Conservative Rumblings

I wonder how many of the people in this Burger King were supporters of gun control?

And more importantly, I wonder how many changed their minds after a customer took matters into their own hands and took down the perpetrator.

An afternoon shootout at a busy Burger King restaurant in Miami left a potential robber dead and the customer who shot him seriously wounded.

The bloody event unfolded about 4 p.m. Tuesday at the restaurant at Northeast 54th Street and Biscayne Boulevard. It was a time, employees said, when it is usually crowded with schoolchildren and people getting out of work early.

The robber entered wearing a ski mask. He approached a clerk, showed his gun and demanded money, said Miami police spokesman Jeff Giordano. A customer eyed him and the two started arguing. The customer had a concealed-weapons permit and his gun — and the two exchanged gunfire.

The robber crumpled to the floor and was pronounced dead at the scene. The customer, with several gunshot wounds, was in serious but stable condition at Jackson Memorial Hospital’s Ryder Trauma Center.

Absolutely awesome. Major kudos to the customer who stood up to the criminal and possibly saved some lives in the process. As writer Robert A. Heinlein put it: “An armed society is a police society.”

Yesterday, I discussed a report that stated that Obama was rescinding a Federal pilot firearms program. Today, the Feds are denying the report and claiming that the program is actually growing.

Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.

In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that “President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.”

Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.

I stand corrected…on this issue. I still think Obama is going after our guns, all our guns, and he’s going to do it sooner rather than later.

Good call, Dear Leader. Let’s decide that we’re no longer at “war” with terrorists, let our guard down, and then disarm our pilots. I’m sure that’s going to be really successful. Unfortunately, that’s successful for the terrorists, not for us.

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

As the article states, Obama is catering to an extremely small segment of society (the radical anti-gun crowd) at the expense of the protection of the America public.

Illinois apparently didn’t want to get outdone by the grossly unconstitutional H.R. 45 bill proposed in the U.S. House, and thus Rep. Kenneth Dunkin (D) has brought this grotesque piece of garbage into existence.

Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

What does this mean? Basically, right now in Illinois we have to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification card that “allows” us the right to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. It’s quite nice of Illinois to allow us this privilege. Anyway.

This bill would require Illinois residents to own a million dollars of insurance on their guns, or get their FOID revoked. What is left unsaid is that if your FOID is revoked and you are in possession of a weapon, it’s a felony.

If the Democrats can’t take our guns by force, they will take our guns by proxy. This bill would make it so unbelievably expensive to own a gun that many gun owners would not be able to purchase the policy and would lose their “right” to own a weapon in Illinois. Of course, Illinois has no right to take the rights afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment, but why let a silly 200 year old document get in the way of progress?

Well, it didn’t take long. The Far Left Congress, seeing an avowed Constitution hater taking over the Oval Office, has introduced legislation to completely hamper law abiding citizens’ ability to own guns. Enter H.R. 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.

See the full text here: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/show

It’s really not surprising that Bobby Rush introduced this thing, given his radical stance on guns.

Our intrepid march toward socialism has been marked by government takeovers of banks, fear mongering by our chief executive in an effort to weaken the resolve of a people already much too reliant on the government, and now members of the House seek to strip away our ability to defend ourselves. As one of my favorite Twitter people is fond of saying, the 2nd Amendment exists in case the government forgets the other ones.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.

That situation, while tragic, could not be prevented by stricter gun laws. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals will still get their weapons if they want, and what gun control does is prevent those of us who can legally possess a weapon from defending ourselves.

(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;

Some other highlights of this bill include this gem, which allows the government to access your mental health records to determine if you are an acceptable choice for owning a weapon. But what is the criteria? First off, it’s none of their business, but second, who decides what kind of mental problems? How severe counts as unacceptable to them? What about when they add an amendment about physical issues? If you have a heart problem, would the government think that it’s bad for you to own a weapon? What if you are fine head-wise, but you’re on Obama’s political dissident list? This gives them far too much power and far too much subjectivity.

(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted

So, the bill calls for a thumbprint to be added to the ID card. Great idea, Bobby Rush. So now, the government can run the prints from any crime scene through the database and possibly catch you for a crime you did not commit. Let’s say you go to the Sack-o-Suds and buy 22 specific items off the shelf. You pay, you leave, and another man walks in and kill the clerk. The Fed runs the prints on the counter, finds yours and sees that you’re a gun owner, and hunts you down and arrests you.

That’s not a far-fetched scenario, folks. It’s like getting your face in a mug shot lineup; every person who pages through that book has a shot at accidentally fingering you, and the fingerprint is even worse, because literally any crime committed at any place you’ve ever been has a chance of catching you in the net.

(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–

This section goes on to detail this massive testing procedure involving gun law, firearms storage and a whole host of other insanity. The government can’t do this. We have a little thing called the 2nd Amendment, which reads something like this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Somehow, this sort of strikes me as “infringing.”

(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.

So much for States’ rights. Didn’t we fight a civil war about this sort of garbage not too long ago? It’s not within the rights of the Federal Government to enact overarching laws that strip away the rights provided to citizens through the Bill of Rights. That document wouldn’t be worth much if the government could strip it all away for no reason.

Giving medical records access to the government and allowing them to search your home means that this takes away your 4th Amendment rights whenever you try to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. It’s absurd, it’s unconstitutional and completely incomprehensible.

ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis city leader frustrated with the police response to rising crime called Tuesday on residents to arm themselves to protect their lives and property.

Alderman Charles Quincy Troupe said police are ineffective, outnumbered or don’t care about the increase in crime in his north St. Louis ward. St. Louis has had 157 homicides in 2008, 33 more than last year at this time.

“The community has to be ready to defend itself, because it’s clear the economy is going to get worse, and criminals are getting more bold,” Troupe, 72, said Tuesday.

Troupe said that when he and residents approached a district police commander last year, they were told “there was nothing he could do to protect us and the community … that he didn’t have the manpower.”

These are the sorts of alderman we need in Chicago. Of course, the police chief was complaining that he doesn’t support citizens arming themselves, but maybe if the police did their job it wouldn’t be necessary.

Thank God for the Second Amendment. It’ll be interesting to see how quickly Obama tries to repeal it.

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has, for the first time, leveled a ruling about guns and the 2nd. Amendment. Shockingly, given their recent history of decidely liberal interpretations of things, they have sided with gun owners and struck down the D.C. handgun ban.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense, the justices’ first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.

The court’s 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia’s 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most federal firearms restrictions intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is purely amazing and possibly the most important decision they have made since Roe v. Wade. A 4-5 ruling would have led to a bevy of restrictive gun laws being proposed across the country almost instantly. Kennedy, who is usually much maligned on this blog, sided with the conservatives. The liberals, as usual, were tools, especially Breyer:

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, “In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Scalia’s majority opinion:

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.

Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”

After hearing arguments on the 2nd. Amendment, it appears that a majority of the Supreme Court believe that gun ownership is a right and is not tied to service in a state militia.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the Districts of Columbia’s ban on handguns.

A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.

But it is less clear what that means for the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer said.

Thank god.

Updated:

The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives “a general right to bear arms.” He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.