The 2nd Amendment survives another challenge.

Judge Rules California Ban on High-Capacity Ammo Magazines 'Unconstitutional'

Big Banking is reconsidering their radical rules against gun ownership. Will they start lending funds to gun manufacturing, again?

NEW YORK, April 13 (Reuters) - Wells Fargo & Co believes the U.S. government, rather than banks, should set rules to promote gun safety, its finance chief said on Friday. 

The No. 3 U.S. lender has been talking to customers who legally manufacture firearms, but is “not currently setting policy, , , , ,  

So I can carry a gun outside my home, in my yard? Ninth Circuit says YES.

 A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Tuesday that restricting the open carry of firearms to police and security-related personnel infringes

Seattle is under fire from the NRA, but is this a fair criticism?

Judge for yourself.  Frankly,  I don't see the problem:  

A gun owner must come to a police station or file a report quickly when a firearm is lost, stolen or used improperly by someone else. Failure to report a gun theft, loss or misuse could result in civil penalties.
Gun owners could be fined up to

Obama is forced to surrender his most recent executive push to ban guns. How many failed ideas is this?

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Special Advisory

Public Affairs Division – Washington, DC

March 10, 2015

Contact: Public Affairs Division
www.atf.gov

Notice to those Commenting on the Armor Piercing Ammunition Exemption Framework

Thank you for your interest in ATF's proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable.

Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.

###

So, who is the national/domestic threat, Right Wing nuts or liberal do-gooders? The truth will set you free.

32 share strong reader interest Sensible Gun Control I'm Beginning to Really Like This Guy! Sensible Gun Control This explains why there has been no attempt on Mr. Obama!  Gun Control that makes sense.  Great Idea!  Why didn't I think of this? In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States. In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States  who later died from the wound. In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States. In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States. In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States. In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant. In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office. In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office. In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria. In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory. In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service. In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US. In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant. In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech. In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others. In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people. In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis. In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school. As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard. One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.  Not one NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved in these shootings and murders. SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns. Best idea I've heard to date.

NY Law limiting 10 round ammo clips to 7 rounds, is deemed "unconstitutional" by judge in New York State.

The article below was found at Guns.com.  No other major Marxist Media outlet carried the story.  Oh,  the story is plenty "news worthy,"  just not the kind of news the MM thinks you have the right to know . . . .  and they determine what you have the right to know.    

Guns.com

A municipal court judge in New York ruled Wednesday that Paul Wojdan’s rights were violated when police counted the number of rounds in his handgun and then charged him with violations under the SAFE Act.

Lockport City Judge William Watson dropped misdemeanor charges against Wojdan, which stemmed from an October 2013 encounter with Lockport Police officers.

At a traffic stop Wojdan was found to have 10 rounds in the magazine of his legally owned pistol, in violation of the SAFE Act’s arbitrary seven-round limit.

Between the time that Wojdan was arrested and his court date this week, a Federal Judge ruled that New York’s seven-round limit was unconstitutional.

Wojdan was a passenger in a car driven by his wife that was stopped on suspicion of speeding. During the stop, when asked if he had any weapons, Wojdan advised officers that there was a loaded Ruger 9mm semi-automatic handgun in the car, inside a holster in the glove compartment.

Wojdan, 26, is a licensed pistol permit holder and the gun was legally obtained. To verify the serial number on the handgun, Lockport Police Officers Daniel Barrancotta and Adam Piedmont unloaded it.

Obama has lost his political advantage after winning the past election. What does this mean for those who are desperately swimming toward safety before the undertow takes them all out to sea ?

This may come as a surprise to some of you,  but the running gun battle that Obama has decided works to his advantage,  has backfired on him,  putting all that he hoped to do  -  what I call his “incidental agenda” – on the ropes.  And I say “incidental”  for this reason:  gun control,  as an example,  is only a populace phenom,  drawing its energy from the sad circumstance at Sandy Hook Elementary.  Before Sandy Hook,  Obama had a “F” rating from the anti-gun lobby and the Brady Campaign,  an “F” that included his non-stance on any kind of weapons ban and/or background checks, universal or otherwise.  He didn't support any of this.   But Sandy Hook happened,  and Obama immediately politicized the event.  As time has dragged on,  however,  his once strong popular opinion on gun control,  has evaporated.  In this event,  his losing effort (to date) with gun control,  Obama is dealing with a negative “spin off”  as to public opinion on his handling of the economy and his continued support of ObamaCare.  Good news for the hapless GOP.  If current trends continue,  popular opinion might give the GOP an advantage with the midterm elections,  just a little over 18 months from now.    

Understand that the economy continues to be stuck on or at “zero”  with no real change in sight before the coming elections.  Further,  nearly all of ObamaCare’s negatives will have come to the light,  as well,  during the months remaining before November of 2014.  The Democrats loaded the cheap benefits of this program,  at the front of its legislative effect:  covering pre-existing health problems (which are being limited according to recent news releases) ,  adding 2 years to the insurance age of children (from 22 to 24  - whoopty do), and,  insuring the fantasy that you will be able to keep your doctor of choice  (we all now understand that this is not true).  All the “good stuff” in ObamaCare  has already happened.  What is left,  is the ugly truth (not yet fully known or written)  and the effect of ObamaCare tax after tax after tax  -  700 billion dollars in new taxes effecting everyone from the poor working class,  to well-to-do middle class and the rich.  Unless repealed,  this law,  all by its lonesome,  will change this nation’s work dynamic.  We are being told that within the decade,  40 percent of all jobs will be free lance, including the self employed and/or  part-time.  Add to this fact, the reality that another 15% will move into the underground economy,  thus avoiding taxes they cannot afford to pay,  and you have a very new "work dynamic" that results in a lower standard of living in perpetuity, for more than half the nation's population  and a loss of tax/revenues that cannot be replaced without doing more damage to an economy that is not advanced via ever increasing taxation.  

The tide has changed for Obama.  Since we all are adrift in the same sea of circumstance,  will this changing tide take us all down before we see and move to change what is happening?  

You can be an anonymous gun owner, legally. Here is how this works.

My son-in-law recently had two of his long guns stolen from his vehicle.  “Ja” is a dairyman.  He reported the theft, of course,  and contacted appropriate state officials,  only to find that no record remained for his registered guns.  What follows in this post, is the rest of the story.

****** 

 Daniel Strauss / The Hill: 

Kirk and Manchin don't support Schumer background-check proposal

Discussion: Politico, The Hill and CNN

All that talk with so little comparative support.  I don’t know about you all,  but I think all this panic talk about getting rid of guns is just that,  so much talk,  destined [perhaps] for the rather large bone pile the Harry Reid Senate  has managed to gather, over the past four years.  The defection of Democrats Kirk and Manchin just might be the final blow for a national register.  Time will tell. 

The Case for Creating  Anonymity As A Gun Owner

I own a hand gun,  a semi-automatic rifle,  and two shotguns.  All are registered.  Paperwork for the long guns,  while filed in due time,  no longer exist, however.  Turns out that in the State of California,  such paperwork is destroyed within six months of their receipt,  as a matter of course. 

If you live in California and have registered long guns purchased more than six months ago,  no one knows you own them.  It brings peace to this old man to know that the government simply cannot do a good of record keeping when it has to deal 300 million guns (in this case), and, so,  in this circumstance,  they don't even try.    

The handgun ,  a Glock 19,  is a different matter.  But,  here in California,  you can report your gun as stolen.  Currently,  it is not required by law that you report the return of that gun, which means that your gun can be officially “off record” but,  if used,  sometime after the report,  you are legal.  

The point being that you can work the system to your advantage,  as a gun owner.  When time comes to confiscate your weapons,  no one really knows who owns these guns,  if due diligence is given to remaining legally anonymous.  

My advice:  talk to a local knowledgeable gun dealer.  It is likely that she will know the law.  Understand that none of this information is readily available in the media . . . . . . . . .  they don’t want you to know.  

A California school district has purchased 14 AR - 15 rifles, intended for use should they ever be needed to defend school aged children in the district.

Here in California, the Fontana Unified School District and its city police department have purchased 14 AR-15 semi-automatic rifles.  The purchase(s) is in response to concerns parents have about the safety of their children,  while at school.

The rifles have been brought onto the school’s campus and are being kept in a gun safe,  intended for police use, should they be called to the school in the event of a shooting. 

Understand that all but one mass shootings,  since 1950,  have occurred in “gun free zones.”  The only exception is the Gabby Gifford shooting,  which took place in an Arizona shopping mall’s parking lot. 

Columbine took place in 1999,  five years into Bill Clinton’s “assault weapon’s” ban,  which sunsetted in 2004,  proving,  of course, that laws bind only the law abiding.  Criminals do not give a care  -  that is what is wrong with an assault weapons ban.  

The first and most tragic mass killing on a school campus,  in American history,  was in 1927.  38 students were killed along with a number of adults,  when an angry father,  planted a number of bombs in an elementary campus and used his car as a suicide car bomb  -  the first such “car bomb” in history,  American or otherwise. No guns were used. 

Parents and pundits opposing the Fontana decision,  argue that “more guns will not prevent tragedies such as Sandy Hook Elementary.”  They are right,  of course,  but the presence of guns as a defense against such disasters,  does reduce such occurrences.  Sandy Hook,  for example,  was the only school out of 6 in the area,  that advertised its “gun free zone.”   The Aurora, Colorado theater shooting,  took place in the only theater out of 7,  that posted a “no carry permitted weapons allowed” on its building.  The shooter knew that the likelihood of armed resistance was far less in his theater of choice,  than in the other local movie houses.  

Hopefully,  the unreasoned hysteria on the Left,  will settle down, allowing for sensible solutions to prevail.  Exciting mob rule,  should never be the resolve of leadership.  Governor Cuomo's recent rant,  a hysterical effort to incite passion over reason,  is an example of such leadership failings.  

Two factors,  other than the use of guns,  are common to all of the more recent mass killings.  The perpetrators were all heavy duty video gamers,  young men who wasted hundreds of hours playing some of the most violent games,  imaginable.  And,  secondly,  they suffered from a pronounced level of mental illness.  

We have not taken a step forward,  in dealing with the current distress,  if these two circumstances have not been addressed. 

There is nothing in these 23 "executive orders" that is either not being implement now, by the states, or is in the least "controversial." Most Importantly, he did not move to circumvent congress.

As a member of the NRA and teaparty confessor,  I believe we should coop these "orders"  and lead the way in their implementation.  None of them limit our rights or necessarily serve as cause of concern.  

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.  

Note: there are limits to the passage of information to the Federal Government written into ObamaCare at the request of the NRA and entered into the text of the bill by none other than Hapless Harry Reid.  Obama wants to get rid of this barrier,  but such may not happen without House partnership,  something that currently is not in the cards.  

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.  

Question:  a guise for sending more aid to states in financial trouble?  

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Notes: the cops do not have this ability, now ??

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

Note:  good grief,  the ATF does not know how to do this, now ???

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

Note:  responsible states are already doing this.  

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

Note: this will take about 15 minutes. 

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

Note: cops need to be told to "get busy tracking down owners of guns used in crimes"  ????????

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

Note:  let me be sure I have this right.  Obama just ordered himself to make an appointment that should have been done some time ago  --  an Executive Order to himself???    Geeeesh. 

12. Provide law enforcement, first-responders, and school officials with proper  training for active shooter situations.

Note:  folks,  we are just being silly,  here.  This is already being done.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

Note:  this is a meaningless point in view of the fact that law enforcement does not need "maximization"  does it?

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

Note: if he is talking about mental health issues,  great. Mark Levine believes this is an illegal function.  

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.  

Note:  Great !!

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

Note: neither does ObamaCare order doctors to do so on pain of prosecution.   

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

Note:  I believe this includes "armed and trained resource officers."  

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

Note:  health officials had better know these things,  already.  Again,  just words to fill up paper space. 

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

Note: what do health benefits in ObamaCare and its state exchanges have to do with gun control??  Obviously,  Obama believes that ObamaCare is much more than health care.  

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

Note:  didn't he just order this?

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

Note:  anyone bet this is never happen?  

Sadly,  no mention of increasing penalties for the use of guns during a crime.
Sadly,  not a hint of concern for black on black violence or the growing plague of terrorist groups we lovingly call "gangs."    

Sadly,  no mention of the impact of violent "gaming" on the psychic of our youth.  

Our survey shows that 80 million Americans are happy to be gun owners and they all vote. Gallup sees only 38% of Americans as pro-gun restrictions.

 In the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings, and as Vice President Joe Biden leads a federal task force that will recommend ways to curb gun violence in the U.S., 38% of Americans are dissatisfied with the nation’s gun laws and want them strengthened. This is up from 25% who held this set of views a year ago, and is the highest since 2001. Still, more Americans are either satisfied with current gun laws, 43%, or think they should be loosened, 5%.

These findings are based on two questions in Gallup’s annual Mood of the Nation survey, conducted Jan. 7-10. The first asks respondents if they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the nation’s laws or policies on guns. Those saying they are dissatisfied are asked a follow-up question to determine whether they think the laws should be made more strict, made less strict, or kept as they are. As a result, the 38% who are dissatisfied and want stricter gun laws indicates not only a preference for stricter gun laws but a certain amount of intensity of feeling on the subject.  (Source:  Gallup).  

Editor's notes:  understand that American's remain satisfied with where they are with current gun laws,  in spite of the fact that this number has decreased somewhat,  over the past month.  In plain language,  48 % of Americans are "satisfied" while 38% are not.  Clearly,  there is no mandate for what is about come out of the White House.  

Personally,  this editor  (that would be me) does not think that the hoped for ban of ammo and guns will amount to much.  80 million Americans own guns,  and 99% of them are voters who are [obviously] satisfied with their position on guns.  This is not a winning issue at election time - and most on the Democrat side already know this.  

Hopefully,  the GOP will lead the way to reasonable solutions as to gun violence.  Violating the US Constitution is not one of those solutions,  however. 

The question remains, if Joe shot Margaret, why would Peter want to take Bill’s gun away . . . . forever?

Last week,  Judge Jeanine of Fox News,  sent reporters to the homes of staffers and editors of the  Journal News,  the Progressive newspaper that decided gun ownership was the problem at Sandy Hook Elementary.  When reporters arrived,  they found armed guards at the homes of the Journal employees.  The hypocrisy,  in this, is the fact that the women who run the Journal News believe that all guns should be banned. 

During her video conversation,  the judge observes that in her 30 years of service,  she remembers only one incident of  gun violence committed by a legally owned gun.  The fact of the matter remains this,  the 80 million American gun owners across the land,  have had nothing to do with any mass killing,  much less Sandy Hook.  For the anti-gun cabal to go after these people indicates the existence of a hidden agenda.  The question remains,  if Joe shot Margaret,  why would Peter want to take Bill’s gun away . . . . forever? 

And Dems think they are more intelligent than conservatives.  Geeeesh.