Meijer, Inc., Abandons Its Previous Stance Regarding Lawful Defensive Firearms Carry….

 In 2019, Meijer, Inc. issues the following statement:

The safety of our customers and team members is our top priority, so we respectfully request that our customers do not open carry firearms at Meijer. We’ve made this decision because open carry can create an environment that makes our customers and team members feel unsafe.

While I support the right to lawfully carry a firearm openly, which is legal in Michigan, I also understand the thinking behind the request.

Over this weekend (2/13/22), however, that changed.

Meijer has now adopted a prohibition against ALL lawful carry.

As a result, I am taking my business elsewhere, and I am urging all Meijer customers who lawfully carry their personal firearms to:

1. Contact Meijer to voice your opposition to their new policy (616) 453-6711)
2. Boycott Meijer until they PUBLICLY reinstate their previous policy.

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.

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

"If It Saves Just ONE Life…."

It's interesting to me how the "if it saves one life, it will be worth it" argument only seems to work when BANNING something (like the president always says when calling for more gun control).

Interpol Sec. General Ron Noble advocates for INCREASING civilian defensive firearms carry as a response to terrorist events (like the one in Orlando), http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/exclusive-westgate-interpol-chief-ponders-armed-citizenry/story?id=20637341. 

Ohio approved concealed carry for license holders in bars in 2011, and N. Carolina approved similar legislation in 2013; neither state has experienced an upswing in drunken shootings. 

Chief Craig of Detroit urged Detroiters to begin carrying in self defense because of the increase in crime and the decrease in law enforcement presence; the first year saw a 25% reduction in crime, particularly violent crime, and overall has seen about a 12% reduction in crime in the last three years or so since he urged them to begin carrying. 

INCREASE defensive carry, particularly in areas now designated as "gun free" (you know, like the night club was). If it saves just ONE LIFE, it will be worth it!

When Something Is Truly Sacred….

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.

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.  

Boo Hoo, Kroger Told Me To Take A Hike!

Boo hoo, Kroger won't give me the time of day. That's the essence of an op-ed Shannon Watts, head of Moms Demand Gunsense for America, wrote for HuffPo:

For months, Moms have called on Kroger to make a safer and more family-friendly shopping environment by prohibiting the open carry of firearms in its stores, just as brands including Target, Starbucks, and Panera have done. 

Instead of meeting with us and reconsidering an irresponsible policy, Kroger's leadership has refused to listen. They have pressured radio stations to reject our ads and relocated their annual investor meeting to avoid interacting with customers. Just imagine how much easier it would have been if they would talk with us.

This week, Kroger executives and investors met in Cincinnati and I was there, along with dozens of Moms Demand Action volunteers from neighboring states, to make it as easy as possible for Kroger leadership to meet with us on an issue that women and mothers care about more than anything: the safety of our families. Rather than agree to a meeting, Kroger bullied radio stations into pulling our ads highlighting the absurdity of their gun policy (you can listen to the ads here and here). And this week, Kroger bussed its investors out of the hotel where they were planning to meet and to an alternate location -- probably to avoid the rally of mothers and customers we had organized to spark a conversation with them.

Evidently Kroger is growing uncomfortable with their gun policy, and frankly, they should be. Kroger is siding with gun extremists, rather than mothers, gun violence survivors, and the majority of Kroger shoppers, who support ending open carry in Kroger stores. 

Moms refuse to be silenced. The ads that made Kroger so nervous are nothing more than recordings of Kroger employees reiterating Kroger's policy, which is to prohibit children's toys and household pets in the name of customer safety, but to allow anyone to openly carry loaded firearms, even though no permit, training, or background check is required to do so in most states.

Instead of working with us to make stores safer, Kroger has cited politicians' inaction to regulate open carry to justify their own stubborn refusal to institute a policy that does more than force employees and customers into a position where they must guess whether the armed individual in the frozen food aisle poses a threat to customers.

How are moms shopping with children expected to know the difference between an activist and a threat to our families? In a majority of states, it is completely legal to open carry a loaded gun in public without any training, permitting, or a background check. In some states, there isn't even an age requirement to open carry a loaded firearm.

That's why open carry poses a unique risk to the public. That's why we want Kroger to act, just as so many other major companies have done. And 83% of Kroger shoppers agree - Kroger is well within their rights to stop open carry.

When I founded Moms Demand Action the day after the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, I knew that it would be a long road towards gun safety. Since then, millions of Americans have joined this fight and we will continue to be relentless whenever we feel the safety of our children is threatened.

Kroger's customers deserve to be heard and Moms won't stop until we get the change we need.

No, Kroger isn't "growing uncomfortable with their gun policy," Watts just can't get it through her head that, just as Kroger has the "right" to DISCONTINUE a practice, it well within their RIGHT to do what they have said already said they are GOING to do - CONTINUE THEIR POLICY TO ALLOW FIREARMS CARRY. She needs to get that through her head! Watts only recognizes the rights of Kroger as they comport with her agenda, and she can't handle it that Kroger has the temerity to defy her and her sugar daddy, Bloomberg. She certainly can't reconcile the FACT that, since Kroger announced their intent to continue their policy, their sales have increased 21% with her supposed poll results indicating that 83% of Kroger customers agree with her point of view. She also ignores the fact that Starbucks has actually backtracked on their so-called "ban" on firearms carry, taking a more publicly neutral position on the subject - which is all they ever wanted to do in the first place.  In fact, if you actually read the statements issued by Target, Starbucks, and Panera, none of them actually "ban" firearms carry, they respectfully requested that firearms carriers not take them onto their premises, but all stopped short of actually banning them.  Watts still considers them to be victories.

Reality stinks, doesn't it Shannon!

Israel and Russia Just Did It - Time For America To Do It, Too….

An open letter to our elected officials:

Terrorist acts are increasing in the world.  They have now begun to come to the US and Canada.  In response to such acts, both Russia and Israel have made it easier to carry firearms for self defense - including in so-called "sensitive areas."  It is time for the US to do the same.  

Gun control has stopped nothing - and never will.

At the federal level, it is time to revoke the federal gun free school zones act, it is ime to finally permit lawful carriers to carry in so-called "sensitive areas," and it is time to revoke the "gun free" status of our military bases and let our military personnel carry the weapons on which they have trained.

At the state level, it is time to revoke "gun free" zones.  It is time to establish open carry and concealed carry parity; there is no logical reason why a concealed carrier should be required to complete hours of training that are not required of an open carrier just because the method of carry is different.  It is time for Michiganders to be able to exercise their right to lawful self defense in so-called "gun free" zones by carrying concealed - a method far less likely to incite panic.

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."  -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"  -- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836

"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."  -- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386

"...I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks," Thomas Jefferson in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr.

Sincerely,

John Lott - America should make it easier to carry guns

Moms Demand's Anti-Kroger Thanksgiving Campaign….

Moms Demand is running this graphic to remind their members which Kroger companies to boycott because they refuse to bow down to MD and ban lawful firearms carry in their stores.  Let's be sure to support them whenever possible!

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.

Public Backs Kroger Firearm Carry Policy….

MSNBC has been running a poll to gauge public sentiment on the question of firearms carry in Kroger stores - and to bring pressure to bear on Kroger.

I'm certain the results aren't what they were expecting….

For the record, the Construction Zone supports and applauds Kroger's common sense policy:

"The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don't want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores," policy-on-customers-carrying-firearms-in-stores

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.

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.

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/

Gov. Rick Perry Loses Concealed Pistol License….

Because of the specious charges brought against Rick Perry, charges that even many hard core liberals say are shaky at best, he has lost his right to carry a concealed firearm in public, as well as to buy firearms and ammo:

“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell of otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

The amazing thing? If he is actually convicted, he could be sentenced to as long as 109 years. Just think - there are mass murderers who have been sentenced to less time in prison. And why? Political spite.

Eugene Volokh has analyzed the charges:

Another way of thinking about the problems with the Rick Perry indictment - The Washington Post

Why the Gov. Rick Perry prosecution unconstitutionally intrudes on the gubernatorial veto power

His firearms rights will be restored if he is cleared of the charges.

Sen. Boxer Wants the DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE To Take Over School Safety...

Sen. Boxer has been a busy woman this session.  She believes local police aren't doing enough to protect schools, so she introduced S. 145, a bill that would get the Dept. Of Defense involved in state school safety matters by deploying NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS to police stations and making them responsible for evaluating school safety:

Save Our Students Act - Authorizes the Secretary of Defense (DOD) to provide funds to states submitting specified plans for using National Guard personnel to: (1) perform administrative functions normally performed by state and local law enforcement personnel in order to enable such law enforcement personnel to be dispatched to keep schools and students safe from violence, (2) help conduct school security assessments and safety plans, and (3) conduct capital improvements related to enhancing school and student safety. S. 145 Summary, S. 145 Text

Yes, she is pushing for the military to take over school safety, INCLUDING LOCAL POLICE FUNCTIONS.

This bill is currently in committees, where, hopefully, it will die.  We need to be contacting our legislators in Washington to insure that this happens; this bills cannot be allowed to leave the committee.

Walgreen's And Individual Self-Defense: A Legally Correct Decision With Immoral Consequences...

I sent the following email to a number of Michigan state legislators in the aftermath of a federal court ruling upholding the firing by Walgreen's of Jeremy Hoven, a Benton Harbor, MI, pharmacist fired for violating Walgreen's "non-escalation" policy by holding off armed gunmen with his own legally owned and carried firearm:

Gentlemen,

I have written to you regarding this proposed piece of legislation before, and I am going to continue doing so - especially in light of the federal court decision upholding Walgreen's right to require its employees to submit themselves to manhandling, abuse, and even lethal force by criminals in order to uphold a "non-escalation" policy that prohibits employees from actively defending themselves.

I want you to take a hard look at the security video footage of what happened the night two armed men stormed the Benton Harbor Walgreens where Pharmacist Hoven was employed, and then tell me that ANY company has the right to require its employees to submit to such criminal acts, to leave their God-given right to self defense at the door if they wish to retain their job.  You will notice that, at approximately the 54 second mark, one of the gunmen jumps over the pharmacy counter and, before Hoven has deployed his own legally owned and carried firearm, fires at least one shot at Hoven, at which point Hoven deploys his own firearm and returns fire, forcing the two criminals to flee for their own lives:




I could include similar videos and photos from DOZENS of such instances that occur each and every year in this country. Numerous people are killed and injured in such attacks because their employer, in the name of "private property rights," forces them to call police and wait twenty or more minutes for them to respond instead of allowing their employees to defend themselves.  The entire incident recorded in this video is over long before most police departments can respond; there is no indicator that the employees of this pharmacy even had time to notify law enforcement of what was taking place until after the criminals left the building.

Any way you look at this, such requirements are morally and ethically wrong.

We MUST restore the individual's right to actively defend him- or herself in such situations.  While it may once have been true that the best advice for such situations was to comply with the demands of criminals in the knowledge that most would leave one unharmed once they got what they wanted, this is no longer the case; too many criminals now kill for the sheer pleasure of it.

I am once again including a copy of the Hoven Self Defense Act.  To continue to shield employers' "right" to prohibit employees from acting in their own defense is immoral and unethical.

And it needs to stop.

Now.

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.