Congressman Ignores Constituents On Second Amendment

Photo Courtesy of US House of Representatives, Public Domain

 
Several citizens of Arizona's Second Congressional District (AZ-CD-2) wrote letters of petition and concern to Rep. Ron Barber. The letters centered on concern over bills introduced into the US House and Senate that would greatly infringe upon the Second Amendment.

The letters addressed the natural right of self-defense against violent crime and tyranny that the Second Amendment was ratified to protect from governmental infringement. The letter writers included facts about lower crime rates in places that have looser restrictions on concealed carry and weapons ownership. They addressed the fact that even the US Supreme Court has ruled that it is an individual responsibility to protect one's life, family, and property from violent crime and not the job of police.

One letter writer documented police response times in regards to 911 calls over home invasions, attempted murders, and rapes. The information provided was to highlight the need for individual citizens to enjoy the freedom protected by (not granted by) the Second Amendment in order to fend off violent criminals.

 In addition, some of the letters addressed concerns over proposals to place authority to suspend those rights being given to health care professionals and government bureaucrats. The authority to suspend those rights should not be taken lightly and should remain within the judicial branch instead of being migrated into executive branch powers. Furthermore, these concerns address rights to privacy, violations of HIPPA laws, and violations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against search and seizure without a justified warrant issued by a judge.

The writers were voicing their concerns in hopes that Ron Barber would listen and vote against any bills designed to limit, further restrict, or otherwise infringe upon those rights.

Ron Barber is the Vice-Chair of the House Task Force To Prevent Gun Violence, a cabal of socialist oligarchs with designs on devaluing the Second Amendment to the point of making it ineffective to protect our natural right to protect our lives, liberties, and property.

As part of his efforts, Barber and seven co-sponsors introduced what appears to be an innocuous bill to fund and expand mental health training. The bill, HR 274, proposes increased federal fund allocations to enhance and reward that expanded training. The training is meant to increase personnel certified to identify individuals with mental health conditions so that they can be placed into databases which will deny them their Second Amendment protections without a court order or conviction. The bill itself doesn't address this database. That proposal is in another piece of legislation in an effort to pass these efforts under the radar.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Mental Health First Act of 2013'.

SEC. 2. MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID TRAINING GRANTS.

Section 520J of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-41) is amended to read as follows:

`SEC. 520J. MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AID TRAINING GRANTS.

`(a) Grants- The Secretary, acting through the Administrator, shall award grants to States, political subdivisions of States, Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and nonprofit private entities to initiate and sustain mental health first aid training programs.

`(b) Program Requirements-

`(1) IN GENERAL- To be eligible for funding under subsection (a), a mental health first aid training program shall--

`(A) be designed to train individuals in the categories listed in paragraph (2) to accomplish the objectives described in paragraph (3);

`(B) ensure that training is conducted by trainers that are properly licensed and credentialed by nonprofit entities as designated by the Secretary; and

`(C) include--

`(i) at a minimum--

`(I) a core live training course for individuals in the categories listed in paragraph (2) on the skills, resources, and knowledge to assist individuals in crisis to connect with appropriate local mental health care services;

`(II) training on mental health resources, including the location of community mental health centers described in section 1913(c), in the State and local community; and

`(III) training on action plans and protocols for referral to such resources; and

`(ii) where feasible, continuing education and updated training for individuals in the categories listed in paragraph (2).

`(2) CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS TO BE TRAINED- The categories of individuals listed in this paragraph are the following:

`(A) Emergency services personnel and other first responders.

`(B) Police officers and other law enforcement personnel.

`(C) Teachers and school administrators.

`(D) Human resources professionals.

`(E) Faith community leaders.

`(F) Nurses and other primary care personnel.

`(G) Students enrolled in an elementary school, a secondary school, or an institution of higher education.

`(H) The parents of students described in subparagraph (G).

`(I) Veterans.

`(J) Other individuals, audiences or training populations as determined appropriate by the Secretary.

`(3) OBJECTIVES OF TRAINING- To be eligible for funding under subsection (a), a mental health first aid training program shall be designed to train individuals in the categories listed in paragraph (2) to accomplish each of the following objectives (as appropriate for the individuals to be trained, taking into consideration their age):

`(A) Safe de-escalation of crisis situations.

`(B) Recognition of the signs and symptoms of mental illness, including such common psychiatric conditions as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major clinical depression, and anxiety disorders.

`(C) Timely referral to mental health services in the early stages of developing mental disorders in order to--

`(i) avoid more costly subsequent behavioral health care; and

`(ii) enhance the effectiveness of mental health services.

Increasing identification, familiarization, and immediate response training for citizens is, in itself, a great idea. However, this proposal could lead to citizens treating mental illness in a manner similar to the Salem Witch Trials where opinion and hysteria weigh stronger than facts and empirical evidence in decisions to infringe upon Second Amendment protections.

Barber's office sent out automated form-letter responses. Each of the letter writers received the same canned response:

Dear Mr. [REDACTED],

Thank you for contacting me about gun violence prevention. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like you, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Most firearms are legally purchased for legitimate purposes, including self-defense. In Arizona and across the country, there is a rich tradition of hunting and shooting sports. We must protect the rights of citizens to possess firearms for these lawful purposes.

As a grandfather and a member of Congress, I also believe we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our families, our schools and our communities. Preventing gun violence is a complex problem with no single answer, but I am hopeful that we can come together and take meaningful steps to address the availability of high-capacity magazines and prevent those who are criminals or a danger to themselves and others from purchasing weapons illegally.

As we work to prevent future violence, we also must take steps to identify and treat mental illness. Untreated or undiagnosed serious mental illness combined with easy access to heavy fire power has been an underlying cause in a number of mass shootings. It is important to stress that the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent. In fact, they are far more likely to be the victim of violence than the perpetrator. Nonetheless, we must expand mental health awareness and treatment services and prevent people who are a danger to themselves or others from having access to weapons.

On January 15, I introduced H.R. 274, the Mental Health First Aid Act. This bill would provide training similar to first aid instruction run by local chapters of the American Red Cross. It would take a public health approach to mental illnesses by providing training to teachers, students, firefighters, police officers, emergency services workers and others. Those trained would learn how to recognize the signs and symptoms of mental illness and would be given the tools necessary to respond and know where to get mental health services. I was pleased that the president and vice president included my legislation as part of the Administration's recommendations to prevent gun-violence

I was honored to be named as a Vice Chair of the House Task Force to Prevent Gun Violence. As a Vice Chair of that task force, I have been able to work with my colleagues in the House, Senate and the vice president as we develop recommendations to make our communities safe while protecting every American's right to bear arms. At home in Arizona, I have initiated Mental Health and Law Enforcement Task Forces to talk with experts in these fields about what they feel we must do to prevent and reduce gun violence. Most importantly, I'm talking with the people I represent, in my office and out across Southern Arizona at Congress on Your Corner and other public events, where I can hear directly from you and other constituents in my district.

As Congress works to reduce gun violence, be assured I am committed to working with my colleagues to move forward with common sense proposals that both ensure the safety of our communities and protect our Second Amendment rights.

It is an honor to represent Southern Arizona and keep the people I serve updated on my work in Congress. My office can also help you resolve issues with federal agencies. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of assistance to you. Click here to contact me or call my office in Tucson at 520-881-3588 or in Sierra Vista at 520-459-3115 for more information.

Yours sincerely,

Ron Barber
Member of Congress

Barber completely ignored the concerns and specific issues addressed in these letters from his constituents. One of the letter writers stated "[H]e totally missed the point of my letter to him. Residents, PLEASE contact Rep Barber and tell him magazine bans will not help the problem. Criminals don't care about gun laws! He is proposing legislation that affects law-abiding citizens!".

Attempting to engage Rep. Barber in a dialogue on the issues, he responded to the form letter:

Rep Barber,
Thank you for your reply. I can appreciate how you feel about your responsibilities to your constituents and your progeny. I feel the same way about my neighbors and my children, and recently born, first grandson.

I think you may have missed my point in my previous letter though.

I absolutely do not support magazine capacity regulations. That legislation will only impact law-abiding American citizens who also wish to protect their neighbors and families. A criminal who intends to commit a violent felony is not concerned about the lesser charge of a magazine violation. In fact, he/she may not even be concerned with his/her own life. There is no deterrence, except to the citizen who wishes to protect their family from the lawless thugs who will disregard these laws.

I believe you are a good man with good intentions, but I do not support you if you support this chipping away of the second amendment. Our Constitution should be sovereign and nonnegotiable.

Sincerely,
[signature and phone number REDACTED]

As of this posting, the citizen has yet to receive a response.

Ron Barber succeeded his mentor, Gabby Giffords, after she resigned from her seat due to recovery from a failed assassination attempt. The left-wing extremist who shot Rep. Giffords did so because he felt her actions were not as progressive as they should have been. Mrs. Giffords, despite being a rather socialist-minded politician, was well known to listen to her constituents. She was known to vote against her personal ideology and in favor of her constituents' desires, to include endorsing several Arizona state-level laws and policies, to include "Constitutional Carry" laws that made it no longer necessary to acquire a permit to carry a concealed firearm in Arizona.

Barber is not doing very well in attempting to appear to follow in her footsteps.

Based upon his cold, form-letter response on this issue, it's obvious that Rep. Ron Barber does not understand that he is employed by his constituents. Instead, he displays that he believes he is part of an oligarchy that "owns the plantation" and his constituents are there to bend to his will.

Senate Socialists' Proposal On Sequester

Tax Rich Men! Tax Gas! Fair Share is 100%!

Barbie Mikulski, the socialist senator from Maryland, introduced S. 388 on February 26th. The Library of Congress has yet to place the text of the bill online, though the bill is already scheduled for a cloture vote.

Just like with the PPACA, they are trying to keep people from reading the bill before they pass it. This is in an effort to avoid any criticism from their constituents.

However, the table of contents is available through alternate sources such as correspondent Jamie Dupree.

The bill claims it holds to the socialists' Democrats' "55 billion in cuts and 55 billion in revenues" proposal.  However, the bill seems to cut far less than the nominal and negligible automatic cuts of the sequestration law. In fact, the "cuts" appear to be just another empty promise to not increase spending as much as originally planned. That is not cutting the budget and will have little effect on reducing the deficit or national debt.

Based upon the table of contents, the bill appears to be more of a tax increase bill than a budget bill intended to cut bloated federal spending.

The misleading titled "The American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013" does anything but economically protect your average American Family.

The bill contains provisions for a "fair share tax on high income taxpayers".  The implication is that higher income earners, who already pay the majority of taxes to the federal government, will now be taxed for paying more than a fair share. It would be a pleasant surprise if the bill, instead, eliminated the so-called "progressive" income tax and replaced it with a flat tax. With a flat tax, taxpayers would, indeed, be paying a "fair share". Given their rhetoric, however, this will just be a tax increase on the higher tax brackets. That will lower incentives to earn, lower productivity, and cost jobs.

The bill also has provisions for increasing taxes on fossil fuels, to include gasoline. This will increase costs of transportation including mass transit programs such as city buses. With the national average fuel prices up $.50 a gallon, mid-range and lower income earners cannot afford an additional increase that the tax hike will mean.

The bill also proposes to eliminate one tax loophole. It is set to make it illegal for a company to deduct any business expenses incurred from outsourcing. While this so-called loophole will decrease deductions for certain costs of doing business, it really is just a means to tax more than income and profit. In addition, it lends to increased creation of oligopolies and monopolies since companies will now be motivated to keep all levels of production "in house" instead of farming some levels out to other, smaller, more specialized companies. These are affronts to capitalism and the free market ideal. They are easier to control and regulate for oligarchs, national socialists, and fascists.

It should also come as no surprise that the majority of the proposed cuts are to defense spending, including proposals to decrease military pays and benefits which are exempted under the sequester law passed in 2011.

This bill stands less of a chance of passing the House of Representatives than the House bills do of passing the Senate. Even if a "compromise" is reached, it likely will not come before March 1, 2013.

March 1, 2013 isn't as hard a deadline as it is portrayed. First of all, any federal employee furloughs must be announced at least 30 days in advance. Each job then has an appeal process before it is cut. Other provisions, to include the defense budget cuts, won't really see their money flow slow until later in the fiscal year, some time this summer. Realistically, the effects of the sequestration cuts won't be felt until around July.

So there is still plenty of time. Rushing for a "solution" before  a manufactured and incorrect deadline is intended as a means to force congress to act irresponsibly. Obama and his snake-oil salesmen alarmists are using scare tactics to convince those who do not understand basic economics to panic and urge their congressmen to take those irresponsible acts. One tactic, done by socialist activist turned Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. The exiled former governor of Arizona has directed ICE to release thousands of illegal immigrant invaders back into the public. The claim is that they cannot afford to hold the criminals any longer. The sequestration cuts have not yet even gone into effect. Even when they do, ICE won't see the effects until around the July time-frame. No, this was done as a political stunt. It is a self-licking ice cream cone to support Obama's claims that sequestration will affect local law enforcement. It wouldn't have.

The political move by Obama and Napolitano irked the ire of many state governors, senators, as well as county sheriffs. State level leaders in Alabama and Georgia have joined the outraged voices of Janet Brewer of Arizona and Rick Perry of Texas. They allege the move was also done to destroy attempts at immigration reform proposed by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

The big-government proponents and opponents to federal spending cuts on both sides of the aisle need to be called on the carpet to answer for their lies and irresponsible actions. The federal bureaucracy is already bloated. Cut it. Quit restricting and retarding private sector growth opportunities. Stop lying to people and manufacturing false crises to push repressive and oppressive political agendas.

The most responsible action in regards to the sequestration is to let it happen, look at cutting more, and look at cutting taxes and regulatory fees. Use the Laffer Curve and let this country recover from the great recession already.

"American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013.

"American Family Economic Protection Act of 2013."

"American Family Economic Protection Act of

Sequestration Alarmists & Snake-Oil Salesmen

Over the past several weeks we have discussed the pending "automatic" federal spending cuts commonly called "sequestration". 

First, several have referred to these as "budget cuts". They are not. The federal government has not operated under a budget since FY09, which was passed in the fall of 2008 while President Bush was still in office. You cannot cut a budget that doesn't exist.

Snake-Oil salesmen on both sides of the aisle are attempting to appeal to the fears, emotions, and self-preservation instincts of the citizens. This is nothing short of dishonesty. 

The CATO institute published an article likening these alarmist calls to Chicken Little. The article does a decent job of debunking the alarmist claims made by pundits and government officials.

Let's examine a few facts about the sequestration. First, the cuts to defense will not affect military pay or benefits. Obamacare is already impacting health care programs for military family members and retirees, though. The roughly 8% cut in defense spending will mostly impact the Defense Department (to include DA, DAF, and DN) civilians. Many of those civilian positions were created in an effort to allay some of the garrison duties normally assigned to service members. It was done in an effort to free up military personnel to deploy so that the frequency of rotations would reduce. It was part of the request to increase force numbers, to keep that increase tolerable for opponents to an increased active, standing military. In addition, the creation of those civilian positions was done so that a draft would be unnecessary. The positions, however, were intended to be temporary. Now, proponents of big government on both sides of the aisle want to treat them as though they were permanent. 

Some have stated that the cuts will affect local fire, police, libraries, municipal water services, and other local area utilities. The federal government has no authority or responsibility over municipal or state level issues. 

There are rumors that the cuts will affect Social Security, Medicare, Veterans' Benefits, and military retiree pensions. The facts are that the sequestration bill strictly exempts all of the above. 

Current federal spending is far above its 2007 levels, the last FY budget passed by a congress whose both houses contained a conservative majority. 

The sequestration cuts are real cuts. However, the exact amount is subject to how you do the math. Strictly, it contains an immediate $85 billion in cuts. After some governmental economic voodoo, it may actually be closed to $73 billion in real cuts. That is nothing when federal spending will still be over $3.8 trillion. All the cuts will do is bring the annual deficit for FY13 to just under $1 trillion ($974 billion). 

Obama and other demagogues claimed that congress has done nothing in regards to the sequestration. In reality, they really shouldn't. Allowing the cuts to go through is a positive move. The Senate has concentrated on Postal Worker pensions and health care plans as well as violating the Second Amendment. However, the House introduced bills HR 803, HR 804, HR 807, HR 810, HR 814, and HR 816: 

H.R. 803. A bill to reform and strengthen the workforce investment system of the Nation to put Americans back to work and make the United States more competitive in the 21st century; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Agriculture, Veterans' Affairs, Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

H.R. 804. A bill to cancel the 251A sequester for the revised security category and to provide for a reduced spending plan with respect to the Department of Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Budget. 

H.R. 807. A bill to require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached; to the Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R. 810. A bill to grant the Secretary of Defense the authority to transfer funding under a continuing resolution, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 

H.R. 814. A bill to reauthorize and amend the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families and related programs; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

H.R. 816. A bill to amend the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to allow intraagency transfers of funds to provide more flexibility for the agency to comply with a presidential sequestration order for fiscal year 2013 or 2014; to the Committee on the Budget.  

Then, in regards to preparing for a push to increase the federally mandated minimum wage to $9 per hour, they have proposed HR 815, which, essentially, is a tax cut to employers to defray the additional costs of labor. They won't offset the costs of  the PPACA, though.

H.R. 815. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make certain dividends and distributions paid to individuals from certain small businesses exempt from tax to the extent of the increased wages of the small business; to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

In the grand scheme of things, those cuts are next to nothing. They amount to two trips to Starbucks a month for a family earning $50k after taxes, but with $60k a year in bills, payments, utilities, and luxury spending. They don't even come close to fending off a pending bankruptcy.

Obama and his cronies reached out to states, attempting to employ a scare tactic over what cuts each state will face due to the sequestration. Here is the rub. Any state government worth its salt is wise enough to balance its budget before receiving a single cent of federal funding. If they are responsible, they shouldn't count on it.

Here is an excerpt of the threat letter sent to Texas:

If sequestration were to take effect, some examples of the impacts on Texas this year alone are:

-Teachers and Schools:

Texas will lose approximately $67.8 million in funding for primary and secondary
education, putting around 930 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 172,000
fewer students would be served and approximately280 fewer schools would receive
funding.

     o  Education for Children with Disabilities: In addition, Texas will lose approximately
$51million in funds for about 620 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with
disabilities.

- Work-Study Jobs:

Around 4,720 fewer low income students in Texas would receive aid to help

them finance the costs of college and around 1,450 fewer students will get work-study
jobs that help them pay for college.

- Head Start:

Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 4,800 children in Texas, reducing access to critical early education.

- Law Enforcement and Public Safety Funds for Crime Prevention and
Prosecution:

Texas will lose about $1,103,000 in Justice Assistance Grants that support law
enforcement, prosecution and courts, crime prevention and education, corrections
and community corrections, drug treatment and enforcement, and crime victim
and witness initiatives. 

The statement clearly expresses that Veterans' Administration funding is exempt from sequestration. However it still attempts to send alarms of cut services to veterans should the sequester cuts be allowed. The notice gives no justification or data to support the claim.

You can see the state by state claims issued by the White House at Jamie Dupree's site.

Let's look at those cuts. First of all, education is a state, local, and parental responsibility. It does not fall within federal authority. The Tenth Amendment forbids it. Any funds received from federal spending used for education should be additional, after local and state governments already established the necessary budgets. In addition, studies have shown that many schools that receive higher funding actually are not performing as well as those receiving less.

On the subject of "Headstart", this federal program is already highly suspect. Many parents are choosing to home school or use private facilities for their pre-K children. Even in areas where this is perceived to not be the case, local taxes are already taking care of those public school programs. For instance, San Antonio passed a resolution that Obama's Communist Cuban Comrade, Julian Castro, proposed as a form of test-bed for Obama's proposed national program. The resolution passed a 1/8% sales tax increase in the city to pay for full-time pre-k programs for up to 3,700 new students. If you subtract that from the White
House's claim of a reduction of 4,500 students state-wide, that leaves a deficit of 800 students. Other municipalities can easily find a way to increase local revenues to cover their share of the 800 across the state.

The "work-study" claims are just more class-warfare rhetoric, since the claim specifies "low-income students". It claims that the students have no control over their income level. They are capable of working a little harder and seeking better paying jobs than the work-study programs provide. I know many people who have done it and others who are doing it now. In addition, federal involvement in higher education is the direct cause of the exponential inflation of collegiate costs. Return student loans to private banks. Reduce federal taxes and allow states to control their own financial aid and work-study programs at state (public) colleges and universities. 

Those funds to law enforcement are to support federal laws and federal initiatives that are forced upon local law enforcement and correctional officers. The state of Texas and its local municipalities and counties are more than capable of balancing their revenues with the necessities. The federal funds are not needed, nor are they constitutional. In fact, they infringe upon the 10th Amendment.

Most states have balanced their budgets. The sequestration cuts will have little to no real impact on them, especially if they continue to do so. The sequestration just serves as one more example of why the federal government needs to play in their own sandbox and stay out of those belonging to states and individuals.

Take Down My Flag? -- Molon Labe

Recently, a combat veteran and current active duty US Army Soldier returned home to his lawfully owned condominium in Huntsville, Alabama.

Upon arriving home, he found a notice from the condominium's home owners' association demanding he remove his flag "ASAP" because it is visible from the parking lot. The association claims that the US Flag, being visible from the parking lot, gives the complex an "untidy appearance".

The problem is Staff Sergeant (E-6) Weir owns the condominium. He owns the flag. Both are on private property. SSG Weir is a combat veteran of multiple tours who put his life on the line for the people and ideals that flag represents. He has more than earned the right to proudly display that flag, as long as he does so with proper respect and presentation.

Photo courtesy of Facebook

Rightfully, this being his private property, SSG Weir has replied with "Molon Labe" written in Greek letters. "Molon Labe" means "come take it" or "come take them". The phrase is commonly used by Second Amendment advocates. The historic tale of the saying dates back to the times of Sparta. When threatened with siege, the invading tyrants told the Spartans to lay down their arms and they would negotiate a peaceful surrender. The Spartan king responded with "Come Take Them!".  




In addition, he has a federal law passed on July 24, 2006 (HR 42) protecting his right to display that flag:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act--

(1) the term `flag of the United States' has the meaning given the term `flag, standard, colors, or ensign' under section 3 of title 4, United States Code;

(2) the terms `condominium association' and `cooperative association' have the meanings given such terms under section 604 of Public Law 96-399 (15 U.S.C. 3603);

(3) the term `residential real estate management association' has the meaning given such term under section 528 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. 528); and

(4) the term `member'--

(A) as used with respect to a condominium association, means an owner of a condominium unit (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96-399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association;

(B) as used with respect to a cooperative association, means a cooperative unit owner (as defined under section 604 of Public Law 96-399 (15 U.S.C. 3603)) within such association; and

(C) as used with respect to a residential real estate management association, means an owner of a residential property within a subdivision, development, or similar area subject to any policy or restriction adopted by such association.

SEC. 3. RIGHT TO DISPLAY THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES.

A condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association may not adopt or enforce any policy, or enter into any agreement, that would restrict or prevent a member of the association from displaying the flag of the United States on residential property within the association with respect to which such member has a separate ownership interest or a right to exclusive possession or use.

SEC. 4. LIMITATIONS.

Nothing in this Act shall be considered to permit any display or use that is inconsistent with--

(1) any provision of chapter 1 of title 4, United States Code, or any rule or custom pertaining to the proper display or use of the flag of the United States (as established pursuant to such chapter or any otherwise applicable provision of law); or

(2) any reasonable restriction pertaining to the time, place, or manner of displaying the flag of the United States necessary to protect a substantial interest of the condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.

SSG Weir is not the only individual who has faced opposition from a home owners' association, apartment complex, or condominium association. In June 2012, a North Carolina citizen, home owner, and retired US Marine, John Dillon,  had a similar battle with his HOA. 

Housing Associations and renters facing a losing battle attempting to remove the flags. The First Amendment upholds the right to display the flag. HR 42 prohibits the associations from infringing upon the proper display of US Flags and military banners, including the Gadsden Flag that many uninformed incorrectly call the "Tea Party Flag". The Gadsden dates back to the War of Independence and was a colonial military banner.

Stricter 'Gun Control' Could Mean Economic Woes

Our country's economy has been repeatedly slamming its head against economic walls and other obstacles to prosperity over the past five years. These obstacles started when the socialists Democrats obtained the majority in both houses of Congress in 2006. Dodd-Frank and other socialist legislation destabilized the economy. Since, other acts such as the PPACA, out-of-control federal spending, increased federal credit limits (debt ceiling), the "stimulus", and the lack of a budget (much less a balanced one) have intentionally hindered recovery.

Some states made wise decisions. Indiana looked at Public-Private Partnership (P3) contracts with private companies in order to increase the efficiency of many state-level responsibilities such as toll roads. It's been highly successful. Other states, such as Indiana and Arizona, have increased school choice programs and enhanced private and charter schools to compete. States such as Texas have stood by right-to-work legislation which has increased competition by companies in hiring the best people. This has increased productivity, increasing the demand for labor, creating jobs, and raising the mean wage levels in the process. Getting the unions out of the way enabled the employees the right to keep more of their earnings without some group of goons extorting it from them.

Others just haven't learned. California raised its state level income tax, punishing people for working and earning and prospering.

Then along come proposals on state and federal levels that harm.

School Choice legislation improves education by increasing competition. Common Core State Standards Initiatives and Obama's proposed "universal Pre-K" program harm education. Reduced education means loss of prosperity.

With bill sponsored in the Senate and House, the federal government is threatening to inhibit the firearms industry. These inhibitions and unconstitutional infringements harm those who work in these industries as well as their customers.

Some states fearing that federal legislation may not pass are attempting to enact state-level laws along similar lines. These harm the state level economies.

Some companies, such as Magpul, are cutting their contracts and refusing to sell, even to law enforcement, their products in states that restrict them. This will hinder law enforcement officers. In addition, it limits products that people will purchase. That means lower sales. That means lower sales-tax revenue.

Magpul and other companies are looking to move their businesses out of other states that are passing infringements upon the Second Amendment. Some of the laws proposed in Colorado have Magpul looking to move to Wyoming or Texas. Beretta USA is threatening to move one of its rifle plants from Maryland to a state, such as Texas, which would welcome the 300 new jobs plus increased revenue that will come with it. Texas has no income taxes, making the move even more lucrative to the business.

Texas and Arizona are among states looking to preemptively nullify any further federal firearms restrictions, particularly those on magazine capacity and certain rifles that are inaccurately labeled as "assault rifles". (Since they do not fire more than one projectile with a single trigger pull, they are not assault rifles).

Texas HB 1076, The "Firearm Protection Act" forbids state and local law enforcement from enforcing any such laws. It further places fines and other criminal punishments against any county or local government who infringes upon the Second Amendment.

Sec.40.03. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT POLICY REGARDING ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARM LAWS.
(a) This section applies to:
   (1)the State of Texas, including an agency, department, commission, bureau, board, office, council, court or other entity that is in any branch of state government and that is created by the Constitution or a statute of this state, including a university system or a system of higher education;
   (2) the governing body of a municipality, county, or special district or authority;
   (3) an officer, employee, or other body that is part of a municipality, county, or special district or authority, including a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, or county attorney; and
   (4) a district attorney or criminal district attorney.

(b)An entity described by Subsection (a) may not adopt a rule, order, ordinance, or policy under which the entity enforces, or by consistent action allows the enforcement of, a federal statute, order, rule or regulation enacted on or after January 1, 2013 that purports to regulate a firearm, firearm accessory, or irearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction or other regulation, such as capacity or size limitation, a registration requirement or a background check, that does not exist under the laws of this state.

(c)No entity described by Subsection (a) and no person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity may enforce or attempt to enforce any federal statute, order, rule or regulation described by Subsection (b).

This is part of Texas's plan to not only protect its citizens from tyranny but to romance firearms companies in other states to move to Texas. The message is clear:  "The state you are in doesn't want your business. We do. Come here and we'll prosper together." Those "blue states" that are looking to infringe will find their already struggling state economies to be worse off.

Those economies could be worse off in other ways as well.

The restrictions will harm small businesses. The obvious ones are gun stores and firing ranges. However, they also inhibit the "pursuit of happiness" of other business owners by making them unable to protect their businesses from theft and their customers from assault. This will lead to higher crime, harming businesses, and forcing many to have to close. That will increase unemployment and decrease state revenues from sales taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, capital gains taxes, etc. Without a means to protect their businesses, owners and employees will either close or move to less restrictive states.

Meanwhile, states such as Arizona have "Constitutional Carry" legislation (with restrictions). These laws allow customers, business owners, and employees to carry, open or concealed, within certain limitations. Those limitations are school zones and other select places. Those businesses that do not welcome firearms can post signs outside of their locations stating as much. They are free to do so.

Texas, which does not have "Constitutional Carry", is considering such legislation. Texas HB 700 is a rewrite of a bill that passed the Texas House in 2011. This version looks as though it has a better chance of passing the state Senate. It would allow "open carry" with permit. It's a step closer to being in proper compliance with the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.

Meanwhile, current laws allow employees to carry concealed to and from their places of employment, even if the employers' policies forbid carrying. The legislation mandates that such employers allow employees with concealed carry permits to keep their firearms locked securely in their vehicles without reprisal.This law does not infringe upon the business owners' rights to allow or disallow firearms on their private property, to include their rights to have policies against employees carrying concealed on company property or while "on duty".

LC §52.061. RESTRICTION

ON PROHIBITING EMPLOYEE ACCESS

TO OR STORAGE OF FIREARM OR AMMUNITION

.

A public or private employer may not prohibit an employee who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Sub-chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully

possesses ammunition from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition the employee is authorized by law to possess in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area the employer provides for employees.

Sec. 52.062. EXCEPTIONS.

(a) Section 52.061 does not:

   (1) authorize a per son who holds a license to carry a concealed handgun under Sub-chapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, who otherwise lawfully possesses a firearm, or who lawfully possesses ammunition to possess a firearm or ammunition on any property where the possession of a firearm or ammunition is prohibited by state or federal law; or

   (2) apply to:

      (A) a vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer and used by an employee in the course and scope of the employee's employment, unless the employee is required to transport or store a firearm in the official discharge of the employee's duties;

      (B) a school district;

      (C) an open-enrollment charter school, as defined by Section 5.001, Education Code;

      (D) a pr ivate school, as defined by Section 22.081, Education Code;

       (E) property owned or controlled by a per son, other than the employer, that is subject to a valid, unexpired oil, gas, or other mineral lease that contains a provision prohibiting the possession of firearms on the property;

States looking to deny citizens from such assurances of their rights protected by the Second Amendment are facing skilled workers leaving the states for those, such as Texas and Arizona, that do afford those assurances.

Infringing upon the natural right to arm one's self in order to protect one's self, family, property, and fellow citizens as protected by the Second Amendment isn't just a violation of a basic human right, it's bad business. That makes it just plain stupid.
 

Dear Senators, We The People...

When Congress returns to work after their 10 day President's Day vacation, they have a few important things on their plate.

Probably among the most pressing item, to them and Obama, are the upcoming automatic budget cuts. The cuts represent a 2% cut across the board, $85 billion. That amount is nearly negligible. It equates to two trips to Starbucks a week for a family making $50k a year. It still leaves almost $1 trillion in deficit, for the year, to be contended with. In any deal to avoid cuts to various special projects that GOP congress members may attempt will come demands to raise taxes and demands to raise the federally mandated minimum wage to $9 an hour. Either of these two measures will just cause further harm to our already limping economy. Combined, they will send us further into recession if not bring about another depression. Then again, this is what socialists want. A depressed economy lubricates the weak-minded into welcoming more government intrusion into their lives.

In the grand scheme of things, the sequester cuts are best left untouched. They will sting, like getting a Vitamin-B shot. However, the benefits will outweigh that little discomfort in the long run.

Call your Representatives and Senators. Tell them to leave the sequestration alone. Tell them to hold fast on the federal debt limit. Tell them to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment and to pass a budget. A huge part of the country's current economic problems is that there has been no federal budget in over 4 years.

The second issue of concern revolves around the knee-jerk reactions to that horrible and devastating act of evil Adam Lanza committed at Sandy Hook Elementary.

If you do some objective research, you'll find that evidence weighs heavier against any stricter gun control laws or infringements of the Second Amendment.

Limiting the capacity of magazines will just lead to criminals carrying more magazines.

An "assault rifle", by definition, is one that is capable of firing multiple rounds with a single squeeze of the trigger. M-4s and M-16s are capable of firing 3-round bursts with a single pull. AR-15s are not. They may look mean. Dressed in picatinny rails, they may look intimidating, especially since flashlights and laser sights can be mounted to them. That makes them more accurate and more safe, since there is less chance of collateral damage. But they are not "assault rifles".

Universal background checks sound good on paper. However, they will require increased manpower and more government employees. The government is broke. They are looking to furlough employees. How will this be paid for? Which party in a private to private individual transfer will be responsible? If you wish to sell a used television in a garage sale, you don't have to jump through red tape. Television ownership and usage are not directly protected by a constitutional amendment. Firearms are.

With these background checks there are also questions concerning individual privacy. Things that some want included in these checks are things that are protected information. HIPPA laws actual forbid the sharing of that information to include NCIC/NAC databases.

Then there is the whole issue of the Fourth Amendment to consider. It takes an order from a judge to restrict/revoke/suspend somebody's Second Amendment rights. That power should never be given to physicians or psychiatrists. It is what objective justices are for. Our constitution was set up that way on purpose.

Another issue revolves around the idea of national level gun buy-back programs. Studies indicate that it requires 65,000 guns to save one life from a violent crime or accidental death. Many people use the buyback programs to finance an upgrade to the gun they sell to the government. So, the numbers taken "off the streets" are, in reality, much lower than claimed.

The latest rumors are that officials in the executive branch as well as some members of congress are looking for that buyback to be mandatory, especially if an individual currently legally owns one of the firearms they propose to ban. That violates the Fourth Amendment as an illegal mass confiscation. It is also an ex post facto law, and therefore unconstitutional.

You can run the research. While you are doing so, look into various court decisions from Circuit through Supreme. Many proponents of gun control will cite the Miller decision from 1939. What they fail to state is that the court decision was one concerning taxation, not one concerning ownership of a firearm.

Write your representatives and senators. Start with facts. Then let them know where you stand on having your present and future firearms ownership decisions made by them instead of by your self. It is your decision to decide what you own or don't own, not theirs. The US Constitution says as much. The Second Amendment says as much. The Tenth Amendment bolsters it.

Reportedly, there are 20 or so fence sitters, mostly national socialists Democrats, who are being pressured to support the proposed violations on your liberty made by Senator Feinstein and others. Here are their names and official phone numbers. You may want to call them and give them a few facts. You may want to tell them to keep their hands off of your property.

Sen. Max Baucus	202-224-2651
Sen. Mark Begich	202-224-3004
Sen. Susan Collins	202-224-2523
Sen. Joe Donnelly	202-224-4814
Sen. Kay Hagan	202-224-6342
Sen. Martin Heinrich	202-224-5521
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp	202-224-2043
Sen. Tim Johnson	202-224-5842
Sen. Tim Kaine	202-224-4024
Sen. Angus King	202-224-5344
Sen. Mary Landrieu	202-224-5824
Sen. Joe Manchin	202-224-3954
Sen. Claire McCaskill	202-224-6154
Sen. Mark Pryor	202-224-2353
Sen. Harry Reid	202-224-3542
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen	202-224-2841
Sen. Jon Tester	202-224-2644
Sen. Mark Udall	202-224-5941
Sen. Tom Udall	202-224-6621
Sen. Mark Warner	202-224-2023

Chinese Treats Allegedly Making Dogs Sick

Dingo Chip Twists boast real chicken that dogs will love. Your dog may not love the treats so much after suffering ill effects occurring after the treats hit your pup's digestive tract.

Chicken-flavored dog treats made in China may have caused severe digestive tract illnesses in over 900 reported canines. The FDA confirmed that complaints have continued to pour in. The agency stated it conducted an investigation. However, they do not normally screen or test pet food or treats.

As many as 500 cases of digestive tract infections have now been blamed on Dingo Chip Twists, specifically.

One dog owner stated that he bought the treats for his dog, a normally healthy and sturdy lab-mix. Since, vets bills have passed $190. The dog has been placed on a special diet, which costs even more, to help the dog fight the infection. His dog has been on that special diet, but it has not yet resulted in much improvement. The dog was at a healthy weight of 63 pounds before the affliction. In the past couple of days, the pup has lost about 10% of his body weight, dropping to just under 57 pounds.

Under the warning section for the treats posted on Walgreen's website is included a statement for humans to wash hands immediately after handling the treats. This should set off alarms. Should the treats not be safe for humans to handle, perhaps they shouldn't be fed to a dog. 

"Always provide plenty of clean fresh drinking water and visit your veterinarian regularly. Wash hands thoroughly after handling treats."

Shooting Down The Gun-Grab Debate

Second Amendment defenders and gun-grabbing socialists tyrants useful idiots gun-control advocates have been stepping up their rhetoric as proposed legislation such as Sen. Feinstein's suite of senate bills come closer to debate and votes.

Some states have already taken measures of their own in knee-jerk reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newton, CT.

All of the above have caused both sides to intensify their arguments, such as those within the debate between David Kopel and Ladd Everitt during a panel discussion sponsored by the American Bar Association.

It seems, however, that missing are the views of law-abiding citizens who have benefited from their Second Amendment rights, having used them to save lives and property. Missing are the voices of those who wished they had been able to exercise those same rights, were not due to infringements such as "gun free zones", and were made victims because of poor  policies and unconstitutional laws.

Katie Pavlich of Town Hall Magazine shared this story about one rape victim, Amanda Collins. She was raped in a parking lot at a college. She was only a few short yards away from the campus police who were not available to help. Notes to take into account are her statements that call boxes and police were unable to help her. She was denied her second amendment right to bear (carry) her concealed handgun despite having a permit to do so. To further punctuate this story, remove that false narrative that police have a mandated duty to protect individual citizens. The Supreme Court ruled that they do not. Self-protection is an individual responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the nanny-state.

Listen to Amanda's statement on Cam Edwards' show: 



Countering the arguments against arming school cadre and the proposal to ban "assault weapons" is a survivor or the Colombine Massacre. One of the key facts people  need to note is that the previous assault weapon ban issued by Bill Clinton was in effect at the time of Colombine. It did nothing to deter or prevent that massacre.

Evan Todd was one of the victims of the Colombine Massacre. He was shot during the assault. He opposes the infringements of the Second Amendment that are currently being considered and discussed.  Todd went so far as to send an open letter to Obama telling him why further restrictions on firearms ownership won't work, but will invite more harm and violence.

The Colombia Daily Herald interviewed Flo Armstreet. Mrs. Armstreet was accosted by two robbers. When the altercation reached the point she felt her life was in danger, Flo pulled a firearm. The robbers started to retreat. So Flo performed  a citizen's arrest and  held the assailants at gunpoint until police arrived  to arrest them. During the interview, Flo emphatically states that she didn't present her weapon until she felt there was a threat that would be deterred in no other way. Mrs. Armstreet is a senior citizen, a law-abiding citizen, and a perfect example of how presenting a firearm can save lives. She didn't need to fire a single shot.

Next there is the rhetoric on government run gun buy-back programs. First of all, gun buy-back so not work. Statistical analysis shows that the number of firearms (65,000+) that would need to be bought back far exceed the number of firearms that any program has been able to garner.

There has been talk of a federally mandated buy-back program. Consider that terminology. If the program is mandatory, it amounts to a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. That is an unlawful seizure/confiscation without a specified directed warrant. The current make-up of the Supreme Court would chew that sort of program to bits.

Locally run by-back programs, often listed as successes, tend to fail in reality. One buy-back in Seattle, Washington turned into an impromptu, legal gun show. The government officials offered gift cards. Collectors, on the other hand, offered cash in amounts closer to the actual value of  the firearms. These per private citizen to private citizen sales, which are the same thing as selling a used lawnmower or car except in one aspect. That aspect is that firearms ownership is directly protected by the Second Amendment. Other private property ownership and transfer is only implied in the US Constitution.

In another buy-back in Santa Fe, NM, officials promised anonymity to those participating. Then the officials violated that very key component of the program and released the names to the public. They even published the numbers on the gift cards issued to those who sold their guns to the government. The complete irony is that most of the weapons purchased by the government were lower-quality. The value of many of the weapons was less than the amount of the gift card. Many of those who participated used the gift cards towards purchasing newer and better firearms to replace the ones they sold to the police. So, the program didn't take guns off the streets. It enabled the gun owners to upgrade to better guns.

Then you have the hypocrisy of alleged "gun free zones". First of all, Sandy Hook Elementary was a "gun free zone". That little sign did little to stop Adam Lanza. Many states have restrictions similar to those in federal buildings that infringe upon the constitutional right to bear (carry) firearms in public places. Courthouses (reasonably, don't want armed escape attempts or divorce litigants shooting each other or justices) and capitol buildings (legislatures) tend to ban firearms. However, Ohio and Georgia are looking to allow a special demographic special rights to carry. That right should be extended to all law abiding citizens, not just some special socialist collective. The special little collectives are the elected legislators themselves. Yes, they are voting themselves special privileges that they are looking to deny to the people they represent. That is hypocrisy.

In contrast, however, Georgia is among several states currently considering "Constitutional Carry" legislation to replace "shall issue" concealed carry permit legislation. Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming currently have "Constitutional Carry" laws. These laws allow citizens of the states to carry weapons, concealed or open-carried, without requiring a special permit. As long as the citizen has no felony conviction or other court order revoking Second Amendment rights, citizens may carry their firearms. Texas has similar legislation proposed as well as bills that would allow open carry. Variations of the proposed open-carry legislation in Texas include both "constitutional open carry" and open-carry restricted to those with concealed carry permits.

When debating gun control and the Second Amendment, you need to know the facts used by both sides of the argument. However, the debate continues to drift into pulling on heart-strings. Gun-grab advocates employ emotional pleas based upon the rare but devastating tragedies like Sandy Hook and Colombine. To counter this, Second Amendment defenders need to present facts backed by similar emotional tales on how weapons have, or could have, prevented violence, be it rape, murder, molestation, or home invasion.

Gun Grab Rhetoric Intensifying

Despite some perceiving the latest anti-gun debate is softening with statements like those from Joey "Junior Luciano" Biden about owning and firing double-barreled 12-gauge shotguns into the air, proponents of disarming US citizens is not losing any steam.

Last week, Joseph Salazar, a Colorado State legislator and member of the socialist oligarch Democratic party suggested that female college students carry whistles and urinate on themselves instead of applying for concealed carry permits and exercising their deity-given and constitutionally protected right to own and carry firearms. That brought a deluge of complaints from lady gun owners and their supporters. The fallout prompted Salazar to issue a very condescending statement of placation that he claims was an apology. Nobody bought it, especially since Salazar's initial statements painted women as irrational and incapable of effectively assessing when their lives are really being threatened.

Salazar must have missed the 1996 study from the CDC that found over 600,000 attempted violent crimes were thwarted by the intended victim presenting a firearm. The sight of  the weapon was enough to stop the assailants without a shot being fired or a person being harmed (except in the cases the assailant received some "prison love" upon incarceration). The study was concluded in 1996 and was the last one the CDC conducted on gun control effectiveness and benefits of gun ownership before their budget was cut the $2.6 million the studies cost. Their studies were also found to be subjective, slanted in favor or promoting more infringements of the Second Amendment. (That a federal agency mandated  to track and prevent disease would study gun violence makes no sense).

In response to the revelations on facts debunking Salazar's advice that originated from the University of Colorado - Colorado Springs's rape and violent crime prevention guidelines, several tyrannical oligarchy loving Marxists liberals attempted to use emotive and baseless rhetoric to come to the legislator's defense:

Still getting deluded with wingnuts suggesting the cure for rape is for victims to shoot and go to jail for murder. #losttheirminds
— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) February 21, 2013

Individuals such as Miss Marcotte need to return to elementary school and learn that words really do have set, defined meanings. A rape attempt is an attack on your life. Armed robbery is a threat to your life. Proportionate force used to defend yourself and prevent those crimes is legally authorized. it is more than just "acceptable". It is your natural right. What it is not is "murder". The intended victim will most likely not go to jail.

(It is also laughable that Miss Marcotte used the intra-service nickname, "wingnuts", that military members use for those serving in the US Air Force).

Yesterday, the American Bar Association's Section on Litigation held a panel discussion on the Second Amendment and recent suggestions to infringe upon it. The rhetoric used was  "gun violence prevention measures". Let's call a spade a spade. It's an attempt to disarm or at least weaken the level of  defensive capabilities of the average, individual American citizen.

Among the Panel Members were David Kopel of the CATO Institute who was cited in both the Heller and McDonald US Supreme Court decisions that upheld the individual right to own and carry firearms without infringement.

Countering him, mostly, was Ladd Everitt from the Center to Stop Gun Violence.

The other two panel members were Nick Johnson, author of Firearms Law,  and Huffington Post contributor Adam Winkler.

During the call, the identity of some respondents' identities became muddled. Some of the statements attributed to Everitt may have been made by Winkler and vice versa. The same may have occurred with statements made by Kopel and Johnson.

An interesting fact about Ladd is that he was the Chief of Policy Development for the Air Force Association. That rings of irony since members of the US Air Force take an oath to support and defend the US Constitution against all enemies. The Second Amendment is part of the US Constitution.

The debate became rather heated towards the end. Mr. Koepel challenged Ladd with questions requesting clarification of principles. Ladd refused to answer the questions because he "didn't want to be trapped" into admitting his real goal is to disarm US Citizens and repeal the Second Amendment.

In the opening question to the panel, Ladd made some suggestions that teetered on common sense.

The question asked why allowing pilots on private air carriers (such as Delta or American Airlines) to carry firearms to defend the plane is acceptable while allowing teachers and school administrators to do the same is reprehensible.

Ladd stated  that the firearms for pilots are a "last defense". The security measures at the airports are the "first defense". This suggests that students arriving at government schools should be treated as though they are criminals arriving for incarceration. He thinks that kids need to be subjected  to full body scans and strip searches by armed police stationed at the schools. It's bad enough that kids have to walk the halls with their hands clasped behind their backs as though they are criminals walking the halls of a prison. The schools call this "hallway hands".

Armed guards and some amount of screening may help prevent future violent crimes. However, those measures cannot be so invasive that they breach the individual natural rights of Life, Liberty and Property our country was founded upon. Knowledge that school faculties include an unknown number of trained and armed personnel makes the school a hard target. That is a deterrent that serves much better than treating kids as though they are entering a concentration camp.

Ladd used this question to segue into the subject of universal background checks. He blames private individual to private individual sales as a culprit because individuals don't conduct the background checks that licensed gun dealers do. Private automobile owners don't check driving records and insurance records when selling a car, either. Cars are not directly guaranteed by the US Constitution. Guns are. This is where his rhetoric fails, utterly and completely.

Ladd also stated that facts about "gun free zones" are misleading. He claims that more crimes occur in places where guns are allowed. First of all, the second amendment guarantees that guns can be carried on one's own property and in all public places. Only a private property owner has the right to ban guns on his or her legally owned property. Guns are not "allowed" in places. They are banned from places.

Ladd later made a ridiculous and baseless claim that the National Rifle Association "legalized the black market for guns". His claim is that because the NRA supported the Second Amendment and the Fourth Amendment in allowing private citizens to dispense, sell, or transfer their constitutionally protected private property, that they created the "black market". He claims that the "black market" is private person to person sales. It's a simple mislabeling. The "black market" consists of illegally imported guns, stolen weapons, and altered firearms that had their serial numbers removed. That same "black market" also consists of firearms constructed  in private workshops. They are commonly called "zip guns". Joey Biden selling me one of his double-barreled 12-gauge shotguns is not the "black market".

Ladd blames Indiana for the crime in Chicago. This is probably because he loves the national socialism and  Marxism that unions support. Mitch Daniels and his fellow conservatives reformed Indiana, conducted sweeping school choice legislation, balanced the state's budget, and passed right to work legislation. In addition, Indiana is currently working to make automatic payroll deductions by labor unions illegal.

He also blamed  the crime in Chicago on poverty. He even used a typical Obama catch-phrase "let me be perfectly clear". His perfect plan is to ban guns and disarm private citizens, and tax prosperous people into poverty in order to enslave people to the government by making them dependent upon the government for basic needs instead of being self-sufficient. He claims doing this will eliminate the "black market" and eliminate the need for criminals to buy guns and shoot people.

Among his reasoning that contained more holes than all the Swiss Cheese in Wisconsin, Ladd stated that Justice Ruth Ginsberg is not "very left-wing or a radical progressive". Ladd must have somehow missed Justice Ginsberg's statements that she has no respect for the US Constitution and  that it needs to be scrapped and replaced with one that guarantees a government controlled "living wage", health care, and other so-called "social justice" rights that amount to limiting prosperity and making success illegal. This just lends to paint the character of this proponent of tyranny.

In rebuttal, David Kopel cited many things. Among them were the 51+ studies that show that fewer restrictions on Second Amendment rights leads to decreased crime, especially violent crime. Koepel cited the Heller and McDonald decisions that state that the Second Amendment is intended to support the natural right of Life by protecting a means of self-defense.

Adam Winkler attempted  to counter this by falsely stating that the Second Amendment was always intended to protect certain groups, not individuals. He claims that interpretation was  "the truth" until the Heller decision by citing a 1939 Supreme Court decision. That decision was made by the same court that allowed Social Security and "the New Deal" to be falsely proclaimed as "constitutional". That court didn't support individual rights. Winkler and Ladd also somehow ignored Federalist 46. The Second Amendment was established as a means for individuals to protect themselves from tyranny. Violent crimes are a form of tyranny.

Kopel also rebuked the background check rhetoric. He stated that any reform legislation must focus on individual people, not groups. He cautioned against lumping people into groups and giving cookie-cutter restrictions to their liberties, including Second Amendment guarantees. He claimed that background cheks won't stop truly insane or mentally unbalanced monsters from acquiring a tool with which to commit murders. That tool may shift from firearms to hammers. But these criminals will still kill. the background check won't stop that.

Kopel stated that there needs a better process for judicial review of pertinent mental health cases. The decisions to infringe upon rights should not be left to police nor to health care providers. It should be left to a judge to weigh all of the information and make an informed decision based upon clearly defined guidelines. These decisions need to be reviewed regularly as some conditions are temporary. In any case, a person's right to keep and bear should not be decided by a gun dealer, a database, a bureaucrat, a cop, or a doctor. This makes perfect sense and conforms to the US Constitution.

As more facts and data join the debate, so do the desperate emotional pleas of those wishing to violate and repeal the Second Amendment. It is more than just mud that is being slung. You may want to invest in some hip-waders and nose plugs.