Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guns. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2015

Obama’s gun law enforcement at work: sell 55 illegal guns, get one year probation

RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA - JULY 12: Steel workers look over a pile of more than 4,300 confiscated illegal weapons about to be melted down during the 14th Annual Gun Destruction program, overseen by Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca, at the TAMCO steel mill on July 12, 2007 in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The weapons were confiscated throughout Los Angeles County over the past year and must by law be destroyed. The guns make ideal scrap metal for making concrete reinforcing bars, or rebar, because of their typically high nickel and chrome content and will ultimately be used in the construction of California freeways.  (Photo by David McNew/Getty Images)
When Shannon Miles walked up behind Harris (TX) County Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth and pumped 15 9mm rounds into him he did so with a weapon he was not allowed to possess. Via Houston Chronicle:
Court records reveal that Miles had a lengthy criminal history. His first reported arrest came in February 2005 for failing to identify and giving false information to police officers. He would be arrested six more times by 2009.
In July 2005 he was arrested by Harris County Sheriff’s deputies for criminal mischief. On Oct. 2, 2005, he was arrested again by Harris County and held for eight days for resisting “arrest, search or transport.”
In 2006 he was arrested for “discharging or displaying” a firearm. He pleaded guilty and was held for 10 days. On May 3, 2007, Jersey Village police arrested Miles for evading arrest. Nine days later he was arrested again for criminal trespassing by Harris County deputies. On Jan. 29, 2009, Miles was arrested for preventing or obstructing officers duties by using force against the officer.
In addition he had been declared mentally incompetent for committing a violent assault:
A man charged with murder in the ambush of a suburban Houston sheriff’s deputy had a history of mental illness and was once declared mentally incompetent, according to authorities and his former attorney.
Miles was found to be mentally incompetent in October 2012 and he was sent to North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, Texas.
How does this happen? How does someone who is barred from possessing a firearm suddenly get one? Via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel we get some insight:
In giving probation with no jail time to a Milwaukee man charged with 55 counts of buying firearms with fake identification and dealing them without a license, a federal judge delivered a message:
Dontray Mills, 24, purchased a total of 27 firearms, mostly handguns, between December 2012 and April 2014 and pleaded guilty to one of the charges on April 22, 2014, after an ATF investigation. As a result of the conviction, Mills will never again be able to buy firearms legally.
On Wednesday, he was sentenced. As part of the plea bargain, prosecutors agreed with the one year of probation.

Monday, August 31, 2015



A new study conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab, inmates in the Cook County jail said they get they guns on the streets from “personal connections” rather that outlets like guns shows and the internet.

The study focused on “inmates who were facing gun charges or whose criminal background involved gun crimes.”
According to the Chicago-Tribune, Crime lab co-director Harold Pollack said the study shows that “some of the pathways [regarding guns] people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant.” He said very few inmates indicated using gun shows or the internet. Rather, they get the guns in undetectable ways on the street. He said the inmates know they run the risk of being caught by police but “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”
The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.”
As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”
The inmates made clear they do not walk into gun stores to buy guns. Which proves a point Breitbart News, Gun Owners of America, and other gun rights groups have made for years; namely, that background checks place a burden on law-abiding citizens which criminals easily avoid.

Friday, August 28, 2015


Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (D) declared, “shame on the left” for “exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda” on Thursday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.
Clarke said, “Well, shame on the left, shame on the Democrats for once again exploiting misery and tragedy for a — to pursue a political agenda. Shame on the president of the United States to invoke terrorism into this horrific incident that happened in Virginia.”
He continued that the Constitution should not be used in a “knee-jerk” fashion, and is not designed to protect from horrific acts, but is rather designed to “freedom and liberty.”
Clarke then argued that the real solution to crime is to arrest criminals, try them, and then give them the harshest sentence allowed by law. He then criticized President Obama’s pardons of federal prisoners.
He added, “This was a chance for the president, Sean, to bring the country together, and once again, the divider-in-chief goes out and further separates us.”
Clarke also said that people should be more “humble” about their ability to prevent every bad incident, but that improving mental health screening and background checks would help.
He concluded that if the president thinks “this is so easy,” he should eliminate his Secret Service protection so he has to fend for himself. And “I am done asking people in my community to outsource their personal safety to the government.”

Thursday, August 27, 2015


San Jose’s Lori Rodriguez says the city seized her 12 guns after her husband was forced to undergo a “72-hour psychiatric evaluation,” and she is suing the city to get back the guns.
The city does not deny seizing the guns, and City Attorney Rick Doyle said they acted out of a concern for public safety.
According to Fox News, Doyle said, “Are we acting with an abundance of caution? Yeah. We’re concerned about someone having access to firearms that shouldn’t.”
Rodriquez’s husband lost legal access to guns because of the psychiatric evaluation, and Doyle argues that there is no guarantee that he wouldn’t get his hands on them if they were given back to Lori Rodriguez.” But NBC Bay Area reports that Rodriquez attorney, Don Kilmer, countered Doyle’s contention by claiming there are no grounds for the city keeping the guns if Rodriguez follows state law and puts them “in a gun safe.”
Rodriguez lost when she tried to get her guns back via a state court, so now she is asking a federal court to order their return.
Doyle said, “We don’t want to turn the guns over and we don’t have to turn the guns over, the courts have agreed with us.”
Breitbart News previously reported that a similar situation unfolded in New Jersey in June when a state appellate court ruled that a husband could be denied the right to own guns because his wife was a felon “[who’d] been accused of domestic violence.”
These cases highlight the danger Breitbart News, the NRA, and Gun Owners of America have warned about in instances where domestic violence and other issues are used as a Trojan Horse for gun control. The push is insidious, and once those promoting gun control get their foot in the door, they often simply continue pushing.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at

Monday, August 24, 2015

Kentucky Chuck E. Cheese refuses to serve police officer with firearm

A Kentucky Chuck E. Cheese appears to have taken the kid-friendly chain’s “no guns” policy too far, refusing to serve a police officer who entered the restaurant with a firearm.
The gun-toting officer encountered the problem at the Chuck E. Cheese in the Greenwood Mall in the city of Bowling Green, prompting outrage from some people, including a sheriff from a neighboring jurisdiction, WBKO-TV reported Friday.
"I was upset,” Edmonson County Sheriff Shane Doyle told the station. “I was shocked for that officer and also for all the patrons there because you know if you have an obvious police officer and they're wearing police clothing, then I don't understand what the problem would be having someone like that with the training and experience of a police officer [coming] into an establishment."
Chuck E. Cheese’s national headquarters called the situation an unfortunate misunderstanding.
"Our firearms policy does not apply to officers in uniform. We do have a no firearms policy for civilians and off-duty non-uniformed officers, but officers in uniform are always welcome to bring in their firearms," Chuck E. Cheese spokeswoman Alexis Lynn told the station.
But what constitutes a uniform? The officer refused entry was wearing a marked police polo shirt.
Doyle said that shouldn't have been an issue.
"I've seen Bowling Green officers in polos many times in my history working in law enforcement, and obviously I recognize that person as a sworn employee," he said.
Besides, the sheriff said, Kentucky state law permits police officers to carry their weapon in most locations regardless of whether they were on duty or not.
"The state law allows us to carry concealed anywhere in the state of Kentucky except for federal buildings, that's basically the only place," he said.
Doyle told the station he still plans to take his family to the Bowling Green Chuck E. Cheese, but he added that everybody “needs to understand that somebody who is trained and qualified to carry a weapon, they’re there to help people.” 

Sunday, August 23, 2015

Two arrested as police probe threats to Boston Pokemon event

Boston police arrested two Iowa men and confiscated a rifle, shotgun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition after they learned through social media the two had allegedly threatened attendees at this weekend's Pokemon World Championships at the Hynes Convention Center.
Eighteen-year-old Kevin Norton and 27-year-old James Stumbo were arrested Friday on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition, and other firearm related charges, Boston police said. They are expected to be arraigned at Boston Municipal Court tomorrow, cops said.
Boston police personnel with its Boston Regional Intelligence Center, or BRIC, received information from security at the Hynes Convention Center Thursday of threats on social media. Stumbo and Norton were stopped trying to enter the event on Thursday, police said. They had driven from Iowa. They were released while investigators waited for approval of a search warrant on the vehicle they were in, officials said. 
On Friday, upon execution of the warrant, detectives recovered one 12-gauge Remington shotgun, one DPM5 Model AR-15 rifle, several hundred rounds of ammunition, and a hunting knife. An arrest warrant was issued for the two suspects who were nabbed at the Saugus Hotel with the help of Saugus police.
BRIC Commander Superintendent Paul Fitzgerald said, "The relationship between police and private sector security is important in both our community policing philosophy, as well as our counter-terrorism strategy. This incident is a good example of private security reaching out to their local Boston police district and relaying information to detectives and BRIC analysts in order to identify the very real threat. The BPD detectives did a great job in the stop and prevention of a potential tragedy."
According to the tournament website, the Pokemon Championships is a invitation-only even that began Friday and runs through today. The website says it's giving away $2 million in scholarships and thousands of dollars worth of prizes.
Via: Boston Herald
Continue Reading....

Saturday, August 22, 2015

Detroit Police Chief: Legal Gun Ownership Can Help Stop Crime

 In a city plagued by crime and guarded by a dwindling police force, residents of Detroit are increasingly taking protection of themselves, their families and property into their own hands. Those who do so responsibly have the support of Detroit Police Chief James Craig, reports Fox News.
Chief Craig gave his public blessing to private gun ownership back in December, 2013, and in 2014 some 1,169 handgun permits were issued, while 8,102 guns were registered with city police - many to prior permit holders who bought new firearms. So for in 2015, nearly 500 permits have issued by the department and more than 5,000 guns have been registered.
“When you look at the city of Detroit, we’re kind of leading the way in terms of urban areas with law-abiding citizens carrying guns,” Craig said recently.
Firearms instructor Rick Ector said, "There’s definitely been a 'Chief Craig' effect.” Ector and other instructors have seen a steady rise in locals looking to get a permit, to protect themselves either on the street or in their homes.
“Home invasions have gone down,” he said. “A huge reason was that there was a huge spate of homeowners using their guns against intruders. More people have guns and it’s making burglars cautious.”
with a population of about 680,000, some 83 percent of which is African-American, Detroit's growing embrace of Second Amendment rights has a racial component that is not unique to the city. According to a recent survey from Pew Research Center, 54 percent of African-American residents nationwide now see legal gun ownership as more likely to protect people than to put their safety at risk. That figure was up from 29 percent two years ago.
“If anyone should have the right or need to carry a gun, it should be the African-American community,” says Philip Smith, founder of the National African American Gun Association.​
Detroit resident Darrell Standberry, who in 2011 used a handgun to kill a career criminal who tried to steal his car and kill him, says,

“I never leave home without my weapon,” he said. “You never know when or what you’ll encounter.”

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Will New L.A. Ordinance Turn Gun Owners Into Outlaws?


If you’re a gun owner in the city of Los Angeles, you may soon be a criminal.
The City Council has passed an ordinance that bans the possession of any firearms magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. With the mayor’s signature Friday, owners of the prohibited magazines now will have 60 days to turn them over to police, destroy them personally or move them to a location outside the city limits. The ordinance says owners can sell them, but don’t try it — state law prohibits the sale of “large-capacity” magazines and has since Jan. 1, 2000.
Because that state law banned the sale but not the possession of large-capacity magazines, existing property was effectively “grandfathered.” The Los Angeles ordinance makes no such accommodation.
“With a stroke of a pen the Los Angeles City Council has not only turned hundreds of thousands of law-abiding L.A. residents into criminals, they have made property that was legally purchased under state and federal law illegal to possess overnight,” said Paul Nordberg, director of the Calguns Foundation and president of, a highly trafficked online forum for California gun owners. “To the best of my knowledge there is no method or funding for informing the public of their change in status from law-abiding citizen to criminal.”
Nordberg says the people who will be hardest hit are those who participate in the sport of competitive shooting, enthusiasts who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on fees and equipment. Magazines with a capacity of 15 rounds are standard in national competitions. “I refuse to call them ‘high capacity,’” he said, “Fifteen rounds is the standard, and words have meaning.”
People who don’t live in Los Angeles are unaffected by the ordinance, unless they drive through L.A. to get to a shooting range or competition in an area outside the city’s boundaries. Then, Nordberg says, they risk “arrest, confiscation of property and possible loss of civil rights for simply doing the same thing they did the day before and have done for years, simply going to the shooting range with the legal property they have owned for over a decade.”
The City Council is working on a second ordinance that would mandate the use of gun locks in the home. That ordinance is modeled on laws in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that have so far been upheld by the federal courts.
But that may not last. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was not happy with the lower courts’ decision to uphold the mandatory gun lock law. “Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment’s core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it,” he wrote.
Still, the Supreme Court decided not to hear a challenge to the mandatory gun lock law — yet. So Los Angeles jumped right in to pass a similar ordinance.
California is one of only six states that has no “right to keep and bear arms” in its state constitution. In Nevada, for example, the state constitution says, “Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”
The Arizona constitution says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” In Texas, “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
But in California the state constitution is silent, so gun owners in the Golden State must depend on the federal courts’ interpretation of the Second Amendment to protect their rights from infringement. That means lawsuits will be filed to challenge the two city ordinances, and city taxpayers will incur the costs of defending the ordinances in federal court.
To better protect Second Amendment rights in California, an amendment to the state constitution is needed that secures for Californians the protections that gun owners have in 43 other states. Without that, we’re at the mercy of politicians who like to score political points by criminalizing the actions of people who didn’t do anything to anybody.
Susan Shelley is a San Fernando Valley author, a former television associate producer and twice a Republican candidate for the California Assembly. Reach her at, or follow her on Twitter: @Susan_Shelley.

Monday, August 10, 2015

Seattle moves forward with “gun violence tax” on all weapons, ammo


Retired minister and gun owner Jack Severns participated in the rally to ban assault weapons.
This week the Seattle City Council moved one step closer to imposing a sweeping sales tax on both weapons and ammunition which appears to fly in the face of a thirty year old state law banning such restrictions. A committee vote took place on Wednesday and the proposal will move to a full vote tomorrow. And this is just a bad deal all the way around.
The committee voted unanimously this morning to send the proposal to the full city council for consideration next Monday, according to the Seattle Monday’s vote could set the stage for a legal confrontation, and there were hints that existing gun shops could move out of the city, and that gun owners living in Seattle will simply shop outside the city, thus thwarting any dreams that this tax will generate $300,000 to $500,000 annually for the city’s gun control efforts.
Waiting in the legal tall grass are the Bellevue-based Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They’ve already advised against the tax proposal, primarily on the grounds that it will violate the state’s 30-year-old model preemption law.
Even if this move were to pass muster in terms of the state’s preemption law, it is bound to accomplish very little beyond the thinly veiled intent of punishing lawful gun owners and gun shops. A tax such as this is certain to do almost nothing to total volume of sales except for those truly living on the edge and simply shifts business from one location to another. NRA ILAsummarizes the concept.
The burden of regressive taxes like the Seattle proposal falls squarely on those that are least able to afford them. Persons of means will simply drive outside the city to purchase firearms and ammunition, while those without such options will be forced to go forego their rights or pay the tax. This is especially egregious considering how those at the lower end of the economic scale also tend to reside in areas where violent crime is the highest. One wonders whether this type of social engineering on the downtrodden is an intended feature of the legislation rather than an unfortunate consequence.
Supporters are claiming that this tax could bring in a half million dollars in revenue, but under the best of circumstances that sounds vastly inflated. It also doesn’t take into account how much it could affect the local market. As one local gun dealer pointed out, it’s a competitive sales space and they already sell pretty much on the margins. If he has to jack up the price of a ten or fifteen dollar box of ammunition by five dollars, shooters will simply go outside the city limits and buy their rounds where the tax is not applied. The same goes for new gun purchases. If sales plummet, the tax revenue goes down by default and if the shops close, the revenue disappears entirely.
Of course, that’s been the idea all along. This isn’t a tax intended to raise revenue for vital services. It’s a political statement. That’s why the supporters of the proposal even call it the gun violence tax. They’re not expecting to raise cash or reduce violence. They’re simply looking to show their base constituents how “serious” they are about restricting gun rights. The irony behind all of this is that the city will doubtless face a series of expensive lawsuits if the tax is put in place and they’ll probably lose. In the end they will wind up getting no revenue and the taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for the court costs and associated expenses.
But hey… this is Seattle. What did you really expect?

Friday, July 24, 2015

[VIDEO] BALTIMORE: As the mayhem continues Man dies, 3 teens among 7 shot

BALTIMORE (WJZ) –A violent night on the streets of Baltimore, where police report a total of 7 people shot overnight, 1 fatally.
As WJZ’s Derek Valcourt explains the most startling of the crimes involved teenagers.
Thursday afternoon Baltimore Police announced the arrest of 25-year-old Keon White who they say shot three teens last night on the streets of Baltimore.
Just after 10 p.m. Wednesday, 911 calls poured in about a shooting in the 800 block of North Glover Street.
Responding officers found not one but three teens shot, including a 13-year-old boy shot in the chest, a 15-year-old boy shot int the chest and shoulder and a 16-year-old girl shot in the leg.
All of the teens were rushed to area hospital, where their injuries are being treated.
Interim Police Commissioner Kevin Davis personally responded to the crime scene.
“We don’t know what the motive was. We know it was an outdoor shooting scene and we know we have one shooter,” Davis said. “That’s the bad news. The good news is I’ve been out here for several minutes now, the community is stepping up. It’s certainly unacceptable for this community to see three teenagers being shot on a beautiful summer night like this and it’s my impression that they’ve had enough.”
Minutes after that shooting, three other men ranging in ages from 21 to 37 were shot in the 2000 block of North Forest Park Avenue. They are expected to survive.
Another man was shot and killed just after 11 p.m. on Clendenin Street.
Police are asking another with information to call Crime Stoppers at 1866 7 Lockup. You can remain anonymous and you may even earn some reward money.
In a press conference on Thursday Davis says they found the suspect shortly after finding his car.
“They pointed us in the direction of a particular house last night where we thought our shooter may have run into,” Davis said.  “That’s why you saw the swat team out there last night.  He wasn’t in there but we found him not too far away after we found his car.”
What’s so frustrating for community leaders here, is kids aren’t just the victims of some of these crimes, in some cases they’re actually responsible for violence.

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Concealed Carry Permits For Women Up 270 Percent Since 2007

Leah wrote about some great news over the weekend regarding concealed carry permits. The Crime Prevention Center reported that the number of permits has increased since 2007–and the murder rate has dropped. The main reason is that President Obama has possibly become the greatest gun salesmen of all time (I may be exaggerating).
“The researchers found that the change in trends with regard to permits and gun sales is directly related to Barack Obama’s presidency. Simply put, the greater the push for gun control in the wake of several mass shootings, the more Americans head to the gun shop,” wrote Leah.
Before Noah Rothman went to Hot Air–he’s now with Commentary–he was atMediaite where he reported on a 2014 Applied Economics Letters’ study that showed between 1980-2009, “the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level.”
Of course, liberals disagree, but regarding women and firearms the Crime Prevention Center noted another interesting find: women obtaining concealed carry permits rose 270 percent since 2007. Additionally, some findings found that minorities lining up for their concealed carry permit is increasing twice the rate of whites.
  • The number of concealed handgun permits is increasing at an ever- increasing rate. Over the past year, 1.7 million additional new permits have been issued – a 15.4% increase in just one single year. This is the largest ever single-year increase in the number of concealed handgun permits.
  • 5.2% of the total adult population has a permit.
  • Five states now have more than 10% of their adult population withconcealed handgun permits.
  • In ten states, a permit is no longer required to carry in all or virtually all of the state. This is a major reason why legal carrying handguns is growing somuch faster than the number of permits.
  • Since 2007, permits for women has increased by 270% and for men by 156%.
  • Some evidence suggests that permit holding by minorities is increasing more than twice as fast as for whites.
  • Between 2007 and 2014, murder rates have fallen from 5.6 to 4.2 (preliminary estimates) per 100,000. This represents a 25% drop in the murder rate at the same time that the percentage of the adult population with permits soared by 178%. Overall violent crime also fell by 25 percent over that period of time.
It’s confirmation of what’s been reported already; that women are lining up across the country for their concealed carry permits­–and now we have a percentage of that increase. They’re the next frontier in the gun industry, and even liberals are noticing that these ladies exercising their constitutional right to bear arms often “defy stereotypes.” Fancy that.

Saturday, July 18, 2015

Chicago suburbs hit with lawsuit for guns used in city crime

Summertime in Chicago, shootings ring out on the South and West sides as gang members execute drug-fueled vendettas. Bodies pile up, and innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. 
Still, nothing seems to stop the bullets flying from illegal weapons.
Father Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina on Chicago’s South Side, is trying something new; pressuring the municipalities where he says the illegal guns originate.
He and several co-plaintiffs are now suing the Villages of Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood. Each town is home to a gun store that Pfleger claims is lax with oversight for gun purchases. 
He wants the villages to crack down and prevent “straw purchasing” -- buying weapons in bulk, then selling them into the black market at a profit.
“We’re not asking anybody to take away guns from [legal] gun owners,” Pfleger said.
The lawsuit argues that a disproportionate number of crime guns originate from the targeted villages.
However, the heart of the issue is gang violence. And the ATF says gang guns don’t necessarily come from the gun shops in Riverdale, Lyons and Lincolnwood.
“The largest percentage of crime guns used by gang members are coming from Indiana,” Special Agent Thomas Ahern said.

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Whatabooboo: Public, press fall for Moms Demand Action misdirection on Whataburger and guns

There’s a lot of politicizing and anger over Whataburger’s decision to not allow open carry inside its restaurants. Moms Demand Action is proclaiming from the rooftops it was their advocacy which caused Whataburger to end open carry.
Whataburger initially prohibited open carry last June after the Texas chapter of Moms Demand Action repeatedly urged the company to change its policy through social media and by making numerous calls to the corporate headquarters.
There’s just one problem with this statement: it might be a lie. There’s no actual mention on either Whataburger’s website or Moms Demand Action’s website of an open carry ban in June 2014. It doesn’t exist. There’s no mention of Whataburger banning open carry on either website in June 2015. In fact, Whataburger President and CEO Preston Atkinson says the open carry ban has existed for a long time (emphasis mine):
Whataburger supports customers’ Second Amendment rights and we respect your group’s position, but we haven’t allowed the open carry of firearms in our restaurants for a long time (although we have not prohibited licensed conceal carry). It’s a business decision we made a long time ago
It would be nice if Atkinson defined “a long time,” but it’s important to note he made sure to point out no specific group caused the policy to be put in place. Atkinson even says customers and employees didn’t want to see people openly carry who weren’t law enforcement. That doesn’t completely blow the Moms Demand Action narrative out of the water, but it does make it a little less likely Moms Demand had major involvement in the decision. If Atkinson is lying, there’s no evidence of it at the moment.
Sadly, the reaction by the mainstream media and the right is almost as bad as MDA’s, if not worse. The AP claimed, “Whataburger takes stand against Texas’ new open carry law,” without providing any factual evidence. Their story flat-out ignores Atkinson’s “a long time” and “we have not prohibited licensed conceal carry” statements.  Newsweek was just as bad with its headline “Whataburger to Armed Customers: Keep Your Guns at Home,” which is entirely false. Concealed carry is welcomed in Whataburger, as the company said in their statement. People on the right took to Twitter saying Whataburger was “defying TX law” by not allowing open carry and claimed they were being anti-Texan. They also promised to boycott Whataburger and take their service to another burger chain. But that’s buying into the possible lie by Moms Demand Action hook, line, and sinker without bothering to make sure it was true. It’s just sad how people reacted instead of looking at the details.
There needs to be a little historical perspective on Texas and guns. The state didn’t allow concealed carry until 1995. In fact, Ann Richards lost the 1994 governor’s election to George W. Bush because of her veto of a concealed carry bill. That bill was introduced after the infamous 1991 Luby’s shooting in Killeen, which left 23 dead. Suzanna Hupp, the anti-Shannon Watts who later became a Texas state representative, told the Legislature she probably could have stopped the Luby’s shooting if the law allowed her to concealed carry. Her gun was in her car 100 feet away from where she was in Luby’s when bullets started flying. So Texas’ gun-friendly legislative attitude has only existed for 20 years.
Whataburger doesn’t get much credit for welcoming customers practicing concealed carry in their restaurants, which considering the current climate is pretty amazing. They’re still gun friendly, even if they’re wrong on open carry, but that’s a business decision based on customer response, as Atkinson correctly notes. It’s well within Whataburger’s right to say no to open carry, but yes to concealed carry, because they’re a private business.
There’s an even bigger point to all this everyone needs to realize and remember. The left’s Whataburger stance shows just how hypocritical they actually are. They’re perfectly fine with Whataburger not allowing open carry, but look at how absolutely bonkers they go and lose their collective minds when private businesses give answers which don’t fit the left’s agenda. Remember how they reacted to Memories Pizza in Indiana or Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Oregon? The private businesses were excoriated for acting like a private business. Memories Pizza temporarily closed. Sweet Cakes was sued and shut down. Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver is facing a similar suit for denying service. The left will cheer on companies for appearing to go along with them, but they’ll run for the lawyers if companies don’t. The right has to be willing to point this stuff out and make the left defend their hypocrisy. Put them on the defensive. Turn the questions around. Force the left to actually get outside their, “oh we’ve got a friendly media which will always defend us” and actually have to provide a response. The biggest part of the entire Whataburger thing isn’t the private business’ stance on open carry. It’s showed just how hypocritical the left actually is.

Sunday, July 12, 2015

SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia City Council’s new gun safety law assailed

The president of a prominent South Carolina gun rights group said Friday that an emergency Columbia city ordinance enacted last week to allow police to quickly arrest armed and dangerous people is not lawful.
But a council member said members had checked state law and determined that they were allowed to pass the temporary ordinance.
Council passed the measure Thursday night after hearing warnings from law enforcement that demonstrations relating to the Confederate flag at the State House might attract violent gun-toting people and groups that might do harm.
“It’s illegal,” said Gerald Stoudemire, president of the Gun Owners of South Carolina, who teaches concealed weapons classes, runs a gun shop and has testified on gun laws before various S.C. House and Senate committees.
Stoudemire, 68, said the new city ordinance flies in the face of a state law that says local governments cannot pass ordinances that put more restrictions on firearms than state law.
The city’s emergency ordinance, passed Thursday night, made illegal the carrying of firearms by citizens within 250 feet of the State House. The ordinance will expire around Aug. 9. It basically gives police the right within that zone to check out people they think might be carrying concealed weapons and arrest them if they are.
Council members passed the ordinance after hearing from city police Chief Skip Holbrook that police intelligence units were picking up information that various “hate groups” whose members are known to carry weapons might converge on Columbia for Friday’s lowering of the Confederate flag ceremony.
Police are also concerned that armed and potentially violent people will show up at a planned July 18 Ku Klux Klan rally at the State House, according to the ordinance passed by city council.
While state law prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens on State House grounds, state law currently allows people to carry guns – including concealed guns if they have a permit – just off State House grounds, Stoudemire said. Thus, council’s action to restrict the rights of people to carry guns around the State House property goes further than state law and is illegal, Stoudemire said.
Council member Tameika Isaac Devine said that city council had weighed Stoudemire’s concern as well as the section of state law to which he is referring.
Devine said city officials determined that under state law, city council does have the right to pass emergency measures when health and safety are at stake.
“We can do this on a temporary basis, but we couldn’t do a permanent basis,” she said.
The ordinance will expire after 30 days, unless council extends it, she said.
“It depends on how things go in the next 30 days, what law enforcement is picking up on the Internet,” she said. “I’m hopeful that we will just let it expire.”
“Irregardless – for one day, it’s illegal,” Stoudemire said.
Stoudemire said he intends to ask a lawmaker to get an attorney general’s opinion on whether the ordinance is legal. Previous attorney general opinions support his position, he said.
Stoudemire also warned that the city might get sued and have to pay damages if it wrongfully arrests someone who has the right to carry a concealed weapon.
“It’s going to look bad if they arrest somebody and they sue the city,” Stoudemire said. “I figure the first fellow who gets arrested, he’s going to be asking for some big figures.”
Under the ordinance, anyone arrested and convicted of carrying a weapon in the prohibited zone would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be fined up to $500 and put in jail for 30 days.
After Friday’s Confederate flag lowering at State House grounds, Holbrook told The State newspaper that no one had been arrested. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel also said officers had made no arrests.

Read more here:

Popular Posts