Police Officer Escorted From Classroom at Darton State College © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Albany, GA WALB News 10 reported that a student who is a police officer that was in full uniform was escorted from a classroom at  Darton State College. 

The thorny issue that compelled the professor kick his student out was that he was armed with his duty pistol.

One might reasonably wonder why this made the professor uncomfortable:

1. The police officer being off-duty but still armed?
2. The police officer having a pistol in class?
3. The professor just gets the heebie jeebies at the sight of any firearm at all?

Regardless, all is supposed to be well and dandy with the professor now being straightened out on this "misunderstanding".

Interim Provost/VP for Academic & Student Affairs, Darton State College, Dr. Thomas Ormond has issued an apology:

"Darton State College is appreciative for the service of our law enforcement, and welcome them as students on our campus. We have apologized to the officer for our misunderstanding when he attended class on our campus, and we regret this happened. We have met with the faculty and staff involved to reiterate the Georgia Law and Darton Policy."

There are a few points I'd like to bring up:

1. Under Georgia state law, law-enforcement officers are exempt from any prohibition of weapons that might exist on school campuses per OCGA 16-11-130.

2. State preemption law regarding weapons was strengthened when HB 492 became law July 1st, 2015. This new law added school districts to the list of public entities that are forbidden to regulate the possession and carrying of weapons by any means, as this is a matter reserved to the General Assembly.

3. Kicking the officer out obviously violated point #2 above, especially since under point #1 above, the officer had the right to carry his firearm in class, and getting kicked out was certainly a means to regulate or prevent him from being armed in class.

It therefore appears that if the officer chose to sue for violation of his rights, he'd have an excellent chance to win. I personally don't believe he will sue. He is obviously a nice college kid - sorry, adult, who just wants to focus on his education.

Now that an apology has been issued, and it is clearly established that the officer may bring his gun to class, would he still be welcome there wearing street clothes? If so, he'd then look like your ordinary guy on the street who carries his holstered pistol in plain view. Sort of like me.

Should HB 859 become law this year, it would explicitly make it clear that any licensed-to-carry adult 21 and over may bring their pistol to class. 

Whether it is a sworn police officer or other licensed adult in class, that class would have a gun there possessed by a good guy/gal capable of repelling an armed criminal who's looking to murder multiple victims.

Campus Carry is exactly what is needed to keep students from being sitting ducks, who can only run and be shot in the back, or hide and be shot under a desk or table.

Birmingham, Alabama Home Invasion Ends Well © 2016 by Phillip Evans

http://www.trussvilletribune.com/2016/01/28/father-shoots-kills-burglary-suspect-who-broke-in-on-8-year-old/

Child was not really a "latch key kid". His dad was just running a few minutes late. Right after the boy got home, three men started to break in. He called police, then he called his dad, who was already on the way.

Dad got home first, found the men inside and opened fire. One was killed, the other two ran. Good work by the dad!

Sometimes the first responders are the ones without badges. I'd wager the dad never received police-style training, but he still got the job done right.

I wonder if Bloomberg's "Moms Demand Action" propaganda group will add the dead home invader to their list of "gun violence" victims.

Every time robbers break into someone's home when occupied, they need to face at least one armed defender.

If you don't have a gun yet, buy one. Learn how to use it. Be prepared to protect your loved ones at ANY time.

Get your carry license and be armed even in public. Bad guys attack you there, too.

Virginia Gets Back State Firearms Reciprocity - But at a Price © 2016 by Phillip Evans

 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/mcauliffe-to-restore-handgun-reciprocity-in-deal-with-republicans/2016/01/28/6f8c0240-c5d8-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html


"McAuliffe (D) agreed to legislation that says the state must recognize concealed-handgun permits from nearly all states — a reversal of Attorney General Mark R. Herring’s decision last month to sever the reciprocity rights of gun owners in 25 states.

In exchange, Republicans softened their stances on issues that have long been non-starters in the GOP-controlled General Assembly. Under the deal, the state would take guns away from anyone who was under a two-year protective order for domestic-violence offenses."
 

Just WOW! So, the Democraps take something away that was already well established, then give it back under the ransom that the Republicans agree to their gutting of due process.

Permanent protective orders in Virginia for domestic violence offenses do not require conviction of a crime in a court of law. Judges can issue them without solid evidence of a crime, and men in a divorce proceeding often have their wives lie in order to put the screws to them, or just to screw them - figuratively speaking, of course.

You actually get convicted of a domestic violence charge, federal law already makes you ineligible to own a  firearm. As long as you are not convicted of a crime, your rights are not to be up for grabs.

What else will spineless Republicans give up in order to get something back that the Democ-rats take away?

Democrats seem to be winning with this strategy in too many places. 

This is proof that just because someone calls himself a Republican does not mean he intends to stand up for liberty and the rule of law. Vote wisely.

Florida's House Judiciary Committee Debate of HB 163 Today - One Highlight © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Florida's House Judiciary Committee debated HB 163 today. Thought I'd post some comedy relief that occurred there, thanks to a Democrat that obviously voted against our Second Amendment rights.  See the video at the link below.

http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/VideoP...mmitteeID=2826

Starting at 18:30, Democrat Rep. Jared Evan Moskowitz starts harping about the new Texas open carry law being so vague as to allow rifles and "assault weapons" to be openly carried. I guess he didn't realize that open carry of these weapons in Texas had already been legal prior to their new law.

This is idiot indicator number one. 

Idiot indicator number two: Moskowitz asks Rep Gaetz whether Florida law addresses this issue. 

Rep. Gaetz explained in a nice way that if he had actually read HB 163 that he'd then know that the bill allows only for the open carry of pistols.

Are Democrats really this stupid, or do they just enjoy wasting time? The answer to both is, YES.

Anyway, it passed the committee and will see a House Floor Vote! :-)

Thank you Florida Carry, Florida Open Carry, and Judiciary members who voted for freedom! We are winning back lost ground, state by state!

Obama Lied To A Rape Survivor © 2016 by Phillip Evans

President Obama pontifically told Kimberly Corban in a propaganda event touted as a “CNN Gun Control Town Hall Meeting” that she'd be more likely to have her gun taken away and used against her.

In his answer to Ms. Corban, he stated, “What is true is you have to be pretty well trained in order to fire a weapon against somebody who is assaulting you and catches you by surprise, and what is also true is there is always the possibility that a firearm in a home leads to a tragic accident.” (Bold mine)

He then goes on to talk about background checks to prevent criminals from buying firearms. Not that criminals typically obtain their weapons where background checks are already required to be performed, such as from dealers at gun stores or gun shows. Criminals either steal them or buy them on the street, where no background check is done, even if there were a law requiring it in those cases. Or, “surprise”, they have someone who can pass a background check purchase one for them. Looks like we have a background check “loop-hole” here that can't seem be closed by any law. Perhaps they could pass a law making it illegal to do a “straw purchase”. Oh, excuse me, they already did. Problem solved, right?

Right after this, Obama said, “There's no doubt that there are times when somebody who has a weapon has been able to protect themselves and scare off an intruder or an assailant, but what is more often the case is they may not have been able to protect themselves but they end up being the victim of the weapon that they purchased themselves.” (Bold mine)

There's nothing like leftist elitists to pretend to empower women when at the same time they pat them on the head and basically say:

"Forget it, little lady, you just don't have the ability to do what you believe you can do. You'll wind up getting hurt, so don't resist and think happy thoughts while being raped."

Perhaps the President should have read his own CDC report that he commissioned as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January, 2013. It cost a cool $10 million. The CDC study is entitled “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”.

Here's an except:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies”. (Bold mine)

Women who had used firearms had better outcomes overall than women who either did not resist, or who fought back using less effective means. In other words, they were not raped, and they were not murdered.

Strong Women Are Despised

Make no mistake, if you are a strong woman who believes you can successfully defend yourself against a rapist by using a firearm, you are first patronized, as Obama did to Kimberly Corban, then scoffed at and belittled, and finally utterly despised by those for whom your worldview conflicts with their anti-gun narrative. They are not actually opposed to guns, they just want only the government and its agents to have guns, and not the citizens.

Idiots Galore

The more successful women are in using firearms to defend themselves against criminals, the more foolish these idiot patronizers are revealed to be.

If you want a good laugh look up Vice President Biden's video where he suggests to get a double-barreled shotgun and fire two shots outside your house to scare away anyone that might want to break in. This is a video from February 2013 in which he was responding to online questions from readers of Parents Magazine.

Vice President Biden's Advice

"If you want to protect yourself get a double-barreled shotgun. Have the shells of a 12-gauge shotgun, and I promise you, as I told my wife - we live in an area that is wooded and somewhat secluded - I said, Jill, if there is ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here - put that double-barreled shotgun - fire two blasts outside the house - I promise you whoever is coming in is not gonna - you don't need an AR-15. It's harder to aim. It's harder to use. And in fact, you don't need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun."

First of all, this sounds like a good way to quickly rid your double-barreled shotgun of its ammunition. What will Biden then advise you to do then when multiple bad guys pop around the corner while you hold an empty weapon?

2^nd Amendment Not About Need

Secondly, he states you don't need an AR-15 and don't need 30 rounds. Perhaps Biden knows better how to protect you than you do? Really? Well, even if he did know better in some alternate reality universe where the absurd passed for common sense, the Second Amendment is not about NEED. It's about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

As far as an AR-15 being harder to aim than a shotgun, how is that so? It's a lighter weapon with a single 16” small caliber barrel, compared to the heavy shotgun with two 20” barrels that he recommends. And harder to use? That double-barreled shotgun must be opened up when empty, to load only two more shells, then closed again, and those large barrels are not light to swing down and then back up again to do a reload. With an AR-15, you don't have to reload until 30 rounds are fired, then you can pop out the light-weight magazine and insert a fresh one easily.

Excellent Choice For Self-Defense

Biden is clueless on the use of firearms in self-defense and doesn't have to be anything other than that. He and his family have highly trained and well-armed government agents with rifles similar to the AR-15 that give them protection. Oh, but he doesn't want you to own an AR-15 “assault weapon” that can hold 30 rounds and fire one bullet per pull of the trigger. No! He only wants you to have just two rounds to fire, then you can reload your shotgun while under attack by multiple criminals breaking into your home. He sounds like a great guy who cares about women. Not!

To tell the truth, if multiple criminals were breaking into my house, and all I had was an AR-15 rifle with only one 30 round magazine, I'd feel under-equipped. I'd want at least a spare “high capacity” magazine or two. Contrary to the government, I trust citizens to own these rifles. They are light-weight and make excellent self-defense weapons. They do not “spray” bullets as their military counter-part, the M16 can. And one should be able to own an AR-15 even if not a deer hunter. It is a fine self-defense firearm.

Firearms Hard To Use By Women?

Some examples of women's success with firearm use in self-defense are presented below. Does anyone believe that these women had to have been “pretty well trained”, as Obama asserted they must have been? Firearms are not as difficult to operate as some would have you believe.

If they are trying to persuade you that you should leave your protection to the police, the professionals, I can assure you they will present firearms as being very difficult for you to use in your own defense. They will give you a sympathetic look, speak with a voice that exudes concern, and proceed to tell you in a nice way that you're an idiot for thinking you can defend yourself with a gun, just as Obama did with Kimberly Corban.

Self-Defense Example One

A Cape Girardeau, Missouri woman borrowed a friend's shotgun (by the way this would be illegal if mandatory background checks for private transfers were required) after being unarmed and raped Oct 25th, 2008. Six days later she shot and killed Ronnie W. Preyer as he was breaking into her house a second time to rape her again, and most likely murder her. Before breaking in he had cut the power to her house.

Good thing she didn't waste the shells by firing blindly outside her house!

Self-Defense Example Two

A female Days Inn motel clerk in 2011 defended herself against a rapist weighing 100 pounds more than her and standing a foot taller. He was armed with a knife and was starting to tie her up with zip ties when she took a .22 pistol from under her shirt and shot him square in the chest. When police arrived they found him dead right there on the floor.

Tell Obama's lie to the "little lady" motel clerk! She was neither raped nor murdered by her attacker thanks to her good use of her pistol.

Self-Defense Example Three

In July, 2002, an Albuquerque woman wishing to be identified only as “Mira” faced a convicted rapist, 51-year-old Michael Magirl, after he broke into her home, climbed into her bed, and held a gun to her chest. She did not have a gun until she managed to wrestle his gun away from him, and shot him twice, killing him.

Talk about turning the tables around! Perhaps Mira could give Obama a lesson on what women are capable of when it comes to firearms and self-defense. Even if situations like Mira's do not happen often, at the very least I suspect that woman who already have their own gun would be able to handle their own business.

Guns Save Lives

To search for additional true stories of self-defense by women using firearms, visit http://gunssavelives.net/ or just use Google. Disclaimer: Most cases of self-defense involving firearms will not be found anywhere in the news, because not a single shot was fired.

Why The Lies?

Democrats lie to women by saying they need a lot of training in order to use a gun in self-defense. Many, many women have used pistols, rifles, and shotguns successfully in self-defense with only basic point and shoot knowledge.

Democrats lie to women by saying with a straight face that an AR-15 is hard to aim and hard to use.

Democrats lie to women by telling them it is more likely their own gun will be used against them by a criminal.

Democrats lie to women by telling them the danger is greater from a firearm related accident at home than from criminals.

Manipulation Attempt

These lies are their attempt to manipulate women into buying into their gun confiscation scheme, and into buying into their worldview that victim-hood is better than protecting yourself. Their victim-hood mindset for Americans make it easier for government to offer and sell its solutions for safety and security. Citizens who deign prefer to protect themselves are viewed as rogues, and a danger to government's plans for disarming them. In other words, those who honor the Constitution and prefer liberty are views as a threat.

Democrats are chomping at the bit to be able to ban AR-15's and all other rifles like them. They already make the excuse you don't need them for hunting or self-defense, therefore you, free American citizens, should be banned from possessing them. Sporting use and recreational uses are not even given consideration.

Depend On Government For Safety?

All of this proves is that Regular Democrats and Republican Democrats do not trust citizens to have the means to defend themselves. Democrats hate the idea of self-sufficiency. They want you to depend on government for your safety from criminals and terrorists so they can stay in power and pass more laws which infringe on your freedoms.

They lackadaisically enforce our southern border while criminals from Mexico and other countries south of it continue to invade us, and then we import refugees from countries where ISIS is active and is infiltrating the refugee population, with no way to truly vet them before they enter our country.

These things make our lives more dangerous as we go about our daily business. Yet, the government at the same time is telling us we cannot have the tools we desire to keep ourselves and our families safe. Because we don't need them. Just because they say so.

Some of us refuse to trade away our liberty in order to have the “privilege” of being told what we can and can't own, for “our own good”. We're not buying what they're selling. 

 

The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published by AmmoLand.com.

People Control At Panera Bread © 2016 by Phillip Evans

In a discussion thread at GeorgiaPacking, I learned of this story:

In a letter to the Editor of the Dunwoody Crier published Jan 20^th, 2016 on page 3, Maureen Beamer, who had breakfast with her family at the Panera Bread on Mt. Vernon Rd. in Dunwoody, GA described her complaint:

“Last Sunday morning I was enjoying a quiet breakfast in Panera’s on Mt. Vernon Road with family when a man entered carrying a holster and gun. He had on a T-shirt denigrating the ATF (Alcohol/Tobacco/Firearms). He raised many eye-brows and stared down many who looked at him. No one approached him. I suspect he was just waiting for someone to do just that. I so wanted to ask him if he was a good guy with a gun and how was I to know the difference if he was not”.

She apparently enjoyed the excitement during what would have been an otherwise uneventful and boring breakfast at the Panera Bread on Mt. Vernon Rd. in Dunwoody with her family.

The evidence for this is that neither her nor her family fled or called 911, but continued eating their food. She went on to state she asked the manager to post a sign prohibiting firearms in his establishment. Maureen was just in a huff because there was no sign telling the man who was openly carrying his holstered pistol that he would not be welcome there.

Notice also that she fancies herself an excellent mind-reader. She apparently knew the man was wanting someone to approach him so he could do something, whatever that was. But her mind-reading skills supposedly failed her to discern whether or not he was a good guy with a gun, since she burned with desire to ask him.

She and her family decided to take their chances with danger because letting their breakfast get cold would not be very enjoyable.

Poor Maureen. Doesn't she realize that with a no-gun sign, it would be back to same-old, ho-hum breakfasts with no one to focus her desires on to control. Except of course, for when a criminal ignores the sign, that would be a different sort of excitement altogether.

I suppose she could have taken a clue from the manager who could have kicked out the man at any time under existing private property laws. The manager was not inclined to do so, for whatever reason. Perhaps he simply viewed the man as a non-threat, paying customer.

Psst. Maureen did as well.

Sarah - "Dear Anti-Gun Friend" (My Response To A Bully) © 2016 by Phillip Evans

In response to Sarah's compassionately written article toward those who are afraid of guns, a bully going only be the name of "Joe" accused her of having blood on her hands.

This is my response to him:

Joe, 

How dare you accuse Sarah of having blood on her hands! She has never advocated for people to use firearms for evil purposes. She merely advocates that citizens have the right to own the firearms of their choice, whether for self-defense, sport, or recreation.

We don't demonize all people who drive cars because some use them to harm and kill others. Likewise for those who own hammers, knives, baseball bats, etc.

As for so-called "assault rifles", more people are killed each year by fists and feet than all rifles combined, so get a clue, and get a life. Tools are not the problem, evil people are. Like Sarah stated, evil people will do evil regardless of the tools available to them. Ban firearms, and criminals will make homemade firearms - it's not nearly as difficult as you might think. 

The worst school mass killing in the U.S. was done with a bomb, not firearms. Do you expect common household chemicals and landscaping minerals, or gasoline to be banned because of that crime? No?

How dare you point your self-righteous finger of guilt at an innocent human being just because she enjoys her firearms and does not wish for the government to point its guns at her and confiscate them!

Percentage-wise, gun owning citizens who legally bought their firearm are less likely to shoot innocent people accidentally or commit a crime with a firearm than police are. And there are a lot of us (80-100 million) owning about 300 million firearms.

Your false accusation against Sarah is purely disgusting. You will never be able to present a shred of evidence that supports your claim that she has blood on her hands.

When it comes to evil, you are the one that is promoting the wicked idea that it is better that people not have the ability to effectively defend themselves from armed criminals.

Apparently, you believe it is better that victims' blood be shed than for them to take responsibility for their own safety. Anytime anyone defends their life with a firearm (and that happens quite often), it blows your worldview out of the water.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
http://PursuitofPatriotism.Blogspot.com

The Anti-Gun Mentality - One Psychiatrist's Anaylsis

Please take a look at this very well written article I just finished reading:


Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality Copyright © 2000 Sarah Thompson, MD

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

Here's an excerpt:

"If I were to summarize this article in three sentences, they would be:

[1] People who identify themselves as "victims" harbor excessive amounts of rage at other people, whom they perceive as "not victims."

[2] In order psychologically to deal with this rage, these "victims" utilize defense mechanisms that enable them to harm others in socially acceptable ways, without accepting responsibility or suffering guilt, and without having to give up their status as "victims."

[3] Gun owners are frequently the targets of professional victims because gun owners are willing and able to prevent their own victimization"

Georgia - Campus Carry in 2016? © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Gun-Free Zone Riddance

"I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and — you have to — and on military bases. My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There's no more gun-free zones", said Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump. 

 

This is a great thing indeed!

Ending these two victim zones will help insure there are less victims in the future. Trump rightly characterized these so-called "gun free zones", as "bait" for criminals. 

 

The question though, is how he will fully implement this promise? Regarding schools, he could ask Congress to withhold federal funding from public school systems in states that do not allow licensed carriers of firearms to enter schools whenever they have legitimate business to be there. 

 

HB 826 - Campus Carry

Don't get me wrong, I am not asking Trump, should he become President, to hit Georgia over the head to decriminalize K-12 and college campus carry throughout our state. I believe that is something the Georgia General Assembly is of a mind to do anyway.

In fact, Georgia already passed K-12 and college carry!

And almost unanimously (with only two dissenting Senate votes) with the House and Senate overwhelmingly voting Yes for HB 826 in 2014, known as Act 575. It was then signed into law by Governor Nathan Deal. This law fully decriminalized firearm carry on school property, at school events on other property, and inside school buildings at all public K-12 schools and colleges, for those who possess a valid weapons carry license.

Houston We Have A Problem

So what happened with the new campus carry law in Georgia that was supposed to have gone into effect July 1st, 2014? It had passed by a super majority of elected law-makers, and Governor Deal, who had publicly committed himself to sign all pro-gun legislation put his signature on it.

The problem is that there are four branches of government in Georgia – Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and the Code Revision Commission. The fourth and most powerful branch, the Code Revision Commission has the final say on what becomes law by either putting it in or leaving it out of the Official Code of Georgia (OCGA).

The Code Revision Commission, under pressure from the Georgia Board of Regents, decided to leave it out. The GBoR is the one state governing and management authority overseeing all public colleges and universities in the state. The GBoR in its wisdom does not want to see licensed 21 year old and older adults able to legally and without fear of jail carry a firearm for self-defense purposes on any of its college campuses. 

Violent Crime Up On And Near School Campuses

This, in spite of violent crime such as armed robberies and rapes escalating on and around college campuses.

There are several threads at Georgia Packing reporting on these crimes. Mountainpass (Jeffrey Anderson) over there does a great job keeping up with the news on campus crime and posting about it.

Play It Again, Sam 

Georgia Carry sued the Governor and the Code Revision Commission to get HB 826 duly recognized as law, but we lost in Superior Court.

The Georgia General Assembly allowed 2015 to go by without doing a repeat of HB 826, perhaps in order to regroup and figure out a way they can pass K-12 school and college carry again in order to get it into the OCGA without the Code Revision Commission keeping it out.

After a year of study, I believe our legislators have come up with a way to make it stick this time, and I eagerly await to see how they will do it.

Georgia Weapons Carry License Seal of Approval

 

All licensed, background checked adults deserve the God-given liberty to protect themselves and their children from criminals, even when in or on any school property.

Bullies like the Code Revision Commission-GBoR branch of state government should not have the final say in what is passed and signed into law.

 

If the Georgia Weapons Carry License (GWCL) is the Gold Standard, I'm hopeful the Gold Dome will honor it as such. We have been vetted as much as any licensed carriers can be. We ALREADY carry firearms around children in public parks, libraries, recreation centers, and other places. 

 

New Day Coming

Possible future President Trump seems to understand that when people are able to defend themselves from evil-doers, the body count is greatly reduced. How much that should ring true to our hearts when defending our most precious citizens – our children!

Our great state of Georgia should close the door now on our current vulnerability to a Newtown style massacre happening here. Life is too precious to not do so. 

I'm hopeful this message is heard by our friends in the Georgia General Assembly.

The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published at AmmoLand.com.

State Preemption Regarding Weapons - A Good Thing? © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Control is Control?

State Preemption means that a matter is reserved for regulation via state law only.

In other words, if something is placed under state preemption and is permitted by the state, then local governments are forbidden to pass any laws making it prohibited.

Local governments often howl about this, crying that they have lost control over something they should be able to control. And the one thing they want to control more than anything else, except perhaps tax dollars, is weapons.

More accurately, local governments want to control citizens who carry weapons.

Most, but not all of these local politicians crying foul regarding weapons preemption are Democrats. Their argument is that local control of weapons is best, since local folks know better than others how their community operates and what issues they have. And, the Democrats are fond of pointing out how Republicans harp on local control of school systems being better than state or federal control. That might make some pro gun-rights politicians blush when they speak in favor of state preemption when it comes to weapons. But it need not.

No need to have a logic fail here. You can pull but not push something with a rope. Just because one type of control is good doesn’t mean another kind of control is also good.

Apples and Oranges Anyone?

Local control of schools is best for a number of reasons. Which curriculum, which books, number of students per teacher, school hours, vacation days, etc. can be optimally set by local school boards composed of people in their community that understand their needs best.

Why not then allow local governments to regulate the possession and carrying of weapons such as firearms, knives, batons, and pepper spray, if local control works best for other things?

The main reason is that self-defense is a universal human right. If we all have lives we value, then we should all be able to safeguard them wherever we need to be. If local governments could successfully keep me and my family safe 100% of the time, I’d have to agree with them that they are doing something right. But if they are not able to do so, it means they are no longer responsible for my safety.

I don’t allow my children to carry weapons, but I also take full and complete responsibility for their safety. Local governments do not even come close to doing the same for adults in their towns and cities. Therefore, I must take responsibility for the safety of my family, if it cannot come from anywhere else.

If local governments wish to treat adults as children and put them under penalty of an adult spanking such as fines and jail for disobedience, then they had better pony up and take full responsibility for their citizens’ safety.

They cannot have their cake and eat it, too.

And citizens must not fear arrest and the threat of jail time merely for crossing a city or town boundary where carry of weapons is legal in one local area but not the other. Do we really want to treat citizens with gotcha-style laws, just because we choose to bear arms for the purpose of not being crime victims?

But There’s A Sign!

Local governments can put up all the “No Weapons Permitted” signs they want in all their public areas and on their streets, but a criminal bent on getting money for his next drug high will ignore those signs and proceed to assault and rob at will using any weapon of his choosing.
If that’s true, then why shouldn’t I be able to use any common self-defense weapon of my choosing to protect my life and my loved one’s lives?
It would seem then, that signs are only useful for those who are inclined to obey them. And those who obey signs (if they are even noticed) are typically potential victims, and not criminals.

Recalcitrantly Disobedient

No, I’m not talking about rebellious mere citizens, but local government officials. For example – in 1987, the state of Florida passed a law putting into effect state preemption of firearms: Section 790.33, F.S., known as The Joe Carlucci Uniform Firearms Act.

The State Legislature reserved to itself the whole matter of firearms regulation. That meant that any local government could not make any rule or law more restrictive than state law. Any local laws passed must mirror state law with regard to firearms.

That did not set well with a whole bunch of Florida mayors, city council members, county commissioners, and others in local governments. So much so that they kept on doing what they were doing. These officials arrogantly disobeyed state law by continuing to forbid firearms in places that were now legal to be carried in or at by licensed citizens. And they left up those signs which they believed stopped criminals from carrying weapons. Much like they believed that flying unicorns sprinkled fairy dust to create rainbows.

Same Old, Same Old:

These officials quickly went back to their happy selves, because in their eyes nothing had changed, and it was business as usual. There was no penalty to be found for thumbing their nose at the firearms state preemption law.

Bang!

That “Bang!” was not a gunshot, but a hammer dropping. The year 2011 came along, and with it a new Florida state law, HB 45 which added penalties to Section 790.33, F.S. This meant that local officials who violated someone’s right to carry a firearm could now be fined up to $5000 and risk removal from office – that’s five big G’s and unemployment to boot.

Now perhaps they understand what it’s like to have a taste of their own medicine. They wanted to fine and jail their citizens merely for wanting to be armed for their protection. It serves these local officials right to be threatened with heavy fines and loss of their job for using their position of authority to try and deny free citizens their right of self-defense from criminals that would harm them.

The Prophets

2011 is when the volume of the screeching, screaming, and squawking really amped up.

“I think it’s the stupidest thing the Legislature has ever done,” said Sunrise Commissioner Don Rosen.

“I think the state Legislature went overboard,” said Margate Mayor Pam Donovan.

When HB 45 became law, prophetic predictions of the future were not in short supply. They were being given out like free candy to anyone who would listen.

“When it comes to the safety of my residents I feel very strongly that allowing guns to be in public parks is not a good practice,” said Coral Springs Mayor Roy Gold. “I’ve been at parks with my children [at sporting events]. People get heated and argue and get quite angry. I think the Legislature has made a huge mistake.”

In North Lauderdale, Commission Gary Frankel said, “I think guns in a close-knit residential neighborhood should not be allowed on the streets. It’s dangerous, everybody knows that. It’s a remnant of the Old West.”

Well, since 2011 has there been a rash of licensed gun carriers carrying legally under Florida state law getting angry while watching sports games at parks and shooting anyone? No?

Has there been a rash of wild west style shootouts between licensed gun carriers carrying legally under Florida state law? No?

The Bible

No, I’m not about to hit you over the head with one. I just want to present one bit of advice from it that even non-believers might appreciate. Basically, it’s that if a prophet predicts things that don’t come true, you might want to conclude that prophet is a false prophet (Deuteronomy 18:22) . As a Bible believer myself, that’s all I’ll present from the Good Book in this particular blog post.

Nothing New Under The Sunshine

In every single state that has passed laws restoring self-defense rights to the people, naysayers have always predicted “blood in the streets”, “OK Corral gun fights”, “wild west shootouts”, “angry parents of little leaguers shooting coaches”, etc. And every time they fail to get their wish. It must be frustrating for them. Bless their little pea-pickin’ hearts.

Some, in Florida’s sister state, Georgia tried to save face by blaming new GA law HB 60 (called in common vernacular, “Guns Everywhere Law”) for a confrontation at a convenience store between two people who both had carry licenses. The one man, who was concealing his pistol, verbally challenged the other man who was openly carrying his holstered pistol. The idiot challenger wanted the other man to present his license to make sure he was legally carrying.

Neither man went for his gun wild west style, and no one got hurt.

Adam Weinstein’s (author of the gawker.com article linked above) logic fail in blaming HB 60 is that both men could have been totally ignorant of the new law, and that would not have changed a thing, because licensed carry of firearms in convenience stores has been legal since there have been convenience stores in Georgia – legal even pre-SB 308 when there still existed the “public gathering” law ( http://tiny.cc/jto57x )  in Georgia.

But folks like Weinstein will twist logic to the point of unrecognizability to try and prove their point.

State Preemption Is Progress

Virtually every time real progress is made in restoring our self-defense rights, violent crime either diminishes or at worst stays flat. There is not enough room in this article to present the data, but author and speaker John Lott is an excellent source of information on the statistics.

Here is a tidbit from the CDC: “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”


Read more at: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama

Universal Arrogance

No, it isn’t just unique to Florida that local officials disobey state law unless a penalty is attached. I and others have dealt with entities here in Georgia that are still violating state preemption, even though it was strengthened with HB 60 in 2014 and HB 492 in 2015.

I won’t comment on these here because there are pending court cases that should resolve to one side or another the issues. But some information has been posted in various threads on the Georgia Packing forum.

Amazingly, even though Florida added teeth to its preemption law in 2011, there are still a few places there that try to unlawfully deny your rights.

There is work at present being done by Florida Carry (https://www.floridacarry.org/) to address these.
I’m honored to have brought one such place to Florida Carry’s attention, and have officially joined them as a member.

Never Ending Fight

That constant diligence is required to have our rights recognized even when favorable laws have been passed that spell out significant consequences for officials who violate those laws is indicative of the sheer, naked hostility toward people who desire to take responsibility for their own safety instead of living as if others such as the police and government are their primary protectors.

The rugged spirit of liberty and independence seems to have been greatly bred out of our nation. And that is a pitiful shame. But more and more people are starting to stand up for what’s right, and letting their voices be heard. One by one, we can win hearts and minds with the truth.

The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published by AmmoLand.com.

Hillary Clinton's Gun Control and Women's Empowerment: Any Connection? © 2016 by Phillip Evans

Of course there is. Hillary talks a good game when it comes to women's empowerment. At a press conference in Cedar Falls, Iowa, September 2015, Hillary Clinton addressed sexual assault on college campuses and offered her advice:

EVERY Survivor?

"Today I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault. Don't let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed and we're with you”, Clinton said.

That sounds great, and I certainly agree with that. It no doubt gained her some political points. But when it comes to her husband's victims, it's an entirely different story. How has she treated those women? With utter contempt, that's how. She has tried to silence them, she has called them liars. She has publicly ridiculed them.

For Ms. Broaddrick, the trauma was a life changer.

Ask Ms. Juanita Broaddrick, who was raped by Mr. Clinton in 1978. "I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Arkansas Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73...it never goes away", she said.

Mrs. Clinton made an effort to silence Ms. Broaddrick so that she would not speak out and let her voice be heard and believed. No women's empowerment for Ms. Broaddrick, because that would impede Ms. Clinton's pursuit of her own ambitions. Clinton had her eye on political gains for her husband, which would put her in a position one day to pursue those herself, and any victim of rape was not about to get in Hillary's way of what she wanted. Her desires came first.

Liar, Liar, Pantsuit On Fire!

How does this tie in with Hillary's gun control agenda? With all her talk about empowering women, she wants to do the opposite and take away women's ability to effectively defend themselves from violent sexual assaults which all too often lead to them being murdered. She claims to respect the 2^nd Amendment, but that is simply a lie.

The Good Old '90s

In October of 2015, she laid out her gun control agenda and said, "We took them on in the '90s. We're going to take them on again." What this means is that she yearns for the days when Bill Clinton's Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act passed in 1993, which mandated a 5 day waiting period to take possession of your purchased gun.

That meant if you had a creepy stranger stalking you, or an ex-husband or ex-boyfriend that was violent and threatening your life, you could go to the gun store and buy your gun, and hope that while you are unarmed for the next 5 days nothing will happen to you. Nice, right? That's a really caring thing to do for women, I could sarcastically say, and did.

Waiting Periods Are Good!

Hillary made zero complaints about the mandatory waiting period. It was phased out when the instant background check system became operational. But until that occurred, good luck to you if you were a woman needing a gun right now. Elitist politicians like Clinton have all the armed guards instantly at their disposal. They've never had a waiting period - ever. And here I thought government was supposed to be the servant of The People. But in their eyes We The People take the crumbs, if we can get them. “Shall not be infringed” suddenly has come to mean “Everything we can do to chip away at your rights.”

BAN Them!

Another thing Hillary Clinton yearns for from the '90s is the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" (AWB) of 1994, officially called the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act. She has publicly called for that ban to be renewed, and wistfully regretted that it had a 10 year sunset provision. One component of that law was that new magazines (sometimes erroneously called "clips") could not be manufactured and sold to the general public if they could hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. That applied even to magazines made for pistols.

Now, imagine a woman home at night with just her daughters. She is their only protector until the police arrive some unknown minutes later, with each precious second she's waiting a shear nightmare. Three men armed with a gun and two knives begin breaking down the door. Their plan is to have some fun that night. They want to terrorize and tie up anyone in the home so that they can rape and rob at their leisure without interference. And they don't have a conscience with regard to killing women and children if they believe it will keep them from being caught.

Government Knows Best!

The woman of the house has one semi-automatic pistol which is only able to fire one shot with each separate pull of the trigger.

Trick Question: How many rounds should be in her gun?

Is it really the government's business to tell a grown woman how many bullets she should be able to fire before having to reload, while her and her children are under grave attack?

Will any of those politicians who put laws like this on the books come to her rescue? No, but they will be quick to point out the prison time for violating the prohibition on merely possessing tools of self-defense. Apparently, Hillary Clinton knows best. She yearns for the '90s when her lovable sexual predator husband, Bill, pressed for this law to be passed.

High Capacity?

Most normal capacity pistol magazines which are in common circulation and use for full-sized semi-auto handguns commonly hold from 12 to 17 rounds of ammunition. Those extra 2 to 7 rounds could come in mighty handy for a woman at home defending herself and her children.

Even if the "Assault Weapons Ban" magically prevented criminals from having access to those “evil” magazines holding more than 10 rounds, murderers could still do a lot of damage to multiple unarmed victims by merely having multiple magazines or multiple guns. So you see, the AWB did nothing to keep us safe from criminals. Instead, it made women less safe by taking from them effective tools of self-defense.

Concern For The Poor? Let Them Eat Cake!

Existing pistol and rifle magazines holding more than 10 rounds could be purchased during the time this law was in effect, but at a price around four times as much as they normally would cost. In the early '90s, I bought three 15 round pistol magazines for $90 each, that normally cost $20 without the AWB in place. So if people had the money, no problem, right?

However, poor women could go jump in the lake for all Hillary cared. And Hillary brags about being a champion of the poor, but that's a joke for another day.

Sue Them To Oblivion!

Ms. Clinton has recently started protesting against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), that passed in 2005. This law protects gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. Without this protection, many gun makers would either go out of business or would have to raise prices for guns that would be too high for most people to afford, especially many women who are working hard to support a family on their own.

The PLCAA does not shield against all lawsuits, however, but only those which involve a firearm being used in a crime or accident which the gun manufacturer could not have had any way of knowing about beforehand or preventing. Lawsuits regarding defective products are not covered by the PLCAA, but that is not enough for Hillary. She wants gun makers punished, which would simply be another way to prevent citizens from obtaining affordable firearms.

Settle The Lawsuits – But at a Price, hehe!

Before the PLCAA became law, there were several lawsuits pending against many gun manufacturers. Bill Clinton capitalized on this turmoil by trying to use the lawsuits as leverage to change how the firearms industry operated. His proposal to settle the lawsuits would be that gun makers would agree to not do business with gun stores who did not subscribe to the new Clinton "standards". Unlike the AWB of 1994, which was to expire in 10 years, lawsuit agreements have no such expiration date.

The Fine Details

What were some of those "standards?"

1. Not selling any magazines holding more than 10 rounds for any firearms including pistols.

2. Not selling any customer more than one gun per month. So if your only gun had a flaw or broke and needed repair, you'd be unarmed and have a waiting period if it happened within the month you bought it.

3. Licensed dealers would not be permitted to sell guns at gun shows even when using background checks, or use an Internet site to take money online to have a gun sold to a customer and shipped to a local gun store for pickup, which would also background check the customer. So you see even with the holy grail of background checks, these methods of shopping for a gun would be done away with.

4. Certain "assault weapons" would not be allowed to be sold. And by the way, these "assault weapons" are semi-auto rifles and shotguns that fire one round per each trigger pull. They do not "spray" multiple bullets with a single trigger pull.

Evil, Scary Looking Rifles!

Many of the banned rifles under the 1994 AWB law were light-weight, low recoil, small caliber guns that are easy for even small or elderly adults to hold and fire. They were banned because they had a pistol style grip or a folding stock or a flash suppressor that guarded your eyes from a bright flash so you could still see how to aim. And they typically hold 20 to 30 rounds of ammo in a magazine, which would help equalize a bad situation when your home is being invaded by multiple men who would rape and murder you and your children.

You Don't Have A NEED For That!

Oh, but Hillary knows best. Ten rounds is the most you should have loaded at one time, just because politicians like her say so. Just because you don't have a need for more than that, according to them. They really care for you, after all. And heaven forbid you had a pistol grip on a rifle to help hold it more steady!

Australian Solution Hoped For

Ms. Clinton (and Barack Obama as well) has publicly lauded the Australian solution. For her, “it would be worth considering doing it on the national level".

And just what did Australia do? In 1996 their government outright banned by law the possession of all semi-auto (one bullet per trigger pull, remember?) rifles and shotguns and even banned pump shotguns.

The Australian government magnanimously allowed their citizens to keep their single-shot and double-barrel shotguns that had to be manually reloaded after one or two shots.

And allowed them to keep bolt action rifles which are typically not very easy for the average woman to operate, especially while defending during a stressful criminal attack. The bolt has to be firmly grabbed by only one hand (because your other hand has to hold the rifle), pulled up, then pulled back, then pushed forward, and then pushed down - for each and every single shot.

The confiscation of the Aussie's firearms by their elected officials was in the form of a forced "buyback". And the government knew who had those guns, because the people had been forced to have them registered under penalty of imprisonment if they did not do so.

Do you believe that if Hillary got her wish to ram an Australian style “buyback” down our throat, that she would stop there?

In Dec. 2015, 91 U.S. House Democrats introduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015”, a bill that would ban all AR-15 semi-automatic rifles period (not just those with an accessory such as a pistol grip), along with a boatload of various other firearms, as well as any magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. This is a stronger and more prohibitive version of the AWB of 1994. And they are not including a sunset provision this time, either.

They are doubling down on your 2^nd Amendment Rights! They are trying their best to “Go Australia” on you.

Some erroneously believe that the “AR” in AR-15 stands for “assault rifle”. It actually is an abbreviation for Armalite, the company that makes them. Some states ban it from use in deer hunting because the round it fires simply is not powerful enough to humanely take deer. But it's use as a home defense weapon is excellent, in that it is a light-weight rifle with a 16” barrel that can easily be handled without requiring much upper body strength.

Clinton and Obama Double-Talk

During Ms. Clinton's prior candidacy for president, at the Democratic debate held April 16th, 2008, in Philadelphia, Clinton offered this sugar-coated lip service for the Second Amendment. 
 
She said, 'I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns,...'”

But how's this for hypocrisy? - A Clinton campaign mailer criticized Obama for telling people “he was for the 2^nd Amendment, in order to get votes.”

From Hillary's own mouth at a private fundraiser in 2015: “The Supreme Court is wrong on the 2^nd Amendment.”

What was the major 2^nd Amendment ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent times?

It was that the 2^nd Amendment protection is an individual right. Hillary Clinton obviously disagrees with that. She is more bold than even Obama to stomp on our American Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Yet, he also publicly stated while he was a U.S. senator his agreement that D.C. was within its authority to have the gun laws they did. At that time D.C. gun laws made it a felony to own any pistol or any pistol ammunition even if kept just in the home. Get caught, and you go to prison.

Hillary Clinton is a leftist Democrat (is there any other kind?) just like Obama and the 91 House Democrats pushing for another far reaching firearms ban. She despises the idea of people having the freedom to choose to possess what they see fit to protect themselves and their families from criminals. Not to mention that many people use these firearms and ammunition magazines for sport shooting.

Apparently, self-defense and recreational uses are not enough of a “need” to be given permission to own in the eyes of the Democrats.

Like Obama, Clinton occasionally gives lip service to the 2^nd Amendment, but her double-talk just like his hides her disgust for our rights as much as a clear window blocks the sunshine.

Now you know from all the facts presented, just how much Hillary Clinton lies when she tells us that no one wants to take away our guns. Just as when both Clinton and Obama continue to lie when they say they support the 2^nd Amendment.

They and those like them are all subscribing to the philosophy that if you are going to lie, make it a whopper so that people will be embarrassed to believe you are lying.

No doubt you have the earlier mentioned "connection" figured out by now. This is certainly about empowerment - the government's empowerment, with Hillary Clinton hoping to be the head of that monster. And she will say or do anything she believes will get her there, just like she accused Obama of doing. And she ought to know, because she has his playbook well memorized.

Special thanks to the NRA's America's 1st Freedom magazine, Nov. 2015 edition, pg. 28 article - "The Clinton Files", which was a valuable source of information for this article. 
 

The author is a self-defense rights advocate and member of the NRA, GeorgiaCarry.org, and FloridaCarry.org, and is published at AmmoLand.com.

.