"Everytown for Gun Safety" Inadvertently Creates Pro-firearm Ad...

There is a good chance that you have seen this disturbing ad:

The intended purpose of this ad is to illustrate that many women are killed by an intimate partner and demonstrate the need for more gun control - specifically, to put pressure on legislators to support the newly introduced Domestic Violence Gun Homicide Prevention Act of 2014, which would force states to confiscate the firearm of any person under a restraining order.

Instead, this ad serves to illustrate what those of us in the Pro-Second Amendment community have been saying for years:  taking away one's right to their own defense protects no one - particularly women.

First, it illustrates that a restraining order is just a piece of paper with no real legal authority.  The Supreme Court case, City of Castle Rock v Gonzales, states that police are not obligated to enforce a restraining order and that "… the Due Process Clause does not "requir[e] the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."

Second, it illustrates that, when motivated, there is nothing to prevent a bad guy from obtaining a weapon.

Third, it illustrates the adage, "when second count, police are minutes away."  In the narrative illustrated by this ad, in the time it takes for the woman to call 911 and begin to answer the questions of the operator, the estranged husband has already gained access to the house, pulled his firearm, and, presumable, pulled the trigger.  The average 911 response time in the town in which I live is 18 minutes; in other cities that time has exceeded 25 minutes, and in rural areas response times regularly exceed 45 minutes.

Finally, the ad demonstrates the conclusion reached by the majority in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

"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 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."

 Everytown has, with this ad, done an admirable job explaining the pro-Second Amendment position on the necessity to provide for one's own protection.

Proposed McCain Bill Would Criminalize Murietta/Vassar Patriots...

John McCain Strikes again with the introduction of the CREST Act, which hires 150 more attorneys to represent "unaccompanied refugee minors" (remember, the administration has banned the use of the word, "alien") to insure that their case is "properly and fully adjudicated" in a to-be-created juvenile UAC immigration court, hires 100 more "asylum officers," INCREASES the number of children from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador who can be processed in-country, and, oh yeah, CRIMINALIZES what happened in Murietta, where citizens (and border patrol officers who refused to carry out illegal orders) prevented unaccompanied alien children from being processed and kept at tax payer expense at a local DHS facility. Here is the actual text of the Act concerning this soon-to-be crime:

(A) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘‘§ 556. Unlawfully hindering immigration, border, or
customs controls

‘‘(a) ILLICIT SPOTTING.—Any person who knowingly transmits to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to further a Federal crime relating to United States immigration, customs, controlled substances, agriculture, monetary instruments, or other border controls shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

‘‘(b) DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES BORDER CONTROLS.—Any person who knowingly and without lawful authorization destroys, alters, or damages any fence, barrier, sensor, camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry, or otherwise seeks to construct, excavate, or make any structure intended to defeat, circumvent or evade any such fence, barrier, sensor camera, or other physical or electronic device deployed by the Federal Government to control the border or a port of entry—

‘‘(1) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and 

‘‘(2) if, at the time of the offense, the person uses or carries a firearm or, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm [such as happened in Vassar, MI, when they protested the possible use of a facility to house UACs - added], shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

‘‘(c) CONSPIRACY AND ATTEMPT.—Any person who attempts or conspires to violate subsection (a) or (b) shall be punished in the same manner as a person who completes a violation of such subsection.’’

While this section is, ostensibly, geared toward human traffickers, its terms can be applied equally as well to those who try to prevent the DHS from bringing UACs into a community as was done in Murietta, CA, and Vassar, MI.

This bill has a $1 billion price tag, and does absolutely nothing to improve or increase border security.

http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/368efc27-4bd9-489b-aea4-7ffb4ce3ca26/mdm14517.pdf

July 16, 2014, The Day On Which Archie Andrews Will Die...

Today is the day that cultural icon Archie Andrews, of the Archie Comics with which most of us grew up, will be sacrificed on the twin altars of homosexuality and gun control in one issue. 

"Freckle-faced Archie will meet his demise when he intervenes in an assassination attempt on senator Kevin Keller, Archie Comics' first openly gay character, who's pushing for more gun control in Riverdale," Archie Andrews dies...

Democrats in Senate Committee Approve Limitations To The First Amendment - An Open Letter to Legislators….

A proposed amendment that would limit election funding protected by the First Amendment has been passed in committee by Senate Democrats.

S.J.RES.19 -- Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. (Introduced in Senate - IS)

SJ 19 IS

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 19

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 18, 2013

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. TESTER, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. COONS, Mr. KING, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. FRANKEN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, and Mr. UDALL of Colorado) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

---

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article--

`Section 1. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 2. To advance the fundamental principle of political equality for all, and to protect the integrity of the legislative and electoral processes, each State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on--

`(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and

`(2) the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

`Section 3. Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

`Section 4. Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

This proposed amendment most still be passed in both Houses of Congress, as well as by the majority of States before it takes effect, but the fact remains that it was approved in committee in the first place.

I am writing to tell you that I am fundamentally opposed to SJ Res 19, and I EXPECT you to vote against it when it comes out of committee for a vote.  Although election funding remains a touchy subject, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is protected speech under the First Amendment.  SJ Res 19 represents the most transparent attempt on the part of the democrats to control how election funding is achieved - and WHO will receive that funding. This resolution gives you the ability to allow funding for those issues and individuals with whom you agree, while limiting or denying funding to those who oppose your agenda.  It will allow you to continue to receive funding from George Soros, Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, while excluding the Koch Brothers or the DeVoses from funding issues or individuals that you deem to be ideologically unacceptable.

I am opposed to this proposed Constitutional Amendment.

Chuck Schumer: Choose One, Your Faith Or Your Business; You Can't Have Both...

"You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion AND THE GOVERNMENT GIVES YOU a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation," Schumer said (emphasis added).

Wrong answer. THE GOVERNMENT GIVES US NOTHING!!! The Constitution PROTECTS what is already ours.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," John Adams.

According to Schumer, John Adams had no idea what he was talking about.

This is one more attack on our First Amendment rights by the administration, which is seeking to re-interpret the First Amendment as a "freedom to worship," rather than freedom of religion.

Schumer: religious americans pick one your faith or your business

An Open Letter To Michigan State Legislators: No To Illegal Children...

An open letter to Michigan State Legislators regarding the relocation of illegal alien children to Michigan locations:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

While Gov. Snyder may be encouraging the federal government to send more illegal children here to Michigan (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140704/POLITICS02/307040033), specifically to the Bethany Services unaccompanied alien children facility location on 36th St in Kentwood (http://michiganradio.org/post/some-children-fleeing-central-american-violence-may-be-headed-michigan, http://www.alipac.us/f12/...west-michigan-program-shelters-illegal-alien-kids-287065/), I remain VEHEMENTLY opposed.  

I am in favor of rendering assistance to those who truly need it, but this entire situation is the direct result of Pres. Obama's unilateral decision to countermand existing US immigration law with his executive order relating to so-called "dreamers."  It was HIS decision that opened the flood gates of unaccompanied children to this country; this "humanitarian crisis" on our border rests entirely on his shoulders, yet he now expects the US taxpayer to come up with billions of dollars that we can't afford and don't have to absorb even more children who will be wholly dependent on the US taxpayer for much of their lives.

This must be stopped, and the Michigan legislature needs to take immediate action to insure that we do not become yet another sanctuary for thousands more illegals who will be dependent on Michigan taxpayers.  We can't even afford to take care of our roads, yet we are magically expected to come up with billions of dollars to support even more illegals?   This may begin as a federally funded program (but remember - those "federal funds" come from hard working MICHIGAN TAXPAYERS), but in the long term, it is the Michigan taxpayer who will be expected to pay even more taxes to support the increased burden on our social, education, and medical services.

Enough is too much.

Independence Day, 2014