The "Terrorist Watch List" and Firearms Purchases….

It has become quite hip to call for denying people whose names appear on the federal terrorist watch list  their right to purchase firearms.  If the list had any validity, was based on anything other than supposition and conjecture, that demand would be reasonable.

But it's not.

There are currently over one million names on the terrorist watch list.  

That's right, one million.  

One million people whose names have been added because of SUSPECTED ties to terrorism.  Not because they have actually been charged or convicted of a crime, but because someone thinks they might be suspicious. 

And now people are screaming for these people to be prohibited from purchasing a firearm.

Here's the problem: we have this Constitutional thing called "due process." "No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Fifth Amendment, US Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment clarifies what this means:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no due process associated with the terrorist watch list.  One can be added to it for almost any reason without ever having been convicted, or even charged with, a crime of any sort. 

Prohibiting a person from purchasing a firearm who has never been charged or convicted of a crime but has been added to some secret list anyway is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, and equates to depriving them of their Constitutional rights. 

If someone is suspicious enough to be added to some secret list of possible terrorists, then do what the Constitution requires - charge them, prosecute them, PROVE THEIR GUILT IN OPEN COURT IN FRONT OF A JURY OF THEIR PEERS, and punish them.

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,

Three Democratic Senators Turn Up The Heat On Kroger To Ban Open Carry Of Firearms...

Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are trying to use their positions in theUS Senate to force Kroger to implement an open carry ban. Kroger, as we all know, politely told Moms Demand to pound sand, trusting their customers to be responsible.

That didn't set well with senators from gun control states. Here is the full text of the letter they wrote to the CEO of Kroger:

W. Rodney McMullenChief Executive OfficerKroger Co.1014 Vine StreetCincinnati, Ohio 45202-1100

Dear Mr. McMullen:

We write today to urge you to adopt a policy that would prohibit the open carry of firearms in your stores. In doing so, Kroger would be sending an important message about your commitment to the safety of your employees and customers. This would follow similar actions by other retailers, such as Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s, Target, and most recently Panera Bread.

As you know, gun extremists in several states have exploited the current Kroger policy by flaunting assault rifles as they shopped. These bizarre displays must be terrifying for Kroger employees and customers. There is simply no reason why someone would need an AK-47 to purchase milk, bread, or other basic necessities at a grocery store. However, the current Kroger policy allows for these demonstrations.

Kroger has a proud history as an innovator within the retail industry. Kroger changed the grocery business by establishing in-store bakeries and deciding to sell meats in the 1900s. These two improvements changed the way Americans shopped – not just in Kroger stores but in all grocery stores as they became commonplace. The company has an opportunity to again be a leader. A change by Kroger, the nation’s largest supermarket retailer, could have a similar effect by setting a new customer-friendly standard that other supermarkets follow. 

Again, we urge you to implement a new policy that would prevent the open carry of guns in your stores. Thank you in advance for your consideration and we look forward to your prompt response

Sincerely,

Christopher S. Murphy 
United States Senator

Richard Blumenthal
United States Senator

Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Press Release | Press Releases | Newsroom | U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut (emphasis added)

So we have three sitting senators first classifying firearms carriers as extremists who are, in their minds, brandishing firearms. Their assumption is that what terrifies THEM MUST terrify EVERYONE ELSE as well, even though there have been no such reports associated with these open carry events. Finally, they try to force a "may issue" mindset on Kroger, indicating that one must have a reason to carry and implying that those who choose to do so, since these three senators have already declared such a need to be nonexistent, must be paranoid. Of course, they conveniently ignore recent attacks at Kroger locations across the nation that the police were entirely unable to prevent, while, in at least one incident, a firearms carrier DID prevent an armed robbery.

Let's be clear about one other thing: what is NOT said in this letter is perhaps even more important than what IS said - and Kroger's CEO knows it. I worked as a legislative researcher in the Michigan House of Reps for a legislator who is a principled, Christian man who does not engage in these kinds of tactics - but I saw those who did. This letter from three sitting senators is at once an implicit promise of future favor if Kroger gives in to their demand, and an implicit threat to their future corporate well-being if they do not. We need to turn up the heat on those in the senate who support the Second Amendment to send their OWN letter of support to Kroger.

Finstein's San Francisco Handgun Ban Effectiveness By The Numbers….

OK. Sen. Feinstein became mayor of San Francisco in 1978 (1978 - 1988) after the assassinations of Harvey Milk and George Moscone; Feinstein, by the way, was the first to come upon Milk's body after he was shot. The murders were carried out by a former police officer using his five shot .38 special duty weapon; he carried 10 extra rounds with him that day (hmmm - maybe this has something to do with her obsession with 10 round limitations?). Surprisingly, even though she traces her gun control obsession back to this event, a five round .38 special is what DiFi carried herself, and that weapon has never made it onto any of the gun ban lists she has compiled while in congress.

After assuming control of the mayor's office, she pushed through the San Francisco handgun ban - something about which she is very proud. After passing the ban, citizens had 90 days to turn in their firearms, so the effect on firearm-related crimes should have been immediate.

But the question is, HOW EFFECTIVE was her handgun ban (which was eventually overturned in 2008)? Following are the raw murder numbers for the years 1978 - 1990 (unfortunately, the numbers from that far back do not tell us how many of these crimes were actually committed using handguns):

1978 - 113

1979 - 108

1980 - 110

1981 - 121

1982 - 106

1983 - data not available 

1984 - data not available

1985 - 85

1986 - 114

1987 - 103

1988 - 92

1989 - data not available

1990 - 102

http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-vs-city/1286828-top-25-cities-violent-crime-rate-9.html

http://www.disastercenter.com/californ/crime/1191.htm

The raw data tell us that he prized handgun ban had little, if an, effect on murder in San Francisco during her tenure as mayor.  In the years from 1990 to the present, murder rates did indeed drop, but they follow the same general pattern as was experienced by the entire nation, so the drop cannot be linked to her handgun ban. Additional study would have to be done to see what effect, if any, her ban had on rates of armed robbery.

In short, her gun bans had little if any effect on crime in San Francisco during her years in the mayor's office.  Likewise, the bans for which she has fought while in congress have proved ineffectual, as the incidence of violent crimes of all sorts have steadily fallen for the last twenty years, while at the same time firearms ownership and carry have dramatically inreased.

That isn't going to stop her from trying to get all of the guns, though.

An Open Letter To Sen. Feinstein....

Senator,

I am not from your state, but I have contacted my own legislators numerous time over the years regarding proposed gun control measures.  Since you are the one spearheading this legislation, I now contact you directly.

For the record, I am one of the millions of firearms owners who does his own research and who speaks for himself.  I am a Constitutional Constructionist.  The Preamble of the Bill of Rights, which records that the Bill of Rights was passed by a veto-proof two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress and ratified by a supermajority of the legislatures of the States, states its purpose as follows:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution (emphasis added).

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

While federalist justices may choose to ignore the clear meaning of this document, its intent is clear:  the amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights supersede the Supremacy, Commerce, and Necessary and Proper clauses of the Constitution - placing the Second Amendment beyond the power of the federal government to infringe upon the right enumerated therein.  This is the explicit, stated purpose of the Bill of Rights.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports make two things crystal clear: 1) Murder and other violent crimes have diminished to historic lows even as firearms ownership and carry increases to historic highs.  2) The states with the most murders and other violent crimes are those that have implemented the strictest gun control measures.

Additional research performed by criminologists tells us that, despite the recent spike in mass shootings, such events have been on the decline since the '90's:

"And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

"There is no pattern, there is no increase," says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston's Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are "one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms."

Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise-mass-killings-impact-huge-article-1.1221062#ixzz2JI3eCAdw

Senator, I STAND OPPOSED TO THE GUN CONTROL MEASURES YOU HAVE PROPOSED.  I will do everything in my power to bring together the grassroots support necessary to keep your proposals from being realized.

Respectfully submitted,