President-elect Trump: Prove It….

 

“Red Flag” Laws….

 For the record, I am not opposed to so-called “red flag” laws AS LONG AS they 1) protect the Constitutional rights of the lawful firearm owner under the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments (yes, protections from all four of these amendments are involved), and 2) contain provisions to ensure that they cannot be used by individuals who personally object to firearms ownership to deprive others of their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I participate in a few online discussion forums; I have see many individuals post inquiries regarding how they can use these laws to generally disarm people because they personally object to firearms ownership.  I have also received phone calls in the course of my job selling firearms from such individuals, asking us not to sell to someone because the caller doesn’t like guns themselves.

On the other hand, I have stopped transactions because I believed, based on my interaction with a customer, that they posed a threat to themselves or others, and I have personally been involved with at least three situations in which bona fide concerns regarding a threat of suicide prompted us to take measures to insure that someone did not acquire a firearm from us - including notifying law enforcement.

Show me a “red flag” law that includes these protections and I will support it.

Here They Go Again In The Great Infringement State, New York….

Here they go again.  NY is so angry about the first set gun laws being struck down in the Bruen case that they came up with an even more restrictive set of laws to replace them.

With an evil twist.

Assuming this newest suit reaches the supreme court, it will be shot down even more quickly than the previous law was.

Not content to merely infringe on Second Amendment rights, the newest laws from NY also now apply a political test to the First Amendment rights of a citizen desiring a pistol carry license, requiring that one’s publicly stated views be in line with the political dogma of the ruling “benevolent” liberal junta.  Forcing firearms owners who wish to be granted the “privilege” of carrying a firearm outside the home to give the state access to their social media accounts means the state can not only use views it considers “unacceptable “ according to some arbitrary and constantly changing political standard to deny access to a pistol carry license now, it gives them the ability to continue monitoring citizens long term, with an eye toward rescinding their “privilege” should they ever run afoul of the latest political standard.

The right to carry a firearm for one’s personal defense is as much about the First Amendment right of freedom of expression as it is about the Second Amendment right to keep AND BEAR (CARRY) arms.

Pro-Death - As Long As It’s On THEIR Terms….

Amazing, isn’t it.  

People are ready to riot and rampage to protect a right that was created 50 years ago, recently overturned, and resulted in over 60 million deaths during its lifetime.

On the other hand, those same people are willing to riot, rampage, and even change the Constitution to shut down an explicit right that has been abused to cause a fraction of the deaths caused by abortion over the 230 year history of the Second Amendment.

They’re pro-death - as long as it’s on THEIR terms.

Words Have Meaning….

Ok, given the ongoing debate regarding gun control, I’m going to repost a response I just gave for the following contrarian post: “the language of the 2D does not mention firearms.”

You are absolutely right.  It doesn’t mention any SPECIFIC weapon.  It simply says, “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…”

The word, Arms, btw, is spelled with a capital A in the original text.

Arms.

Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published in 1755. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons and explosives used in fighting wars”

Merriam and Webster: “a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense, especially : FIREARM”

Oxford dictionary: “weapons and ammunition; armaments.”

MacMillan Dictionary: “weapons, for example guns or bombs”

BTW, the word, arms, is short for the word, armaments.

Definition for the word, armaments.

Oxford Dictionary: “military weapons and equipment.”

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary: “Weapons, arms”

Cambridge Dictionary: “weapons or military equipment”

Notice anything?  Contrary to current definitions, the word, Arms, as used in the Second Amendment, refers specifically to MILITARY WEAPONS owned by and in the hands of PRIVATE CITIZENS.

“…Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people," Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

BTW, this destroys Biden’s continuing lie that the Second Amendment placed limitations on the kinds of weapons that can be owned by civilians.

An Open Letter To Senators Peters, Stabenow….

 And any other legislator that needs to hear this.

Senators,

Here’s a novel idea: instead of splitting hairs about what constitutes a boyfriend or intimate partner, why don’t we simplify things? 

If you have ever been the subject of a restraining order due to violence, regardless of your relationship to the individual who filed for it, you are prohibited from purchasing a firearm until  your record has been expunged and you can provide documentation of the successful completion of required treatment.  Failing that, you are a prohibited individual. Is that simple enough? 

And while we’re at it, eliminate the three business day provision (this is NOT A LOOPHOLE, it is an explicit provision) in the Brady Act.  Again, make it simple.  Until the NICS system gives a Proceed, a firearm may not be transferred.  Is THAT simple enough?

I am sick and tired of the hair splitting that goes on.  These two suggested provisions are as simple as they come.

Now get it done.

WHY Didn't Police Respond? I'll Tell You....

 

People keep asking, WHY? WHY didn't police wait for an hour before finally entering the building, while students and parents were PLEADING with them for help?

 

I'm going to re-state something here that I have stated many times on many different forums over the years, including FB. Perhaps people will finally be ready to listen.

 

No fewer than ten (10) Supreme Court rulings have affirmed that personal protection is the obligation of the individual citizen - not the police. The clearest opinion came in the SCOTUS ruling, City of Castle Rock, Colorado v Gonzales (I hope the irony of this is not lost):

"You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole. It is well-settled fact of American law that THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT TO PROTECT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED FACT OF AMERICAN LAW THAT THE POLICE HAVE NO LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT ANY INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FROM CRIME, EVEN IF THE CITIZEN HAS RECEIVED DEATH THREATS AND THE POLICE HAVE NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROVIDE PROTECTION" (emphasis added).

In addition to the Supreme Court rulings, the universal drawdown of law enforcement across the country means that there are fewer officers available to respond to such situations, and that the response time needed to marshal the remaining officers will be correspondingly longer. This makes the 2012 federal appeals court ruling in Woollard v Sheridan even more critical:

"As Judge Niemeyer points out, the Heller Court`s description of its holding as applying to the home, where the need "for defense of self, family, and property is most acute," suggests that the right also applies in some form "where that need is not `most acute.'" Id. at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 628). This reasoning is consistent with the Supreme Court`s historical understanding of the right to keep and bear arms as "an individual right protecting against both public and private violence." Heller, 554 U.S. at 594. In addition to self-defense, the right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. See id. at 598. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment`s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and "self-defense has to take place wherever [a] person happens to be." Masciandaro, 638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring) (quoting Eugene Volokh, Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. REV. 1443, 1515-18 (2009))".

The following statement appeared on the web site of Union Local 2544 of The National Border patrol Council, Tucson, AZ, relating to recent DHS training regarding active shooter incidents:

"Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings (referring to Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Giffords shooting - added) would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. THE SHOOTERS IN THESE SITUATIONS DEPEND ON UNARMED AND SCARED VICTIMS. IT GIVES THEM THE POWER THEY SEEK. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm…. Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT WAITING ON THE ARRIVAL OF UNIFORMED LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL ENSURE MORE PEOPLE ARE KILLED, INJURED, OR TAKEN HOSTAGE" (emphasis added).

By the way, I will remind everyone that it was the BORDER PATROL who took dow the Texas shooter.

 

And as Brendan Keefe pointed out in the report I recently posted here:

"****The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks**** (asterisks added for emphasis).

"In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits.

"Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

"****Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers****" (asterisks added for emphasis).

So-called "gun free" zones have benefited no one but the shooters who disregard the designation.

Prohibiting teachers/staffers who desire to exercise their Second Amendment right to protect themselves and their students hasn't made them any safer.

 

Prohibiting lawful carriers from carrying on the job or while at the mall hasn't protected them from the shooters who don't give a tinker's darn about such prohibitions. 

 

You don't want to carry a firearm? Then, as it seems so popular to say these days during other debates, don't do it.

 

But get out of the way of those who DO want to exercise their CHOICE (see what I did there?) and their EXPLICIT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.

Instituting “May Issue” A Little At A Time….

Once more, using an emergency - actual or contrived - to infringe on a Constitutionally protected (both state and US Constitutions) right.

First, an emergency that results in diminished law enforcement services, as has been the case during the pandemic, DEMANDS that citizens have INCREASED ability to protect themselves.

Second, setting aside the Constitutional considerations, the decision of county clerks to refuse to process cpl applications is a violation of Michigan law, MCL  123.1102, “A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols, other firearms, or pneumatic guns, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state.”  A clerk may not unilaterally set aside state firearms laws, regardless of their motivation for doing so.

Third, Whitmer’s argument that cpl applications somehow require in-person interactions that endanger clerks and their staffs is disingenuous.  The entire process can be accomplished online, research can be conducted remotely.  Anyone with a computer or a smartphone, including the so-called “Obama phones”, can complete the application process without ever darkening the door of a clerk’s office; the cpl is mailed to the applicant upon completion.

Whitmer’s veto is without any basis in fact.  It represents an effort to enact a de facto “may issue” standard using an emergency as pretext.

http://www.yourmix1069.com/news/localnews/gov-whitmer-vetoed-legislation-to-allow-gun-permits-to-be-issued-during-emergencies/

Permitless (AKA: Constitutional) Firearms Carry….

Permitless firearms carry.  That term sends shivers through many, who assume that every criminal and gangbanger who wants to carry a firearm will be able to do so without any checks of any kind.

Nothing is further from the truth.

First, those people are ALREADY obtaining and carrying firearms without any checks.  It may come as a surprise to many that criminals/gangbangers don’t obey ANY of the laws we have in place.  They DON’T get background checks.  They DON’T observe waiting periods in those states that have them.  For some inexplicable reason, they just don’t care about any of the restrictions that are already in place.  So these laws have ZERO EFFECT on them.  As a practical consideration, firearms charges are prosecuted in fewer than 5% of cases nationally, anyway, in exchange for pleas to lesser charges.

Permitless carry of firearms doesn’t make it easier for the lawless to obtain/carry firearms.  There are a number of states that have already implemented permitless (Constitutional) carry.  People STILL need to be able to pass a background check in order to obtain their firearms.  The question is, why should the law abiding be required to pass MULTIPLE background checks in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights?  With few exceptions, they passed a background check in order to purchase their firearm (especially if it was a handgun) in the first place; with only a few exceptions in which a concealed pistol license is accepted in lieu of a federal background check, they are background checked for EVERY FIREARM they purchase.  Then, under existing permit schemes, they passed ANOTHER background check in order to get their carry permit.  In some jurisdictions, they are further background checked in order to buy firearm magazines or ammo.

Exactly how many background checks do we have to endure in order to exercise our rights under the Second Amendment?  This is the ONLY Constitutional right that is so encumbered.

Permitless carry isn’t the unregulated exercise so many represent it to be.

“… No amendment — No Amendment To The Constitution Is Absolute…“

 So according to Pres. Biden, NO Constitutional right is unrestricted:

“But no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…,” April 8, 2021.

No amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

On that basis, he and a slew of others have proposed what THEY consider to be “common sense” limitations on the Constitutionally protected (NOT GRANTED - that’s a critical distinction) Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (some of these are already law, others have been proposed):

*No firearms purchase on demand, without limitations 

*Universal background checks

*Emergency protection orders (aka “red flag” laws)

*Minimum purchase age 21

*Licenses required to purchase/own/carry firearms

*Mandatory training as a prerequisite to purchase/own/carry a firearm

*Track multiple handgun purchases

*Register handguns and other specified weapons with the government

*Limitations or outright bans on entire classes of firearms

*Limitations or outright bans on specific accessories 

*Psychological assessment 

*Require all transfers to be made by federal firearms licensees 

These are just SOME of the limitations that have either been proposed or already exist at the federal level; they don’t take into account the limitations implemented by the states or even at the local level.  And these limitations affect a right that is EXPLICITLY PROTECTED by the Constitution.

Ok.  So what?

The president said NO amendment is absolute.  Those are his words.

We’ll set aside for the moment that the Constitution doesn’t actually EXPLICITLY give/protect a right to abortion; that “right” was created out of thin air by SCOTUS.  But for the sake of argument, I will stipulate some sort of Constitutional “right” to abortion.

So let’s consider what access to abortion would look like if we applied the same “common sense”, “reasonable” limitations to abortion.

Before we do that, let’s consider why the anti-Second Amendment lobby feels such measures are even necessary.

39,700.  

That’s the number of deaths attributed to “gun violence” last year.  Bear in mind that approximately 66% of those are suicides, but 39,700 deaths is considered reason to limit our Second Amendment rights.  That number, 39,000, per the federal government, has remained steady (with only minor fluctuations) for the last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS.  This, then, accounts for 975,000 deaths during that time period.

Terrible?

Absolutely.

But let’s now contrast that to the number of abortions that have occurred in that same 25 year period.

More  than sixty-four MILLION abortions have been performed since being legalized in 1972, averaging nearly 1.3 million per year.

That’s 32.5 million abortions for the last 25 years.

And those are just the SURGICAL abortions.  That number does not take MEDICINAL abortions into account.  

If 975,000 deaths over 25 years is reason enough to limit an explicit Constitutional right, then 32.5 million abortions should certainly be reason to place limitations on an inferred Constitutional “right.”

So what would that look like if we placed the same kinds of “common sense” limitations on the “right” to abortion?

First, there would be no unlimited, on-demand abortion - yet, that is EXACTLY the kind of access demanded by the abortion lobby and the Biden administration.

Any woman wanting an abortion would have to be at least 21 years old (that’s the new magic age many in the federal government want to impose on ALL firearms purchases; some states already do that).

She would be required to attend training delivered by a licensed doctor (not a PA or nurses) detailing what actually happens during an abortion and the long term affects on her body, including medical imagery of her pre-born child (the equivalent of mandatory firearms purchase/carry training) before EVERY abortion (background checks are run by federal firearms licensees before EVERY firearm purchase).

She would have to submit to psychological testing, after which she would receive a permit/license to have an abortion if she is deemed psychologically fit to receive one and does not pose a danger to herself or others (requirement to receive a license to purchase/own/carry).

She would have to wait a minimum of 10 days before having an abortion in order to reconsider her choice.

Her abortion would have to be performed at a licensed hospital by a surgeon (the equivalent of requiring all firearms transactions to be facilitated by a federal firearms licensee at their registered and licensed place of business.)

She would need to register her abortions with health departments (mandatory firearms registration).

Family members and the baby’s father would have the legal right to petition a judge to intervene to stop the procedure (red flag laws).

Certain classes of surgical abortion procedures could be limited or banned altogether (the equivalent of limiting/banning entire classes of firearms)

Over the counter abortifacients could he limited or banned altogether (think limiting/banning firearms accessories, especially those that make using the firearm easier or more effective).

This is all considered to be “common sense” to prevent future “gun violence” deaths.  Our Second Amendment rights are limited.

But, contrary to what the president claimed about “reasonable limitations“ on that right, he believes that the “right” to abortion should be completely  un-infringed/unlimited.

Which is it?  If “…no amendment — no amendment to the Constitution is absolute…”, then the “right” to abortion is likewise subject to limitations.

Mr. President, Rescind The Prohibition Against Truckers Exercising Their Second Amendment Rights...

“The 15,000-member SBTC is calling on federal authorities to preempt state and local laws regarding the right to carry a firearm.

Therefore, in accordance with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, we hereby request the U.S. Department of Transportation please issue a preemption order nullifying any and all state and local laws that restrict truck drivers from carrying firearms across state lines throughout America in order to enable them to protect themselves and their cargo as they engage in interstate commerce.

As this is now a matter of life and death, please issue same forthwith.”

I fully agree.  Truckers are background checked.  They are susceptible to violent crime, especially during times of social unrest; truck stops are not the safest places on the interstate.  It is not possible to provide protection to every truck on the road; the right to defense of those who transport the necessities of life must be protected.

Please sign this petition!

White House Petition to Rescind the DOT prohibition Against Truckers Carrying Firearms

The Myth Of American "Gun Violence"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Open Firearms Carry On Michigan School Properties...

There is growing debate regarding our right in Michigan to openly carry firearms on school property when in possession of a concealed pistol license.

There shouldn't be.

Michigan's law is very clear: open carry onto school property by one holding a concealed pistol license is expressly protected (note that I do not say "permitted - it is a RIGHT, not a privilege), and the federal Gun Free School Zones Act (18 USC 922) also contains a specific exemption for concealed pistol license holders: 

"B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
[…] (ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;"

For further discussion of Michigan's law, I refer you to MSP legal update 86, which states, 

"The above section does not apply to any of the following:
[…]  A person with a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) issued by any state "
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/MSP_Legal_Update_No._86_2_336854_7.pdf

That public schools are government entities and therefore subject to Michigan's firearms pre-emption law is clearly established under both federal and state laws and guidelines.

Under IRS definitions, public schools are "instrumentalities," agencies (branches) of governments: 

"An instrumentality is an organization created by or pursuant to state statute and operated for public purposes. Generally, an instrumentality performs governmental functions… 

In Revenue Ruling 57-128, the IRS addressed the question of whether an organization is wholly-owned by one or more states or political subdivisions. In making this determination, the following factors are taken into consideration:

• Whether it is used for a governmental purpose and performs a governmental function
• Whether performance of its function is on behalf of one or more states or political subdivisions
• Whether there are any private interests involved, or whether the states or political subdivisions involved have the powers and interests of an owner
• Whether control and supervision of the organizations is vested in public authority or authorities
• Whether express or implied statutory or other authority is necessary for its creation and/or use of the instrumentality, and whether such authority exists
• The degree of financial autonomy and the source of operating expenses"

According to census.gov, with only a few exceptions, school districts are counted as government entities.

Under MCL 380.501, "A public school academy is a body corporate and is a governmental agency."

Under MCL 380.1311d, "...the strict discipline academy corporation is a governmental entity."

MCL 380.552"...the school of excellence is a governmental entity."

In Michigan, school districts have the power of taxation through the levy of property taxes, making them government subdivisions.

By all objective measures, school districts in Michigan are local units of government and are covered under MCL 123.1102,

"A local unit of government shall not impose special taxation on, enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation pertaining to, or regulate in any other manner the ownership, registration, purchase, sale, transfer, transportation, or possession of pistols or other firearms, ammunition for pistols or other firearms, or components of pistols or other firearms, except as otherwise provided by federal law or a law of this state."

Schools are trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand, they claim NOT to be government agencies for purposes of avoiding Michigan’s pre-emption law, yet they claim the protection they believe their status as government subdivisions affords them in immunity from prosecution.

They can’t have it both ways.  Their appeal to immunity means they truly recognize their status as local units of government.

Assuming their status as local units of government grants them immunity from prosecution, this argument holds up only in so far as the policies and actions of the government agency are lawful. Government immunity does not provide blanket immunity against unlawful policies or activities; policies that violate Michigan's pre-emption law are clearly illegal, therefore invalidating any claim to immunity.

Psychologist: Psychological Tests Can't Predict Rogue Pilots...

In the aftermath of the GermanWings crash, the reliability of psychological testing is downplayed. Said Dr. Erin Bowen, a behavioral psychologist, in an interview conducted for the Today Show,

"The idea nowadays that a full psychological workup would somehow clue you in to which pilots are going to do things like this, it's fiction."

Yet the Brady and Bloomberg anti-firearms groups continue to insist that psychological evaluations are the magic bullet (forgive the pun) that should determine who should or should not own a firearm. If they can't predict which lawfully-licensed pilots are going to take down an aircraft, then they certainly can't predict which firearms owners are likely to commit crimes with lawfully-owned firearms.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Thank you, Dr. Bowen, for stating what so many of us have known for so long.

Senator Green, Enough Already!!!

Senator Green,

I truly respect the work you have done to advance firearm carry rights in Michigan.  

But with all due respect, I am sick of this argument that the right to carry concealed in a gun free zone should require significantly more training than carrying the same firearm openly in a gun free zone.  It is completely irrational to argue that a person with a CPL can openly carry in a gun free zone based solely on their cpl training, yet the moment that same person chooses to carry that same gun into the same gun free zone concealed, they have to have significantly more (expensive) training.

It is time for concealed/open carry parity.  The danger doesn't somehow increase with the choice to carry concealed in a gun free zone, and it is time to stop pretending otherwise for the sake of the resident gun grabbers in our legislature.  

Michigan House Commerce Committee Members: NO on H.B. 5189

The MI House Commerce Committee will be hearing testimony this morning regarding HB 5189, the Jessica Heeringa law, which requires 24 hour gas stations to install costly surveillance equipment and maintain a minimum of 2 employees during overnight hours. 

I sent the following email to all of the Republican members of this committee this morning (their contact information can be found here: http://house.michigan.gov/MHRPublic/CommitteeInfo.aspx?comkey=222): 

Rep. Foster, 

I write to you today to encourage the commerce committee NOT to support HB 5189. While the goal of this bill is laudable, it has almost no chance of accomplishing what it sets out to do - protect employees, specifically late night gas station employees. The installation of security cameras prevents nothing; it merely acts as a POTENTIAL resource for police as they try to solve the crimes that MAY have been caught by them. Robberies and killings occur each and every day in this country and are dutifully recorded by security cameras. In many cases, the images they capture are too grainy, out of focus, or dark to provide any meaningful assistance to law enforcement. 

Similarly, the addition of another employee guarantees nothing, especially if a firearm is introduced into the equation by a criminal. A firearm in the hands of a criminal nullifies any perceived advantage offered by the presence of a second employee. 

This bill does two things: it makes people FEEL SECURE without providing ACTUAL security, and it increases the costs to employers - many of whom simply cannot afford the additional expenses. Passing a bill simply because it is better than nothing is what the legislature has a history of doing. If we are going to pass legislation to protect employees, then pass a bill that actually stands a chance of protecting someone. Pass legislation that repeals so-called "gun free" zones. Pass legislation that requires an employer to recognize the right of their employees and customers to provide for their own protection by carrying their lawfully-owned firearms and then INDEMNIFIES the employer. "But we don't want to infringe on the private property rights of an employer," you say, yet that is EXACTLY what HB 5189 does. 

Mr. Chairman, I encourage you and your committee to REJECT the emotional appeal that will be offered today in support of this bill in favor of legislation that actually stands a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of providing REAL PROTECTION to employees. You have Republican majorities in your committee, and both chambers of the legislature; this SHOULD BE an easily accomplished task.

The Second Amendment - The Teeth Of The Constitution...

I'm betting that there are a lot of middle eastern countries that wish they had the same individual right to own firearms as a deterrent to terrorists that we have here in the US. 

Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited (mistakenly - no one knows where this quote actually originated) with saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While the quote may be misattributed, the truth underlying it is accurate. 

We have historically had two barriers to terrorism in the US - oceans and the private ownership of firearms that make the unorganized citizen militia a reality. Air travel has largely nullified the first barrier; that makes the remaining barrier that much more important. 

The sculpture in this photo was displayed this year during the Art Prize competition in Grand Rapids, MI, in an effort to get people to focus on gun control. I changed the background and now display this as a reminder of how critical the Second Amendment is to maintaining our Constitutional rights and defending them from ALL enemies - foreign and domestic.

Even Pro-Gun Control Author Understands The Danger Of The "Gun Free" Zone….

The following is from an article written by Jason Stadtlander, a writer for HuffPo and a supporter of gun control.  While I disagree with his stance on gun control, I heartily agree with his conclusions regarding so-called "gun free" zones:

"A ban on guns is not gun control. I am for gun control -- that is, controlling who can have guns and who cannot. I do believe that individuals who own guns should go through a screening, licensure and perhaps even medical-history evaluation, but this is not the same as banning guns or preventing ownership of guns.

Alexander Hamilton once said, "The constitution shall never be construed ... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

"Peaceable citizens" is the key term here. We are maintaining a level of peace by providing knowledge that there are repercussions for certain actions… As long as guns exist in the world, criminals will always have guns -- but we law-abiding citizens have the power to choose whether we will hold our own strength against them.

"[…]Casting aside emotion, let's think logically about this. What good comes from preventing people who can legally own guns -- those who have passed federal, state and local licensure and are required to pass a gun-safety course -- from bringing concealed firearms into a public building?

Are the violent people who walk in with the intent to shoot up a Panera Bread, a Walmart, a Target or a Kroger grocery store going to care what prohibitive gun policies are in place? And at the front end, will these intent-to-kill people have a license to carry to begin with?

In our legitimate desire to ward off disastrous gun violence, might we actually be preventing the only people who stand a chance at stopping said criminals from, at the very least, avoiding a worst-case scenario? Yes, the authorities can be called, and perhaps there would even be a police officer on site, but might people who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon be our first critical line of defense in such desperate situations?

[…] Ask yourself this question: If you were a criminal, had a bone to pick with society or were mentally unstable and wanted to snuff out as many innocent lives as possible, would you walk into a McDonald's where there is no ban on guns and you might get shot, or would you set your sights on a Panera Bread, where you do not need to worry about resistance of any kind?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p-stadtlander/gun-bans-a-safe-haven-for_b_5792314.html

Mr. Stadtlander has come full circle to the observation made by Thomas Paine in his pamphlet, Thoughts on Defensive War :

"[….] but since some will not, others dare not lay them [arms] aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."

Mr. W. Rodney McMullen, CEO, Kroger Company: Thank You!

W. Rodney McMullen
Chief Executive Officer
Kroger Co.
1014 Vine Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100

Dear Mr. McMullen:

We in the pro-Second Amendment community understand that Kroger has attracted some very unwanted attention and found itself in a most unenviable position with regard to the debate over Second Amendment rights.

Michael Bloomberg-backed Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (MDAGSA) has essentially demanded that you declare your premises to be “gun free” (let us be perfectly clear: acquiescence to their demand for an open carry ban WILL eventually lead to a further demand that you declare yourselves to be COMPLETELY “gun free”), and threatened to boycott your Michigan locations.

Now, Senators Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, and Dianne Feinstein are abusing their elected positions in the US Senate to force Kroger to implement an open carry ban, with the same eventual goal as MDAGSA.  The unspoken threats implicit in their recent letter to you are clearly understood.

Mr. McMullen, I applaud the courage and wisdom you displayed in your response to MDAGSA:

“...That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to urge customers to be respectful of others while shopping to feed their families. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores."

Thank you for this stand.  Please know that I will do my best to patronize your stores and encourage others with whom I am acquainted to do so as well.  Your response is the epitome of the common sense for which MDAGSA and other such organizations claim to be searching; you have shown them what it looks like.

Sincerely,

Michigan Bill Would Require Epipens In Restaurants, Bars...

"'I just thinks this gives the freedom for individual businesses and organizations and groups to be able to provide for a lifesaving device in case there's an emergency, if they feel that's something in the best interest of the organization,' said Posthumus Lyons… Name brand EpiPens typically cost around $300. BUSINESSES WOULD PAY FOR THE DEVICES, meaning no cost would be passed on to the state or taxpayers," emphasis added.

Since when does an UNFUNDED LEGAL REQUIREMENT equate to FREEDOM?

So the MI legislature is considering an UNFUNDED MANDATE on businesses, REQUIRING them to provide Epipens and procure state-approved training and storage AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, indemnifying them against prosecution, but this same legislature will not consider legislation that would prohibit businesses from discriminating against the Second Amendment RIGHTS of individuals to carry their lawfully-owned firearms for their own protection (think about pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who used his lawfully-owned firearm to prevent an armed robbery of the Walgreens in Benton Harbor where he was employed - and then was fired for doing so), prohibit insurance companies from employing discriminatory insurance premiums against businesses that would otherwise permit lawful carry (such as has been experienced by the Original Gun and Knife Show), or indemnify businesses against the lawful application of lethal force in self-defense situations - all of which have been provided to the citizens of numerous other states under their laws - because they don't want to "burden" businesses or infringe on their "rights," or, more to the point, because they are deathly afraid of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which opposes such legislation.

http://woodtv.com/2014/09/24/proposed-law-would-require-epipens-in-bars-restaurants/