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
Jan. 5, 2008
1. Officials stocking up on AR-15-style long guns
2. Preliminary gun ban list revealed
1. S&W sales
With bans on AR-15 and AR-15-styled rifles to the public expected under the Obama administration (see gun-ban lists below), Smith and Wesson has just announced expansion of that market, with the sale of 275 of its M&P15 rifles to the Chicago police department. http://tinyurl. com/742qre
Chicago, president-elect Obamas home town, has virtual bans on handguns and strict repressive limits on long guns, but police are excluded and criminals blithely ignore the provisions.
The M&P15 strongly resembles the AR-15, a high quality, semi automatic long gun used by the U.S. military and the public for decades. What the Chicago police expect to do with 275 of the guns, vilified as assault weapons by the lamestream media, was undisclosed. Assault, it has been noted, is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.
In other news, the Minnesota State Patrol has purchased 90 of the high-quality M&P15 firearms, which retail for more than $1,000 each.
In still other news, actor David Spade donated $100,000 to the Phoenix police department, to buy 50 new AR-15 rifles made by Colt, an S&W competitor. Spade was apparently moved by a newsbroadcast that said Phoenix officers had to buy their own rifles due to lack of funding, and he wanted to help them out.
2. Gun-ban list proposed
Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Bradys plan to introduce shortly.
I have an outline of the Bradys current plans and targets of opportunity, Im working on getting that news out asap after these ban lists, probably be ready in the next few days. Its horrific. Theyre going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. Theyve made little mention of criminals.
Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. See what 250 of your peers thought during our recent Bill of Rights Day event at the Wrigley Mansion in Phoenix: http://www.gunlaws. com/BOR-Day- 2008-Report. htm
The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):
Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1;
AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.
Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:
Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.Note that Obamas pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.
In making this determination, the bill says, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.
In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.
That presumption can be challenged only by suing the federal government over each firearm it decides to ban, in a court it runs with a judge it pays. This virtually dismisses the principles of the Second Amendment.
The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesnt have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose -- is that devious or what? And of course, sporting purposeis a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.
If these near-total bans arent enough, the most dangerous part may be the phrase pistol gripbecause: The term pistol gripmeans a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.In other words, any semi-auto long gun with a grip (thats ALL semi-auto long guns) would be banned under the existing proposal. Its not clear what they hope to achieve by deceptively banning guns with grips instead of just calling to ban the guns -- even an idjit can tell its the same thing.
I didnt cover here all the magazine bans, transfer bans, dealer record-keeping and centralized reporting, and a host of nuisance details -- there will be time enough for that when the new lists are released soon: As soon as President-elect Obama is inaugurated and the 111th Congress is sworn in,according to Ms. Brady. Congress is set to be sworn in on Jan. 6, Inauguration Day is Jan. 20.
No one expects the new proposal to be less abusive than the current one supported by the party of the Democrats. Remember -- these bans were proposed when the congressional anti-rights crowd had no chance of success. Now they are ready to run wild, or according to Sarah herself, I have never been so confident.The newsmedia has failed to report on any of this, preferring instead to blare that the incoming president supports the Second Amendment and commonsense (sic) laws.
To see the whole bill, go to http://thomas. loc.gov and search for HR 1022, (switch to the 110th Congress if the 111th has begun).
The excellent Firearms Coalition started by the late Neal Knox and now run by his family members makes these important points about the upcoming Judiciary hearings for AG nominee Holder:
The Democrat members of the Judiciary Committee are all sworn enemies to the Second Amendment and are unlikely to be swayed at all by any firearms related arguments, but might hesitate to confirm based on Holders participation in the pardons of 16 Puerto Rican terrorists and billionaire financier and arms merchant Marc Rich [and perhaps the Elian Gonzalez abduction by federal agents Holder authorized]. Any letters to Democrats should focus on those issues.
On the Republican side, Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the committee has never been a friend to gun rights, but he owes his reelection to NRA support and has expressed concern over the pardon issues. Among the other Republicans, most are relatively reliable votes, but only Coburn has routinely taken a leadership role on Second Amendment matters. All of them need to be pressed hard to do everything they can to block the appointment.
For more information about Eric Holder and why his appointment must be fought tooth and nail, go to our web site at http://www.Firearms Coalition. org.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws. com/gloa. htm
Permission to circulate or post this Gun Law Update granted.
|
Police Investigate Shootings, Alderman: "Get Armed
Last Edited: Tuesday, 02 Dec 2008, 7:37 PM CST
Created: Tuesday, 02 Dec 2008, 4:44 PM CST
-- SideBar
Related Items
Stories
One Dead, One Injured In Officer-Involved Shooting
Links
Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe
Two Shootings In Downtown St. Louis
ST. LOUIS -- A man is dead after a shooting in downtown St. Louis. Meanwhile, a potential suspect in that case is in stable condition after being shot by police. That man turned out to be unarmed.
It began Monday evening when 27-year-old Terryl Morgan of Madison, Ill., was shot and killed near the Edward Jones Dome.
Witnesses provided a description of the suspect, and not long after the shooting officers saw a man matching that description.
The man was ordered to stop and told to remove his hands from his pockets. Police say he put a hand inside his coat. Two officers, fearing for their safety, shot the 45-year-old man.
Police are uncertain if that man was involved in the first shooting. The officers who shot him are on administrative leave pending the investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Louis Alderman Calls On Residents To Get Armed
By CHERYL WITTENAUER
Associated Press Writer
ST. LOUIS -- A St. Louis alderman who says he is frustrated with police response to crime in his neighborhood is calling on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.
Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said Tuesday he is telling his north St. Louis constituents to acquire guns and learn how to use them.
He said that "God-fearing, law-abiding citizens and homeowners" are being preyed upon by criminals, and that police are ineffective, outnumbered, or don't care.
Troupe, 72, and a former state representative, said many people don't realize they have a constitutional right to bear arms which they can use to fend off an intruder. He supports Missouri's "conceal and carry" weapons law and is recruiting residents to take the required weapons safety course. Troupe said the wrong people own guns.
"We bought the homes, we're paying the taxes and the police and the emergency personnel's salaries," he said. "Why in the hell can't we get relief from criminals? Why do they have all the power, and we don't and we're paying the damn bills?"
He said people are being killed on the impoverished north side, and homes are being broken into and dismantled by scavengers who steal gutters and downspouts, and that school dropouts are robbing people and snatching purses.
Troupe said when he and residents approached the district police commander last year, he said "there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community ... that he didn't have the manpower, he couldn't do it."
St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom wrote Tuesday in a department blog that guns are not the solution to the city's challenging homicide problem. Citizens arming themselves will lead to more danger, not less, he said.
Neighborhood watch groups, and the hard work of helping to eradicate poverty and other social ills are better crime-prevention tools, he said.
So far this year, St. Louis has had 157 homicides, 33 more than last year at this time.
"My position is simply the police are overtaxed, they are a reactionary force and we need a proactive solution to the problems of our community and our children," Troupe said.
"We haven't addressed children on the front end; now we've got problems on the back end."
University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist Richard Rosenfeld, who is a visiting professor this fall at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said Troupe's idea is an understandable response to the spike in homicide in the city, but it's not likely to be effective. More guns, he said, only compound crime problems in communities already awash with guns.
"Much of the problem is free and easy access to guns," Rosenfeld said. "This hope that by putting guns in the right hands will have an influence on criminals is a false hope. There's no evidence for that."
Mayor Francis Slay wrote in his blog Tuesday that some of the most violent crimes in Troupe's First Ward are committed with guns stolen from law-abiding citizens.
He said Troupe could do more good urging constituents to cooperate with investigating police officers, lending support for activities for children, and lobbying legislators to increase funding for jobs training and economic development.
Fellow Alderman Lyda Krewson called Troupe's idea a "whacky and ineffective response."
"Most of us are really not equipped to handle the seriousness and responsibility of walking around with a gun," she said. "The end result is more guns on the street."
Krewson, whose husband was shot and killed in front of their home in the tony Central West End neighborhood in 1995, said she doesn't mean to diminish the problem of crime.
She said having a gun "would not have changed the outcome of that evening. I personally don't think guns are the answer to this."
The Rev. F. James Clark of Shalom Church in suburban Florissant, who organized an anti-crime march this summer that drew tens of thousands to the streets of St. Louis, said it doesn't make sense to "join up with what you've been fighting."
He said it sounds like Troupe "is frustrated, looking for an answer, just like the rest of us."
|
http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/politics&id=6450299
By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer BOSTON - October 15, 2008 -- John McCain supports background checks for buyers at gun shows and has his name on a law restricting special-interest group advertising, two positions strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association.
So how'd he end up with the group's presidential endorsement? By running against Barack Obama, whom NRA leaders accuse of wanting to put the firearms industry out of business.
"Hillary was right: You can't trust Obama with your guns," the association's Political Victory Fund said in a recent mailing.
The endorsement reflects the complicated role that gun control is playing in the 2008 campaign.
Story continues belowAdvertisement
For voters who care about the issue, the most unambiguous record belongs not to McCain, but his running mate.
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is not only a gun owner and an NRA member, but a proud hunter who is unapologetic about supporting aerial wolf hunting.
From there, things get kind of gray.
Obama's running rate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, favors gun control but is a gun owner himself - he has three shotguns.
Referring to Obama, Biden recently told a Virginia audience, "He tries to fool with my Beretta, he's got a problem." He was referring to a weapon sold by Beretta, a company that makes a wide variety of firearms.
Neither McCain nor Obama owns a gun.
Obama, a former constitutional law professor, joins McCain in saying he supports the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. And both said the Supreme Court was correct in June when it clarified - for the first time in the country's history - that the Second Amendment gave gun ownership rights to individuals, not just a militia.
But that case also exposed a fissure between the two White House contenders.
McCain, reflecting the more conservative principles of the GOP, said the ruling is only the first step toward ensuring gun rights.
While he supports the gun-show checks and advertising restrictions, he voted against the 1994 assault weapons ban and believes gun manufacturers should not be held liable in civil lawsuits for crimes committed with their products.
The Arizona senator said last year: "I strongly support the Second Amendment. And I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved - which means no gun control."
Obama joined with fellow Democrats in voting to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. As an Illinois state lawmaker, he also supported a ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms. He argues local communities should be able to take the steps they feel are necessary to reduce crime.
Those positions helped him win the endorsement of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
"The Obama-Biden ticket will work with law enforcement, gun violence victims and ordinary citizens who want to do more to protect themselves, their families and their communities by making it harder for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons," said Paul Helmke, president of the group named after Jim Brady. Brady was press secretary to President Reagan when he was gravely wounded by a gunman who tried to assassinate Reagan in 1981.
A rival gun rights group, the American Hunters and Shooters Association, has endorsed Obama and accuses the NRA of backing McCain for partisan rather than philosophical reasons.
"The NRA is holding Obama accountable for votes taken 10 years ago but giving McCain a pass for his actions within the past eight years," said the group's president, former Washington Redskins player Ray Schoenke, who has cut radio ads for Obama.
Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, has also tried to reassure voters in his battleground state, saying last week that gun owners "have nothing to fear from Barack Obama."
McCain generally does not raise the issue on the campaign trail. The former naval aviator was trained to use a pistol and carried one with him in combat but hasn't used one since leaving the military.
In May, however, speaking to the NRA's annual convention in Kentucky, McCain leveled a double-barreled attack on Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was then still in the Democratic nomination race.
"If either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama is elected president, the rights of law-abiding gun owners will be at risk, my friends - and have no doubt about it," McCain said.
While his McCain-Feingold law inhibits special-interest fundraising, he told the group, "Those disagreements do not detract from my long record of support for the Second Amendment and the work we have done together to protect the rights of gun owners."
Obama, meanwhile, angered both gun owners and blue-collar workers with his comment during a San Francisco fundraiser that bitter voters in rural Pennsylvania "cling" to guns and religion because of their economic frustrations.
Last week, during an appearance in Lebanon, Ohio, he, too, tried to reassure gun owners.
"I believe in the Second Amendment," he declared. "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."
(Copyright ©2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
|
 |
| Welcome To Pa Right To Bear Arms |
|
|
 |
| please give to American Eagle Foundation |
|
|
| You Can Send Me A Yahoo Message At parighttobeararms@yahoo.com |
How to Fly the American Flag
Ten Guidelines
1. The flag should be hoisted briskly and lowered ceremoniously
.
2. The flag is never allowed to touch the ground or the floor.
3. When hung over a sidewalk on a rope extending from a building to a pole, the
union stars are always away from the building.
4. When vertically hung over the center of the street, the flag always has the union
stars to the north in an east/west street, and to the east in a north/ south street.
5. The flag of the United States of America should be at the center and at the
highest point of the group when a number of flags of states or localities or
tenants of societies are grouped an displayed from staffs.
6. The flag should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up in folds but always
allowed to fall free.
7. The flag should be displayed at halfstaff until noon on Memorial Day then raised
to the top of the staff.
8. Never fly the flag upside down except as a signal of distress in instances of
extreme danger to life or property.
9. The flag is never flown in inclement weather except when using an all weather
flag.
10. The flag can be flown every day from sunrise to sunset and at night if
illuminated properly.
Flag Display Days
New Year's Day
January 1st
Inauguration Day
January 20th
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
3rd Monday in January
Lincoln's Birthday
February 12th
Washington's Birthday (Presidents' Day)
3rd Monday in February
Easter Sunday
Variable
Mother's Day
2nd Sunday in May
Peace Officers Memorial Day
(half-staff until sunset)
May 15th
Armed Forces Day
3rd Saturday in May
Memorial Day
(half-staff until noon)
Last Monday in May
Flag Day
June 14th
Independence Day
July 4th
National Korean War Armistice Day
(half-staff until sunset)
July 27th
Labor Day
1st Monday in September
Patriot Day
(half-staff until sunset)
September 11th
POW /MIA Recognition Day
3rd Friday in September
Constitution Day (Citizenship Day)
September 17th
Columbus Day
2nd Monday in October
Navy Day
October 27th
Veterans Day
November 11th
Thanksgiving Day
4th Thursday in November
National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day (half-staff until sunset)
December 7th
Christmas Day
December 25th
and such other days as may be proclaimed by the President of the United States; the
birthdays of states (date of admission); and on state holidays.
Information outlined above is part of the Federal Flag Code or enacted by Federal legislation.
Fly your POW /MlA flag with your American flag on Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day, National POW /MlA Recognition Day and Veterans Day
|
|
