Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Stand Your Ground Law Is Not What We Are Being Told - Its A Pack Of Lies

What does Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law actually say self defense with deadly force really is? Stand your ground laws are being spun by politicians and anti gun rights groups to say that they create a license to kill. This assertion is not the truth anywhere in the US. They also say they should be eliminated. They say that  the laws should expressly say that the person using deadly force can’t be the aggressor. It already does that in Florida. Just read the actual aw below.

Those attacking the law as a license to kill have not read the law or are parroting those who are saying that is. It’s obvious that those who attack the law have not read it. It’s even more obvious that those making the claim against the law could care less whether what their claim is true or not. But, it makes good campaign rhetoric and fundraising for anti gun rights causes.

The Florida law is quite clear on the legal use of deadly use of force in self defense. It is concise, being just three short paragraphs long. It explicitly states when the law can be used and when it is no defense.

The only justification for deadly self defense there is that there must be a "reasonable belief" that the person using deadly force believes that there will be imminent death or great bodily harm if the other person is not stopped. If that “reasonable belief” is not present, then deadly force is expressly prohibited. And, if that is the case, then a crime has occurred if deadly force is used. The person can be charged with any relevant crime up to murder.

What other additions could be made to the law to make that fact more clear?

That “reasonable belief” is a rebuttable presumption. If the Prosecutor has evidence that the belief wasn’t present, it can be rebutted at the Courthouse.

This is the actual Florida “Stand Your Ground Law.”
Please see TadConfused Comment below for more clarification.

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand it.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Here's the thrust of 776.013, a separate section

"A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

Stand Your Ground and Churches stops criminals there too.

Churches in many states are “Gun Free” zones that are promoted by various anti gun rights groups across the country. But, in 2007, a madman who killed several people at a Colorado church was stopped by a non paid gun carrying security guard church member where her carry was allowed. The Colorado pastor credited her for saving many lives.

Anti gun rights proponents say that no one should be able to carry a firearm, concealed or not.  But, now another armed congregant, this time at a North Carolina church with a concealed handgun permit and with his handgun in the church, may have prevented mass slaughter.

A man who had previously been ranting at the church previously returned armed the second time. He was spotted after the initial visit in the parking lot while carrying a shotgun. The congregants had locked the door after seeing him heading toward the church.

State law there prohibits concealed permit holders from carrying inside a church there unless given permission by church officials. He got that permission after the man made his first visit to the church. The concealed permit holder held off on drawing his sidearm until the intruder kicked open the locked door. At that point, he drew his gun and pointed it at the shotgun wielding man. He was distracted enough for the pastor to grab the shotgun and disarm him, allowing churchgoers to subdue the man.

It’s alleged that the man’s sister gave him the shotgun and drove him to church. Both have been charged with various crimes.

And, here’s a Florida Stand Your ground case from this week.

In Florida, where stand your ground is being politicized, a grocery store employee killed gun carrying 16 year old Quintavius Moore during his failed robbery attempt. Police are investigating all the circumstances, but the female store employee likely will face no charges. This teenager will undoubtedly be counted in the anti gun statistics of “Children” killed by guns. 

Friday, March 23, 2012

Starbucks Boycotters Are Like Fleas Biting An Elephant

A fairly new anti firearms rights group that organized a boycott of Starbucks because of their neutral policy about firearms carry in their stores is claiming "success" of their “boycott” of the stores. The group’s leader claims that after just 5 weeks into the boycott, over 2,000 loyal, long term Starbucks customers have stopped spending money there. He said that each of the “boycotters” have cost the chain $71.00 per month, or about $142.000 per month.

Not too impressive because as of 2007, there were between 4  and 5 million daily customers frequenting Starbucks. That’s 33 million weekly customers. There are more now. But the "success" claim is only fodder for their fundraising website. 
  
But, what’s more telling is that Starbucks Annual report to stockholders reported sales revenue in 2011 of

$11.7 billion, with gross income of net income of $6.23 billion, and NET INCOME of $1.25 Billion.


The group’s leader says the “boycotters” are repulsed by Starbucks support of the “NRA’s Lethal Pro Gun Agenda” and that their effort has just begun.

The boycott has cost Starbucks essentially nothing.


Starbuck’s stock price on the day the so called “boycott” began on February 14, 2012 was $49.36 Their stock price as of 03/22/2012 was $54.91, a net increase of $5.55 per share.
 Who are these people trying to kid? 

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Fallacy Of Even Stricter Gun Control Laws



Click Image to Enlarge


There are frenzied calls for tightening gun laws again; however, do laws that are more restrictive than those we already have here actually put an end to firearms homicides when they are enacted?  The answer is simply, NO.

There are now at least 33 countries with the harsher gun laws that anti gun rights groups want here. Even with the strict laws that these groups want, their gun murder rates are astronomical compared to the United States.

For example, in South Africa, with a set of some of the most restrictive laws in the world, gun murders are almost ten times the rate here. But, on the other end of the gun control spectrum in Israel, a law abiding citizen can step into a government armory and take home a government owned fully automatic rifle. And, the firearms homicide rate there is miniscule.

These oppressive Gun laws in just ten countries with stratospheric firearms homicide rates shown below are a United States anti gun rights group’s dream.

These countries' laws include:
No guaranteed right to own or use a firearm;
Gun registration;
Background checks for purchases;
Licensing to buy or possess a gun or ammunition;
Proof of the “need” to own a gun;
Limits on the amount of guns and ammunition a person can own;
Records of the storage and movement of all firearms and ammunition under the owner’s control;
Records of all private sales;
Bans on private sales;
Ownership age requirements;
Types of firearms allowed;
Bans on certain semiautomatic “Black” firearms;
and 
“Gun Free Zones.”

Here’s a look at ten of those countries that are light years ahead of the US in firearms homicides and some of their failed gun laws that anti gun rights groups believe will work here. This is what happens when their anti gun goals are achieved.

Keep in mind that The US gun homicide rate was approximately 2.84 per 100,000 persons in 2010.

VENEZUELA
With a gun homicide rate of 54 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
This rate is a quadrupling since Hugo Chavez took control with “Tight” gun controls
No constitutional right to gun ownership
In Venezuela, only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
A background check is required which includes mental records
Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license every three years
Venezuelans can only own or possess shotguns and .22 caliber
Private possession of handguns is prohibited
No “Black” rifles allowed
Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm
National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm
The government has written regulations for lawful and safe storage of guns ammo ammo owned by licensees
No concealed carry in public areas
Eight years in prison for illegal gun possession

EL SALVADOR
With a gun homicide rate of 50.36 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership
In El Salvador, only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
A background check is required which includes mental records
Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license every three years for ownership and six years for possession
Central registry for gun licensees
May own up to 5 firearms
National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm


JAMAICA
With a gun homicide rate of 47.44 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership
Limit of 50 rounds of ammunition allowed per year
Private sale or transfer of firearms is prohibited
In Jamaica, only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess a firearm or ammo

Handgun ownership only with a license to own

A license background check is required which includes mental records

Knowledge of firearm safety and the law is tested – a class is required for a license

Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm
Central registry for gun licensees
National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm
Firearms dealer license required
The government has written regulations for lawful and safe storage of guns ammo owned by licensees

HONDURAS
With a gun homicide rate of 46.70 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership
In Honduras, only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license every four years
Central registry for gun licensees
May own up to 5 firearms
National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm

ST KITTS/NEVIS

With a gun homicide rate of 44.23 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership

National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm

Five to ten years in prison for illegal gun ownership

GUATEMALA
With a gun homicide rate of 38.52 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership
Only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license annually or every three years depending on type of license to own
A license background check is required which includes mental records
No military type or weapons of war
Semi automatic rifles allowed by permit only
Handgun possession by permit only
Ammunition limits are 250 for a carry license and 250 for a possession license
National registry for possession, ownership, and  transfer of every privately owned firearm
The government has written regulations for lawful and safe storage of guns ammo ammo owned by licensees

15 years in prison for a prohibited type of firearm and 8 -10 for other illegal possession


COLOMBIA

With a gun homicide rate of 31.71 per 100,000 in the latest reporting year

Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm
Only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

A license background check is required which includes mental records

Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license every ten years for firearms kept at the home or property, One year for restricted firearms, three years for self defense guns

No handguns over .38

No semiautomatic firearms over.22

No infrared or laser sights

National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm
The government has written regulations for lawful and safe storage of guns ammo ammo owned by licensees

Gun Free Zones

15 years in prison for illegal possession of firearms

 SOUTH AFRICA

With a gun homicide rate of 26.63 per 100,000 in the latest reporting year

Only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm
Recent license rejection reasons there:
“You failed to provide any substantive and or adequate reasons in order to proof that a need exist to possess the particular firearm and that the need cannot be satisfied by any other means than possessing the said firearm.”
“You failed to provide any supplementary documentation in support of your motivation.”
“You failed to convince the Registrar that there exist circumstances or reasons that necessitate the possession of the firearm.”

People who apply for firearm licenses will, have to undergo a competency test - involving a basic training course at an accredited training institution and a background assessment by the SA Police Service (SAPS).
The SAPS will issue competency certificates to successful applicants, who will then be entitled to own firearms.

One self defense firearm
Four other firearms for sporting or hunting uses
Police interview three acquaintances before deciding competency to own a gun
Must install a safe or strongbox that meets police specifications for gun storage .

 

BAHAMAS

With a gun homicide rate of 22.2 per 100,000 in the latest reporting year

No constitutional right to gun ownership

“Black” rifles with permit only

Only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Licenses will state the quantity and type of ammunition that can be possessed
Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm

A license background check is required which includes mental and addiction records

Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license annually

No private gun sales

5 years prison + $10,000 fine for illegal possession


BELIZE
With a gun homicide rate of 15.31 per 100,000 in latest reporting year
No constitutional right to gun ownership
In Belize, only licensed gun owners may legally own, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition – the license states the number of guns that can be owned
Gun owners must apply and re-qualify for their firearm ownership license every year

A license background check is required which includes medical and mental records

Firearms applicants must provide a “genuine” reason to have a firearm

No “black” rifles or other semi automatic firearms, including shotguns

Handguns with license but nothing over 9mm or .38

No rifles larger than 7.62mm

No “extended” handgun magazines

National registry for possession and transfer of every privately owned firearm
The government has written regulations for lawful and safe storage of guns ammo ammo owned by licensees

Five years in prison for first offense of illegal weapons and seven years for subsequent violations

 


Friday, March 9, 2012

Open Carry Makes You As Dangerous as John Wilkes Booth, Tim McVeigh, Sharon Angle, and Ted Nugent?

A well publicized anti firearms rights advocate wrote last week that those who openly carry firearms make a political statement just like John Wilkes Booth, Timothy McVey, Sharon Angle, and Ted Nugent. What? They are like a Presidential assassin, a mass murderer, a female Nevada politician, and a rock star/hunter?

This isn’t a fringe concept. This is mainstream liberalism. This is why gun sales have begun to soar again just like before the 2008 election of Barack Obama. All of this was over a man who was legally openly carrying.

A  Michigan Concealed pistol permit holder walked into a polling place to vote in Michigan’s primary while he carried a holstered handgun. That polling place was located in a school. That’s legal in the State of Michigan. The County Prosecutor said that he was within his rights, but used poor judgment. He was asked to leave immediately after voting.

On one hand, no one can determine when he or she will be a victim of a crime. No one knows if a person will walk into an otherwise “gun free” zone and into the middle of an ongoing crime scene. On the other hand, open carry is not as common in Michigan as it is in a state like Arizona. It seems like guns carried openly are seen almost everywhere in Arizona. It’s safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Michigan residents have no idea whatsoever that openly carrying a firearm is legal there. And, that’s where the problem lies.

Nonetheless, Michigan school officials are required to contact local law enforcement anytime a person with a gun enters a school building. He was detained in the school’s office while police verified that he had a CPL. Then he was released.

A Philadelphia man recently was detained by Police there three times for legally carrying a sidearm there. The observations written here are not about the wisdom of open carry of firearms because many people carry openly. Others simply choose not to for their own reasons. In other places like Florida, its against the law. This is about a Michigan man who chose to legally carry openly and the consequences of that action.

This anti gun rights advocate voiced outrage on this open carry incident in his blog. He bemoaned that buying a firearm is easier to do than to vote. The man who entered the polling booth has demanded an apology, and he has hired an attorney to possibly file a lawsuit. He says that his rights were violated.

The anti gun rights advocate was stunned that the man was able to carry a gun into a school, that he has “rights” to do so, and that he has the temerity to threaten lawsuit. And, he is outraged that the Kent County, Michigan resident wants an apology. Of, course, this anti gun rights proponent claims that no one has a right “to carry firearms wherever and whenever one wants." But in the real world, one can carry “wherever and whenever” the law allows as is the case in Michigan. He also complains that just about every state that allows open carry has “liberal” gun laws.

His primary beef, aside from your having any gun rights, is the carrying of a firearm into a polling place at a school. As noted earlier, that’s a legal act in Michigan. He says that carry into a polling place at a school is intimidation of voters. He claims that the act says, “I wear a gun; therefore, you must vote by my rules.”
No, voter intimidation is the Black Panthers carrying baseball bats and actually threatening and turning away would be voters outside a polling place in Philadelphia during the 2008 elections, an action defended by radical Black Panther leaders.   

He parroted Virginia State Senator Janet Howell, who said that it was going to be “harder to vote that buy a gun” after Virginia worked on a “voter suppression” law that requires identification, even photo identification in some states to vote, and when the state canned its one handgun per month law. Even Unions require identification to vote in Union elections, but that’s an entirely different subject for that hypocrite.

His rant then turned to private firearms sales at gun shows without background checks and with no identification. It appears that he would be happier if voters underwent background checks before voting too. Then, he went absolutely ballistic when he stated that some states are considering showing a valid resident concealed weapons permit as a valid voter identification.
These permit holders would have actually undergone a background check if they decided to use that form of identification.

He was extremely agitated that a gun owner tweeted his organization that “votes are more dangerous than guns.” The 2008 elections showed the truth of that statement.  

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG
secondamendmentfreedom.blogspot.com

Philadelphia Police Unmercifully Persecute Gun Owner For Just Obeying The Law



Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Obama's Latest Fundraising Email Spins His Attack On Freedom Of Religion Into a Positive

 Here's how Obama is spinning his attack on religious beliefs of millions into an "assault on women's healthcare." He says Republicans are ready to take us back to the "Dark Ages." What does Obama not understand about the First Amendment Freedom of Religion? What ever happened to the Separation of Church and State? It apparently only works in one direction, his direction.  

Here's their fund raising email that hit the email
in boxes today.


Obama - Biden
Friend --

We now know for certain that, no matter who the Republican nominee is, we're not only up against the same economic policies that helped create the worst economic crisis in our lifetime.

We're also up against a set of rigid social policies that would take us back almost a century.

What we've seen over the past few days is nothing short of terrifying We're facing an all-out attack on women's health care, and now is the time to pitch in and fight it.   

The leading Republican candidates for president embraced a bill that would allow any employer to deny any employee coverage for contraception -- or any other medical service they personally object to.

And when one young woman spoke up about that bill's very real health risks, she was crudely and viciously attacked by their allies. Not a single one of the leading Republican candidates stood up for her.

There are 450 other state bills where this one came from.

This issue isn't going anywhere.

So if you want to make sure our next president isn't someone who wants to take us back to the Dark Ages and actually thinks a woman's access to health care is debatable, then it's time to take action and help build the campaign that's fighting back.

(Here's where they asked for a contribution.)
Thanks,

Stephanie

Stephanie Cutter
Deputy Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Anti Gun Group Loses Again- Believes No Guns Policies And Signs On Campus Save Lives

website_profile_pic


The Brady Anti Gun Rights Campaign has ramped up its opposition to firearms on college campuses again after  yet another defeat in the Courtroom. This comes after the Colorado Supreme Court held that the University of Colorado had limited power to ban guns on campus after the State passed a concealed carry law.  A Colorado lower Court Judge upheld the ban but he was reversed by the State's highest Court. 

The new President of the organization said, "This is a dangerous ruling. Lives have the potential to be lost as  a result. We urge parents, students, and faculty to demand that the University do all it can to keep guns off campus and prevail on their elected officials to reverse this ruling.  The University of Oregon has reinstated its gun ban despite a similar court ruling. The Brady Center will help the University of Colorado work to keep young people safe from guns. As last week's tragedy in Ohio reminded us all, nothing is more important." 


That murdering student was not stopped from coming to a "gun free" Ohio school with a gun and killing people even though there was a school policy and laws against bringing guns to campus. Let alone being stopped by laws against murder. 

This group's naive response to the Court's ruling is actually what is dangerous. Yes, lives do have the potential to be lost when helpless victims cannot fight back. This anti gun organization looks you straight in the eye when they say, "We urge parents, students, and faculty to demand that the University do all it can to keep guns off campus." They have already done that with a "no guns" policy and laws that has never worked anywhere when a crazed lunatic enters the campus to kill. There is nothing that anyone can do to stop a demented killer from murdering the defenseless except to fight back. 

There are no instances that they, or any other anti gun rights group can cite that prove that a "no guns on the premises" policy has ever worked. The names of Cho Seung Ho who left 33 dead and Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold with 15 dead come immediately to mind. We can point to the Appalachian School of Law, where a couple of students armed themselves and shot and killed a student who had already killed three people on campus and was preparing to kill more. 

God forbid that any of the students or faculty members who were victims at Virginia Tech, or any of the staff at Columbine, or at any other mass school shooting would have been armed and able to fight back. Someone could have been hurt.  


Although this is a private organization, this anti gun rights group's activities reminds us of the the activities of many government bureaucracies, agencies, and assorted other commissions whose only justification for existence is to create new and needless regulation. If they do not continually generate junk, then they cannot justify their continued existence. That's why some 6,000 new medical regulations have just been instituted by the Feds. This Colorado ruling does not institute carry at campuses there. It allows the "Students for Concealed Carry" lawsuit against the University of Colorado to be reinstated and continue to proceed against the University.

Here's their press release. 

###
EDIAPRESS RELEASE
Brady President Dan Gross: Parents, Students, and Faculty Must Demand That Campuses Remain Safe From Guns
Mar 5, 2012
Washington, D.C. – Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center, issued the following statement today on the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling that the University of Colorado became limited in its authority to bar guns on campus after the Colorado legislature passed a statewide concealed carry law.

The ruling does not immediately overturn the University’s guns on campus ban, but allows Students for Concealed Carry to proceed with their claim against the University.
“This is a dangerous ruling. Lives have the potential to be lost as  a result. We urge parents, students, and faculty to demand that the University do all it can to keep guns off campus and prevail on their elected officials to reverse this ruling.  The University of Oregon has reinstated its gun ban despite a similar court ruling. The Brady Center will help the University of Colorado work to keep young people safe from guns. As last week's tragedy in Ohio reminded us all, nothing is more important." 

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed an amicus brief urging the Court to overturn an April 2010 Colorado appeals court ruling allowing a lawsuit that seeks concealed guns on campus to proceed.  In 2009, El Paso County District Court Judge G. David Miller had upheld the ban on guns on campus, noting that the University Regents had determined that having guns on campus “threatens the tranquility of the education environment and contributes in an offensive manner to an unacceptable climate of violence.”

Attorneys with the Brady Center's Legal Action Project and Edward Ramey of the Denver law firm of Heizer Paul Grueskin LLP represented the Brady Center.  Other groups joining the Brady Center on the brief were the Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund and the Greater Denver Million Mom March.
                                                                          ###