Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens continues his "Feed My Ego" tour and continues to attack the individual right to keep and bear arms established in Heller and reaffirmed in McDonald. I can't think of any case where a retired Justice campaigned against and individual right from the Bill of Rights. These are dangerous times for those who love liberty. This is not surprising as Stevens voted against First Amendment rights in the flag-burning cases (Texas v. Johnson and U.S. v. Eichman) and Citizen's United. More left-wing authoritarianism on display.
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Second Amendment. Show all posts
A partial Second Amendment victory
Another federal judge has had the courage and intelligence to see that the word "bear" in the Second Amendment means "carry or possess" outside the home. However, the defendant ultimately lost the case as the court held that there was sufficient justification for the law. (scroll down at the link 2/7/12)
9-1-1 Is a Joke in Detroit: Why people need the Second Amendment
Calling 9-1-1 in Detroit is a joke. Justifiable homicides by citizens have skyrocketed. These folks really need the Second Amendment. However, I reject the use of the pejorative term "vigilante." Vigilantism implies unlawful activity. Justifiable homicide is lawful in every state and under federal law. Thanks to Bennett Jones for the link
Show your support for 2nd Amend rights. Support Starbuck!
Pass this on to all. We need to flood them with pro-carry customers.
Just when you thought that the anti-gun zealots had gone into hibernation. Now they want to boycott Starbucks for (horrors) allowing YOU to legally carry a gun in their stores.
We strongly urge you to support Starbucks by stopping by on Valentines Day - and make sure to tell them that you came in to support their pro-self-defense policy. And pass this on.
John Caile
redstate.com
Starbucks' "Pro-Gun" Policy Prompts Gun Victims' Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine's Day 2012
Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2012
CHICAGO, Jan. 23, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine's Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.
WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). Starbucks' compliance with the National Rifle Association's Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles.
To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores. [But NOT in Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, Wells Fargo, US Bank, and hundreds of other large retailers and service providers as well as millions of smaller businesses.]
"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England's gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England's gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry."
Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, "Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA's lethal pro-gun agenda damages its 'socially conscious company' brand. Further," adds Fineman, "Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow."
According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.
Just when you thought that the anti-gun zealots had gone into hibernation. Now they want to boycott Starbucks for (horrors) allowing YOU to legally carry a gun in their stores.
We strongly urge you to support Starbucks by stopping by on Valentines Day - and make sure to tell them that you came in to support their pro-self-defense policy. And pass this on.
John Caile
redstate.com
Starbucks' "Pro-Gun" Policy Prompts Gun Victims' Advocate Group to Launch Nationwide Boycott on Valentine's Day 2012
Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2012
CHICAGO, Jan. 23, 2012 -- /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine's Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.
This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.
WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states). Starbucks' compliance with the National Rifle Association's Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles.
To protect their customers and employees, all of the retail chains—except for Starbucks— banned guns from being carried in their stores. [But NOT in Sears, Wal-Mart, Target, K-Mart, Lowes, Home Depot, Wells Fargo, US Bank, and hundreds of other large retailers and service providers as well as millions of smaller businesses.]
"Starbucks allowing guns to be carried in thousands of their stores significantly increases everyone's risk of being a victim of gun violence," says Elliot Fineman, CEO of the NGAC. "Open and conceal and carry are among the reasons there are 12,000 gun homicides each year in the U.S. If we had England's gun laws we would expect 375 gun homicides each year—97% less than we have. England's gun laws are based on protecting public safety, ours on maximizing sales for the gun industry."
Starbucks has the legal right to ban guns but despite having been petitioned by thousands, asked at a shareholder meeting, and a direct appeal made to their Board, Starbucks clings to this policy that puts millions of Americans at risk every day and encourages the spread of guns being carried in public.
IMPACT OF STARBUCKS BOYCOTT: Fineman says, "Starbucks steadfast support of the NRA's lethal pro-gun agenda damages its 'socially conscious company' brand. Further," adds Fineman, "Monte Carlo Simulation risk analysis indicates that 90% of the time, our boycott will reduce Starbucks stock price by an amount no rational company would allow."
According to NGAC, the boycott will end when Starbucks rejects the NRA's Pro-Gun agenda by banning all guns from their stores and committing to be an Aggressive Corporate Advocate for sane gun laws.
Most recent Second Amendment decision
In a case Dubbed Heller II,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the District's stringent post-Heller new gun laws. One Justice dissented. The majority refused to use strict scrutiny or any test with any teeth. The Court used a "reasonably related" to an "important governmental interest." Under this test, Second Amendment rights are worth very little. The U.S. Supreme Court needs to take a Second Amendment case and settle this issue. For more on this, see this article from Reason magazine. The opinions are long but available in pdf
Passengers soon allowed Guns on Most Amtrak trains
The rules against guns on Amtrak trains will change Dec. 15. Another victory for the Second Amendment and freedom of choice! LINK
UT Austin tragedy--Attempted suicide-by-cop?
This tragedy was all over the headlines, so no need for a blogger to comment immediately. This tragedy will obviously stimulate lots of debate over gun control. Unfortunately, for many of the authoritarians in our society, it will not trigger debate over the scope of Second Amendment rights, the lack of an empirical case for gun control, etc. Many will post how they hate guns, etc., etc., etc. and call for more laws, but never get around to mentioning the supreme law of the land, the implausibility of the arguments that more guns = more crime, and that criminals and those with violent intentions will obey gun laws, etc.
Obviously, one cannot get a TX concealed carry permit for an AK-47, so whether or not the shooter had a concealed carry permit is not an issue. However, the TX legislature is starting to gear up and it will be an issue that I will be posting on in the future.
Finally, FWIW, at this point, it suggest to me that this tragedy may have started out as an attempted suicide-by-cop. It seems the shooter could have shot others if he really wanted to. It does not appear that hurting others was the motive. The fact that he ultimately shot himself suggests that his own death was the ultimate goal. However, why do it in a public place where there is sure to be an armed response by police unless he has the hope the police will shoot him. Perhaps the shooter changed his plan because he feared being taken alive and or just wounded which would defeat his wish to die. We may never know what triggered this tragic incident, but at this point, this seems a plausible theory. For some recent news on this see LINK.
Obviously, one cannot get a TX concealed carry permit for an AK-47, so whether or not the shooter had a concealed carry permit is not an issue. However, the TX legislature is starting to gear up and it will be an issue that I will be posting on in the future.
Finally, FWIW, at this point, it suggest to me that this tragedy may have started out as an attempted suicide-by-cop. It seems the shooter could have shot others if he really wanted to. It does not appear that hurting others was the motive. The fact that he ultimately shot himself suggests that his own death was the ultimate goal. However, why do it in a public place where there is sure to be an armed response by police unless he has the hope the police will shoot him. Perhaps the shooter changed his plan because he feared being taken alive and or just wounded which would defeat his wish to die. We may never know what triggered this tragic incident, but at this point, this seems a plausible theory. For some recent news on this see LINK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)