Starbucks Targeted For Another Anti Firearms Rights Boycott

Starbucks was targeted by a well known anti gun rights group recently because they took “No position” on firearms in their stores. They couldn’t coerce Starbucks into banning guns in Starbucks for everyone except criminals who don't care about "No guns" policies. Again, Starbucks is the target of a boycott beginning on February 14th by another anti gun rights group. Starbucks has the right to run their business as they see fit.

They cite England’s gun laws as a model to follow. But, English criminals are stealing guns, converting starter pistols to shooters, and are making their own too. They call themselves an “economic force” that will economically force anti gun rights laws by using the buying power of “14 million” gun victims, gun assault survivors, supporters, and religious groups against businesses that allow guns in their businesses or on their property.

They say that their economic leverage can’t be overcome because they outnumber “NRA Extremists” by
50 to 1. Currently the NRA has 4,300,000 dues paying members. That multiplied by 50 would be  215,000,000 who sympathize with this group. They apparently didn’t do the math. That’s quite a stretch. They claim that, “ Sane gun laws will simultaneously protect the Second Amendment right of the legal gun owner and the non-gun owner’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as written in the Declaration of Independence.”

This latest group complains that a tiny, dangerous minority endanger the safety of the “overwhelming” majority who don’t want guns in Starbucks. We agree that there is a dangerous minority who shouldn’t have guns in Starbucks or anywhere else. They are called predatory criminals. We don’t want guns in criminal’s hands in Starbucks or anywhere else either. These criminals who illegally carry guns won’t be stopped by any no guns policy anywhere. Many career criminals view getting caught with a gun is just a cost of doing business. May times the additional charge of using or carrying a gun in the course of committing a felony can simply be plea bargained away.  

The pressure from these kinds of groups has met some limited success and has caused some business chains to cave in to pressure. The anti gun rights groups took their cause to last year’s Starbucks shareholder’s meeting, and walked away empty handed, disgraced, and defeated. But, there is always an undercurrent at work to disarm Americans, leaving an open door to anyone who doesn’t follow a no guns policy or obey a no guns sign. Never do they address the mass killings at restaurants, and the simple fact that "No guns" policies don't work anywhere. They never have and never will work, except  for those who already obey laws and rules.

When a murderer is determined to commit the ultimate crime, "No guns" policies and signs won't stop them. We challenge anti gun groups to cite any facts or actual situations to the contrary. They can't. They don't exist.
And, these anti gun rights groups fail to understand that in 49 states, one of their members may be standing, sitting, walking in a parking lot, or shopping when a concealed pistol permit holder is right next to them, or all around them at any given moment and they don't even know it. Wouldn't that be a shock to their systems to know that? But, ignorance is bliss.

Here are some of the stark facts about “no guns allowed” in restaurants and the resulting carnage.

An incident of mass murder occurred on July 18, 1984, in a McDonalds restaurant in the San Ysidro section of San Diego, California. The shootings resulted in 22 deaths (including the perpetrator James Huberty) and the injuries of 19 others. These were random killings.

Eight people were shot at a Carson City International House of Pancakes with a semi automatic weapon September 6th, 2011. These were random killings

On October 16, 1991, 35-year-old George Pierre Hennard, who was described by others as angry and withdrawn, with a dislike of women, drove his pickup truck through the front window of a Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. Yelling "This is what Bell County has done to me!" Hennard then opened fire on its patrons and staff with a pistol. He shot, and killed 23 people while wounding another 20 before committing suicide. Approximately 80 people were in the restaurant at the time. These were random killings. This slaughter was the impetus of the Texas Concealed handgun rights law. It just took the killing of 23 and wounding of 20 happening in a small Texas town in just seconds. And, don't forget the "No guns" policy at Virginia Tech. 

And, there was the Westroads Mall killings in 2007 in Omaha, where a murderer killed nine people including himself and wounded four others. This killer left a suicide note that said he wanted to take a few pieces of S*** with him, and said that he would be famous. He did this with a stolen rifle. The mall's "No Guns" policy didn't work. 


God forbid that a patron at these eateries and the mall would have had a gun and shot it at the killers. Someone could have gotten hurt. But, that was not allowed. Does anyone really believe that a "No Guns" Restaurant policy or a "No guns" sign will stop a madman? These examples make a no gun policy in businesses ridiculous. Would such a policy have stopped old "George," or any of the other killers?


All of the victims above were disarmed and absolutely helpless. What sense does this make? Why are the instruments of death blamed by anti gun groups and not the persons holding them? 

Firearms as a deterrence and a tool for self defense works. These groups claim that because of the element of the criminal using surprise, it is virtually impossible to defend one’s self. But, readers of this and other blogs know otherwise. So does an 82 year old man who fought off a home invader last week. That burglar was one of the close to 50 armed robbers and burglars killed by their would be victims that we recently reported on in the last week. And, that didn’t scratch the surface. They also say that to exercise the right to vote, one must first register. But that is to prevent multiple voting and voter fraud. Gun registration is not similar, except perhaps to locate gun owners and to determine how many guns, and what kind are owned. How does registration prevent gun violence? It does not.

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG:
secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com

The Enemy Expatriation Act - We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us

Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama Should Be Reelected

1. Your health care will be free. We have modeled our free health care after the efficient systems in Canada and England. Health care is for the healthy and the young. Valuable resources won't be squandered in treating the elderly because they have lived their lives. They just drain our money for Social Security and Medicare anyway. There are big benefits for the sick and elderly in the new healthcare plan. The government will give every elderly person a Yugo. The Healthcare Act Plan says, "Here are some pain pills for you to relax with. Now, “Yugo” take them." 


So, you see, instead of providing expensive medical care for those too old to be productive after getting it, the new national healthcare plan does actually promise prescription coverage for the elderly.


The Eskimos used to set their elderly outside in the winter when they got too old and dependent. Now we can depend on our President’s healthcare plan to do this for us beginning next year.

2. Your housing will be free. You can join one of the Occupy groups and live with your friends on some land that belongs to some 1% Fat Cat. Or, there are lots of vacant houses now. If you don't like the one you live in now, you can just move into one recently vacated on a foreclosure. We can depend on our President and the 1% to pay our mortgages for us. But we may never need one again. The 1% might even be able to get bumper stickers at the Post Office that say, "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage."

3. Your college tuition will be free. Why should you leave your parent's cozy house and struggle to get a grant, or a student loan, or pay tuition when everything will be given to you? He has plans to forgive all student loans. He may even forgive all outstanding loans owed to everyone. It's a fact that Obama has promised students who vote for him this time that they will get a "B" for just showing up in class. It won’t matter if you show up late either. If you don’t like your grades, have something in the file you don’t want anyone to see, or did something embarrassing while in College, he will seal your College records just like he did to his.

4. You won't have to think for yourself. Oh my God, its so hard to make decisions or plans for one's future anymore. We have been able to depend on President Obama for the last three years to provide for and to protect our families better than we can, and we can be assured for four more years that he will continue to provide for us, and make all the important decisions in our lives for us. If he is too busy, or on vacation, someone who works for him will do that for him. That’s the reason that government needs more employees. Besides, it will bring the already low unemployment rate that he brought down even further. What a load off our collective minds. Just trust them. They are here to help you.

5. All your needs will be provided for. Just wait for your monthly government assistance check. As long as there is the 1% to provide for us, and our friends, the Chinese, are there for us, and the government printing presses are well oiled, we will never run out of money. We now know that it’s the 1% against us 99%’ers. As many heard one of us say on Barack's election day in 2008, "I never thought this day would come. I'll never have to work to pay for gasoline again. I'll never have to work to pay my mortgage anymore." He needs four more years to fulfill this campaign promise.

6. There will be no world conflict because we will all get along now. Everybody loves Obama, especially those in the Middle East. Obama needs four more years to finish dismantling our nasty military. Just imagine those Marines urinating on defenseless, dead Taliban. Terrorism has begun to end under Obama’s leadership now that the world knows we are harmless. We no longer have anything to fear. Besides, overseas terrorist attacks don't affect us anyway because we live so far away. He isn’t scary to any other country. That’s reassuring. We saw that when he said, “Please,” when he asked Iran to give our lost airplane back. But, Iran said “Finders, Keepers, Losers, Weepers.” Our President says that everyone should play under the same rules. But, they don’t play fair. Darn.

5. No one will hate America anymore. Everyone knows that the only reason that all of the world hated us before our President was elected was because of George W. Bush. He’s gone, problem solved.

6. You won't have to worry about any more gun violence or crime. There’s still so much to be done under the radar on gun control, just like he told Sarah Brady. Our President is against guns, gun ownership, and is against concealed carry of handguns. But, he really can’t do anything about it right now. He has to have a second term because he doesn’t have to worry about being reelected then. Right after our President was sworn in, his Attorney General said that Obama “has a few things he wants to do with guns.” That included sending a few guns to Mexico so the government could track them. Its all the fault of gun stores that the plan didn’t work. They don’t need to be selling guns anyway. We can hardly wait for his Attorney General’s next crime fighting plan.  We can join Europe in making guns illegal in his second term, just like they do there. They have no crime problems there.

7.  And, of course, free food too. Some people get free food now, but the program will expand, like every good government program, for everyone in his second term. Instead of shopping and having out of pocket food expenses, you will just show up at a government warehouse free super market and take all the free food that you can eat. Just make sure you bring your own biodegradable grocery bags so we don't contribute to global warming.  


He will set it up in his second term where you can just order your groceries over the internet. 
Michelle and the First Family will carefully plan what healthful foods that they will give to you. 
No sodas, frozen fries, hamburgers, or pizza will be available. They will only be available for official White House entertaining when we host the French, or the Iranians after the President makes peace with them to make them jealous of our American food and way of life. This will lead to world peace. 


The free groceries will be delivered by thousands of new unionized government employees hired by this new government agency that will be coming in the second term. The Food Czar will be Vegan, of course. Thousands of jobs will created in  jobs for people who will formulate and enforce rules and regulations for this program. The President has plans to order 750,000 New Chevrolet Volt delivery cars for them to use. This fleet of Food Czar Cars will be visible reminders of the importance of using renewable energy. These cars will never be ordered unless there is a second term because uninformed Republicans think they're jokes, so you see how stupid they are, and important this is. Think of all the job creation under this food program alone. These cars and new jobs will help lower our already low unemployment rate further. However, please, always be thoughtful and courteous and don’t take too much.


8.  The 1% will pay for everything. Need he say more?


9. He may try for a third term


10. Chicks dig Socialists.

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG
secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com

The Regal Obamas- America's Royal First Family

Just Say NO To The UN… A UN Allied Group Declares War On Your Firearms Rights & Senator Rand Paul

                         RAND PAUL JUST SAYS "NO" TO THE UN

“Global Action to Prevent War,” is an allied organization recognized by the United Nations in their continuing effort to strip Americans of their right to Keep and Bear arms. The UN gives support to organizations such as the GAPW, which, according to their website, is putting forth a radical plan of Global Governance. They join with groups like the “International Action Network on Small Arms,” (IANSA) both of which are trying to foist upon us the UN’s “Arms Trade Treaty” and “Programme of Action on Small Arms.”

Groups like the these have a history of trying to destroy our sovereignty and are the same kinds of organizations that joined the UN in trying to coerce the United States into tossing our Constitution and joining the UN sponsored International Criminal Court in the early 1990’s. Although Bill Clinton signed off on this Treaty, he refused to recommend the International Court Treaty to the Senate. George W. Bush fought this and other anti freedom UN treaties outright by appointing the tenacious Ambassador John Bolton to the UN.  These anti gun rights groups and their affiliates say that Nation States can and do try anyone for crimes committed within their territory, so why can they not delegate that right to an international court?

The answer is that the present international states that bow down to this International Court do not have our hard fought for Constitution and Bill of Rights that do not allow delegation such as this.  Simple and straightforward enough, right? Well, no.

The same type of global thinking apparently extends to the current attack and proposed handing off of our guaranteed firearms rights to an international governing body like the United Nations. To that, we just say, NO.

The UN failed in the Treaty efforts to over ride and destroy our 4^th Amendment “Due Process” rights. Try as hard as they might, they could not destroy our 6^th Amendment rights to:

A. a speedy and public trial by an impartial United States Court and jury; 

B. our right to confront accusers, 
C. the right to have the trial conducted in the jurisdiction where the crime allegedly occurred in the U.S.; 

D. the right put on a defense and present evidence and to require the State to hand over exculpatory evidence to the defendant;

E, the right to exclude evidence not obtained legally through proper 4^th Amendment procedures; 

F. the right not to testify against yourself; 

G. the right to counsel of your choice;

H. the right to participate in selecting a jury;
I. the right to have a Court's decision reviewed by a higher appeals court;
J. the right against double jeopardy in trials, among other guaranteed rights.  

Now, they are attacking  other guaranteed Constitutional Rights. Based on their history of previous attacks on our Constitutional sovereignty and freedoms, these groups are trying once again to gut our Constitution by attacking the Second Amendment this time. People who work for the UN and groups like these will not be able to justify the continued existence of their jobs unless they remain on the attack against our freedoms. That is their job, to do exactly that. Attack. 

Even if this Treaty would only apply to international transfers of firearms, and not yet apply to individual country's homeland laws as the UN and anti gun organizations claim, or supposedly does not yet specifically ban semi automatic firearms, this is not just like a door to door salesman's  foot in the door for gun control. It is a hobnailed jackboot kicked right through the door. Gun control attempts often comes in incremental steps. Each successful step makes the next step much easier and more acceptable. Successful attempts are good for fundraising contributions too. 

The US was against this latest anti gun treaty until 2009, when Barack Obama ordered Hillary Clinton and the State Department to be "open" to discussions on this Treaty. These discussions and "Fast and Furious"  may well be part of the “Under the Radar” gun control efforts that Obama assured Sarah Brady of the Brady handgun rights gun control group were going on.

Senator Rand Paul believes that the UN now seeks to destroy our Second Amendment.  He expressed that view in a mailing that he recently to his constituents and others entitled, “Stop The UN Gun Ban.” 

He said, “Disguised as an “International Arms Control Treaty” to fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN’s Small Arms Treaty is in fact a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE the United States to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding Americans cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION.” 1.

Here is a very important point.  At the very least, this Treaty would ban firearms  from other countries to distributors such as Century Arms here in the U.S. It would also stop importation of WASR AK47 variants, WWII P38 Pistols, Walther P1 9mm pistols, Saiga 12 gauge shotguns, M91/30 vintage rifles, G3 20 round .308 magazines, UZI carbines, 7.62X39, 5.56X45, and 7.62X54 ammunition.

Obama has already recently forbid Hillary Clinton from allowing the return and sale to citizens here of vintage M1 Garands  loaned to the Republic of Korea by us. Obama doesn't like firearms coming into the United States, and would probably push for ratification of this Treaty to please his anti gun rights constituency.


The GAPW denies everything Senator Paul Says.

In a blog this week, they said, “All of these assumptions are plain wrong.  Senator Paul and his supporters clearly do not understand the goals, provisions, and limitations of the proposed ATT. From the outset, negotiations with respect to an ATT are focused exclusively on international transfers of conventional weapons between member states of the UN and have nothing to do with individual citizens, private ownership, or the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Documents from the ATT preparatory committees have expressly disclaimed any intention to interfere with the right of states to self defense as well as national regulation of firearms within its own territory. Furthermore, all 193 member states as a unit, including many that are still highly skeptical of an ATT, would never allow a treaty to be penned that would encroach on such basic rights of sovereignty.

The original General Assembly resolution that called for negotiations to begin on an ATT explicitly and exclusively calls for ‘common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms’ without mentioning, even once, internal domestic policy regarding gun ownership or confiscation, destruction, or limitation on civilian firearms. The standards refer to criteria and parameters regarding transfers of weapons from one state (government) to another. Moreover, the most recent paper from Chairman of the ATT negotiating process, Ambassador Roberto Garcia Moritan of Argentina, from July 2011 recognizes the sovereign right of states to regulate internal transfers including ‘national constitutional protections on private ownership.’ As such, there is zero potential for an ATT to affect US domestic licensing laws or civilian firearms possession let alone give anyone the authority (certainly no imaginary UN enforcing squad) to confiscate and destroy civilian firearms.

As for the contention that the ATT will ban the sale, trade, and ownership of semi-automatic weapons is also, not surprisingly, entirely false. Firstly, the ATT explicitly refers to large conventional weapons used for military purposes, which include: tanks, military vehicles, military aircraft, naval vessels, missiles, missile systems, and military helicopters among others– with no mention of rifles whatsoever. Small arms and light weapons (SALWs) are not currently accepted by all UN member states as part of the scope of the ATT. The question as to whether they will be included under the scope of the treaty is still very much up in the air. Secondly, even if SALWs were to be included under the scope of the ATT, private ownership of such weapons is entirely unaffected as the ATT deals only with the regulation of state-to-state transfers.

Lastly, concern over an ‘international gun registry’ is entirely unfounded. None of the proposals tabled and considered throughout the ATT negotiating process contemplate creation of any such enforcement bureaucracy. The US delegation has made clear its position that oversight of the ATT’s provisions must remain under the control of national governments and should not be subject to international scrutiny as US law already provides for comprehensive regulation of international arms transfers. Many other states agree. As the ATT process is a consensus-driven one, all member states will have to come to agreement before any treaty will be accepted making acceptance of any ‘international policing unit’ utterly impossible… Advocates of a robust ATT are fighting for strong humanitarian language regarding arms transfers in order to prevent illicit diversion to terrorists, criminals, and other human rights abusers and ultimately limit human suffering.” 2.

Who do you believe? Who would you trust to do the right thing?

1.  “Stop the UN Gun Ban…A message from Senator Rand Paul”

2.  “Clarifying (again) the Goals of an ATT” - GAPW Blog

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG

armedselfdefense.blogspot.com

The Regal Obamas- America's Royal First Family

New Anti Gun Rights Study... Number of Homicides In 10 to 24 Year Old Group Distorted Once Again

  

An anti-gun rights organization released their spin on a study regarding murder rates of 10 to 24 year olds in California. But, there is a disproportionate number of gang members included. What their spin omitted was the fact that the ten top counties for youth homicides in California are the hottest areas of the state's gang activity. And, even more relevant, how does any anti-gun rights group propose to disarm gang-bangers? There is no answer to that. But, there's plenty of propaganda.  

They listed the ten top California counties by homicide rate in the 10 to 24 year old group. Interestingly enough, gang members fall into the age group of 12 to 24 years old. And, these are the most violent youth. Their study showed that there are huge disparities between murders in ethnic groups of youth in California. And, the simple reason is that the majority of gang membership is either Hispanic or Black. But, no mention of that fact either. 

The study also shows that there are vast disparities between groups in California where young African-Americans are more than 22 times more likely to be murdered than young whites, and young Hispanics are more than 5 times more likely to be murdered than young whites. However, the majority of gang members are either African American or Hispanic. There are the Crips, Bloods, Mara Salvatrucha "MS 13", Norentos, Surentos, Nuestra Familia and other similarly named thugs.  

HERE IS THE STUDY'S TOP 10 COUNTIES BY YOUTH HOMICIDE VICTIMIZATION RATE 

The top 10 counties with each county's corresponding homicide victimization rate for its population of Californians ages 10 to 24 are:

1) Monterey County, 24.36 per 100,000
2) Alameda County, 18.41 per 100,000
3) San Joaquin County, 18.36 per 100,000
4) Tulare County, 18.06 per 100,000
5) Merced County, 13.44 per 100,000
6) Contra Costa County, 12.94 per 100,000
7) Fresno County, 11.61 per 100,000
8) San Francisco County, 11.52 per 100,000
9) Madera County, 11.39 per 100,000
10) Los Angeles County, 11.35 per 100,000

However, here are the facts of the gangs active in those same 10 counties. 

1) Monterey County, 24.36 per 100,000 

31 % of the county's population is under age 19. 1 

There are an estimated 5,000 gang members or associates in Monterey County. 2

3,500 live in Salinas, California. 2 

Many of these gang members are associated with the Mexican Mafia 2

2.  Alameda County 18.41 per 100,000

Gang activity has reached such a high level that Alameda County has taken  steps to fight a losing battle with youth gangs. 

a. Alameda County probationers with “gang” status security levels are to be fitted with Global Positioning System devices. 3 

b. The Superior Court issued an injunction against the "North Side Organization' gang. 4

The Injunctions created so called "Safe Zones." There is a $1,000 fine per injunction violation. The restrictions include: 

• Do not associate with other enjoined gang members in public (see proposed order for exceptions).
• Do no confront, intimidate or assault witnesses.
• Do not possess firearms or dangerous weapons.
• Stay away from drugs.
• No trespassing.
• No gang recruitment.
• Follow time restrictions. 

3) San Joaquin County, 18.36 per 100,000 

There are 19 Asian gangs, 9 Mexican Gangs, and 3 black gangs in Stockton, alone.  5 

4) Tulare County, 18.06 per 100,000 

There are 4,893 gang members and 120 known gangs in Tulare County. 6 

Tulare County Gangs include:

a. Norentos

b. Surentos

c. Asian gangs affiliated with the Crips and Bloods

d. Skinheads

5) Merced County, 13.44 per 100,000 

In a county with an estimated population of 255,250, there are about 5,627 of those people are documented gang members. The Merced Multi-Agency Gang Task Force says that 2% of the county's population are gang members. 7 

6) Contra Costa County, 12.94 per 100,000 

Gangs in Contra Costa County include: 8 

a. Sureno 13 with affiliates including MS13

b. Norteno 

c. 8 Asian Gangs

d. 8 White Supremacist gangs including "Aryan Nation" 

7) Fresno County, 11.61 per 100,000

Fresno County is home to 3 percent of the nation's total gang membership.  9 

There are over 24,000 validated gang members residing in Fresno County. 10

Civil Injunctions have been issued against these Fresno gangs declaring Public Safety Zones: 11

 Sanger Chakla, Fresno Parkside Bulldogs, Fresno Modoc Boys, Orange Cove VOCR/OCS, Fresno Dog Pound, and Varrio East Side Reedley (VESR)

8) San Francisco County, 11.52 per 100,000 

 These are the gang statistics for the latest available years. In 2006, San Francisco experienced a total of 799 violent crimes, including 88 homicides.  In 2007, homicides increased by 3 percent in the City of San Francisco, and the city experienced its highest homicide rate in a decade.  These crime rates are largely motivated by gangs. 11

9) Madera County, 11.39 per 100,000 

Gangs that are active in Madera county include: 

a. Nuestra Familia 12

b. Norteno 12c. Suerno 13

The major gangs in the Madera County area continue to be that of Hispanic origin. The majority of gang violence occurred between the Sureno and Norteno gangs; Norteno originally claiming northern California and Sureno originally claiming southern California. 13

10) Los Angeles County, 11.35 per 100,000

Los Angeles is home to the largest and most established gang population in the country, with over 400 separate gangs and an estimated 39,000 gang members.  In 2007, 216 people lost their lives to gang violence, while over 1,300 people were victims of gang-related shootings. 11  

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG

secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com

The Top 20 Obama Gaffes The Press Would Like You To Forget

Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)

1. Gangs- Youth at Risk

2 Monterey County's Comprehensive Violence Prevention, Intervention, Suppression and Reentry Framework Report

3. Alameda County Probation Department 

4. oaklandcityattorney.org

5. Stockton Police Department

6. Gang Summit Tulare County Sheriff's Department Street Crimes Division

7. Merced Multi-Agency Gang Task Force 

8. Gang Awareness- Sgt Roger Wilson- Contra Costa Sheriff's Office

9. Youth in Gangs: Who Is at Risk?

10. Office of the District Attorney- Multi-Agency Enforcement Consortium

11. Governor's Office of Gang And Youth Violence Policy

12. Sacramento Bee 01/09/2011

13. Madera County Gang Enforcement Task Force

Oregon Sheriffs Must Issue Concealed Gun Permits To Medical Marijuana Users...And Why They Have To

   

Anti- gun rights Sheriffs in Washington and Jackson County, Oregon, in their infinite wisdom,  denied Concealed Handgun Permits to their county residents who possessed state medical marijuana cards. And the ensuing losing Court battle by these County bureaucrats over this decision cost Oregon taxpayers a ton of money. These residents had complied with all of the legal requirements for a permit, but admitted to being regular users of medical marijuana. When the people who were denied permits sued the Sheriffs, the determined Sheriffs answered that the state’s concealed permit laws were preempted by federal law against possession of firearms by people who are “unlawful” users of controlled substances. 

The Sheriffs believed that the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 applied in this circumstance and that Oregon law was preempted by the Federal Gun Control Statute. The state courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the Sheriffs got it wrong, and that permits should have been issued. But the anti-firearms rights sheriffs took their case to the United States Supreme Court, hoping that the country’s highest court would overturn the Oregon Courts’ decisions.

After a long legal battle went through 3 different levels of Oregon’s state courts, each a successively higher Court, the anti-gun rights Sheriffs lost. The Oregon Supreme Court used "common sense" that Anti -Gun rights groups often refer to in shutting down the Sheriffs' arguments against gun rights. It ruled that the Gun Control Act of 1968 specifically renounced any intent of Congress to preempt state law unless the law is in “direct and positive” conflict with the Act. The GCA of 1968 makes it illegal for anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance to possess a firearm received in interstate commerce. However, Oregon's highest Court said that Federal Gun Control law does not apply the issuance of permits to medical marijuana users.

The Oregon State Courts’ reasoning was since the Sheriffs wanted to enforce the Federal policy of keeping guns out of the hands of users of medical marijuana by using the state licensing system, that they had problems they could not overcome. 

First, up to this time, there is the fact that Congress has not enacted any law that requires denial of a Concealed Pistol Permit as a way to enforce federal policy underlying the GCA of 1968. 

And, secondly, under the Oregon law, the state concealed permit statute itself shows an underlying  policy of not using the state’s Concealed Handgun Permit licensing mechanism to keep firearms out of the hands of medical marijuana users.

However, in the end the Sheriffs lost because the United States Supreme Court refused to hear the Sheriffs’ appeal. That has the effect of agreeing that the Oregon Courts got it right, and that the Sheriffs should have issued the carry permits. All Oregon Sheriffs now have to either issue or renew permits to all who comply with legal concealed carry requirements in Oregon.


VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG: secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com

The Top 20 Obama Gaffes The Press Would Like You To Forget