MS 13 Mara Salvatrucha Trece. MS-13. The letter “M” is the 13th letter in the alphabet. The number 13 is superstitiously known as a number to be feared. Pretty fitting, considering the MS-13 Gang is now the most feared gang in all of America. Its violence is wreaking havoc on a growing number of cities and small communities across the country – making the MS-13 Gang “a terrorist organization right in our own backyard,” according Detroit Police Sgt. Harold Rochon, an expert trainer on gangs and the author of a book titled, “Terrorists in Designer Jeans.” This one-hour training broadcast will cover everything you need to know about the MS-13 Gang, from its origin to its identifiers – such as graffiti, tattoos, gang hand-signs and gang colors, to its method of recruiting, drug dealing, and plotting violent crimes in our communities – with a goal to help you gain the knowledge that will give you the power to better arm your agency in getting a grip on the drugs and crime that the MS-13 Gang is infiltrating into your jurisdiction
- Law Archive
- Gun Laws By State
- NY Article 265 (State Firearms Laws)
- NY Article 35 (Defense Justification)
- NY Article 400 (State Firearms Licensing)
- NYC Title 38 (NYC Firearms Laws)
- NYC Prop/Airsoft/Replica Gun Laws
- HR 218 “LEOSA” Carry Law
- NYS Police Guide to SAFE Act
- Kwong vs. Bloomberg
- Beach Vs. Kelly (NYC Residents and FOPA)
- Maloney v. Cuomo (Nunchukas Banned)
- ATF Section
- TSA: Traveling with Firearms
- Chronology: US Historical Documents
- NYCG Radio
“Bloomturd Leaves the Room”
- 2014 (1284)
- 2013 (2777)
- 2012 (2380)
- 2011 (43)
- 2010 (27)
- Deblasio’s Communist … by Glenn At New…
- Texas Police Prepare to Def… by Glenn At New…
Authorities prepare to use “whatever force is necessary” to defend international bridges between Texas and Mexico from U.S. based militia groups. The preparations by Texas law enforcement agencies are in response to recently discovered plans by militia groups to attempt closing several international bridges. The militia groups’ plans are intended to be protests against the federal government’s failure to secure the border between the U.S. and Mexico. The plans call for militia groups to begin blocking traffic on an undisclosed number of international bridges in the Rio Grande Valley on Sept. 20th, 2014.
- Finally Waving the White Fl… by Glenn At New…
Twenty years after the since-expired assault weapons ban passed Congress, Washington’s leading liberal think says it’s no longer an idea worth pursuing.
The Center for American Progress is waving a white flag on banning assault weapons in a study out Friday titled “Assault Weapons Revisited.” CAP authors Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons argue that gun control advocates focus their energies primarily on expanding background checks and firearms licensing laws instead of pushing to prohibit assault weapons like the AR-15 rifle.
“The answer is not that assault weapons aren’t dangerous and people having access to them is a good thing,” Mr. Gerney said in an interview this week. “There are other things that we can do to lessen the risks of assault weapons short of banning them. … When you’re making policy, it’s always a mix of what’s going to have a biggest positive impact and what is practical and politically possible.”
Banning assault weapons, which Congress did for a decade as part of the 1994 crime bill, was a centerpiece of the policy prescriptions President Barack Obama sought in the wake of the December 2012 school massacre at Newtown, Conn. Mr. Obama also sought to implement universal background checks for gun purchases, ban high-capacity ammunition magazines and restrict on gun trafficking. Only background checks received a serious hearing in Congress – only 40 senators voted for an assault weapons ban. Background checks fell five votes short.
The 1994 assault weapons ban expired in 2004 when Congress did not reauthorize it. Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, when they addressed the issue, spoke passionately about the need to ban the sort of weapon used during the Newtown shooting.
“We should restore the ban on military-style assault weapons and a 10-round limit for magazines,” Mr. Obama said during a February 2013 speech in Minneapolis. “Weapons of war have no place on our streets or in our schools or threatening our law enforcement officers. Our law enforcement officers should never be out-gunned on the streets.”
But advocates who worked with the White House said even that push was designed as a threat to force negotiations on expanding background checks, the real gun control goal. It didn’t work.
- NY Democrats seek citizen r… by Glenn At New…
Illegal aliens in New York could score billions in Medicaid and college tuition money — along with driver’s licenses, voting rights and even the ability to run for office — if Democrats win control of the state Senate in November, The Post has learned.
A little-known bill, dubbed “New York is Home,” would offer the most sweeping amnesty available anywhere in the country to nearly 3 million noncitizens living in the Empire State.
It would bar police from releasing any information about them to the feds, unless it involves a criminal warrant unrelated to their immigration status.
Under the proposed legislation, undocumented immigrants could also apply for professional licenses and serve on juries.
The plan hinges on Democrats — who now control both the governorship and the state Assembly — wresting control of the Senate from Republicans, who oppose immigration amnesty.
- Chicago Liberals Outlaw the… by Glenn At New…
Chicago Liberals have decided to do what they do best: kill businesses and ban firearms simultaneously. The new gun laws proposed by the city of Chicago are being described (by admitted leftists) as the “smartest in the Nation.” Needless to say: They’re pretty dumb.
A Federal Judge demanded earlier this year that the city develop an actionable plan to allow gun sales within city limits. Of course, not all (or any) of the city council members seem on board. Ald. Water Burnett Jr said of the gun stores, “I don’t think we want these kinds of things in our communities at all.”
Well, sure… I can understand that. And the city’s absolute ban on firearm dealers within city limits has been such a rousing success so far (sarcasm font), it only makes sense that we limit lawful businesses from the utopia-that-is Chicago.
Among the provisions are a slew of discouraging requirements: Dealers will be subjected to a $3,800 yearly fee; all transactions will be videotaped and subjected to arbitrary waiting periods; all shops would be subjected to quarterly inspections; Police supervised training would be mandated for all shop employees; all owners will be required to maintain a $1 million liability insurance policy; safety plans (whatever the heck that is) will be a requisite; and various ammunition will be banned altogether.
- Black Firefighter Cries ‘Ra… by Glenn At New…
Here is the Cop’s bodycam video – which disproves the firefighter’s claims.
A black Oakland firefighter has filed a complaint with the Oakland Police Department after he and his young kids were detained by a white police officer outside the station where the firefighter worked.
It was 10:45 p.m., after a recent Raiders game. Veteran firefighter Keith Jones and his two sons, ages 9 and 12, were walking back to their SUV at Station 29. A fire crew responding to an emergency had forgotten to close the garage door. Jones went in to make sure everything was secure.
As Jones walked out, he said a police officer, responding to a possible burglary in progress, yelled “Don’t move, put your hands up.”
“And his hand is on his gun. He was crouched, he was low, and he was basically in a shooting stance,” Jones said.
Jones complied, but noticed his 9-year-old son Trevon was starting to cry. The officer saw the two kids first and had already told them to raise their hands.
Jones said he told the officer that he was an Oakland firefighter, that he worked at the station and that they were his kids. He asked the officer to allow his kids to lower their hands and tell them everything is OK. Jones said the officer told them to keep their hands up and not to move.
The firefighter said this lasted for a few minutes.
- Ask Your U.S. Representativ… by Glenn At New…
The “Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013″ (H.R. 2959)–introduced in the U.S. House by Reps. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah)–would allow any person who is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law and who has a valid concealed firearm permit, to carry a concealed handgun in any state that issues its own residents permits to carry concealed firearms. Persons carrying a handgun in another state pursuant to H.R. 2959 would be subject to the laws of that state with respect to where concealed firearms may be carried. Similar legislation to H.R. 2959 passed the House in 2011 by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 272-154.
H.R. 2959 would not create a federal licensing system, nor authorize the federal government to interfere with the powers of the states to set standards for the issuance of carry permits, nor establish federal standards for carry permits, nor override state laws that recognized the right to carry firearms without a permit. Rather, it would simply require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, much like drivers’ licenses.
Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 2959 – “The Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013″.
You can contact your U.S. Representative about this important legislation by using the “Write Your Lawmakers” tool below or by phone at (202) 225-3121.
To read the full Fact Sheet on H.R. 2959, please click here.
- Busting the Top 3 Myths Abo… by Glenn At New…
Here’s how to counter the misconceptions your friends may hold about the Second Amendment—with facts.
By Daniel T. McElrath
Adherents to gun control typically respond with emotional arguments. However, on those occasions when they attempt to respond with “logic” regarding the Second Amendment itself, those arguments typically take the same tired forms. Here are three of the most popular, and how to dismantle them instantly.
Myth #1: You have to have a license to operate a car. Why shouldn’t you have to have one to own a gun?
Reality Check: Owning a car is not a right; it’s a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. There is no enumerated right to own or drive a car. A license generally isn’t required to own a car, or to operate it on private land. Also, gun-control advocates who make the “treat guns like cars” argument would probably be strongly opposed to a reciprocity system for those licensed to carry firearms that was as good as the reciprocity system for driver’s licenses. (And if they say guns are more dangerous, point out how many people are killed by cars every year.)
Myth #2: The Second Amendment specifies that owning a gun is only for serving in “a Well-regulated militia”—what we now call the National Guard. That means gun ownership is a collective right of the people (not individuals), and that guns must be controlled by the government.
Reality Check: First off, the opening to the Second Amendment is a dependent clause. It helps explain and justify the independent clause that follows, but is not essential to making that clause true. Moreover, back in the day when the Constitution was written, “well regulated” didn’t mean “controlled.” It meant “well practiced” or “well drilled.” And the militia wasn’t anything like today’s National Guard: All able-bodied males were deemed to be in the militia in time or threat of war.
Further, in order for “the people” to indicate the citizenry as a whole rather than the individual, the Founding Fathers would have had to use it to mean an individual in the First Amendment, then the collective in the Second Amendment, and back to an individual in the Fourth, Ninth and Tenth amendments. In the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court agreed, stating: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 580 (2008). This led them to the conclusion: “There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 595 (2008).
Myth #3: The Founding Fathers couldn’t have foreseen the technological developments that have led to such things as “assault weapons.” The Second Amendment right was intended only for muzzleloading flintlocks.
Reality Check: When I hear this, I always ask people if they know what a phaser is. “Oh,” they’ll say, “that ray gun from Star Trek.” Then I’ll point out that they don’t exist, even though we “know” what they are. Imagination didn’t begin in the 20th or 21st centuries. To say that men like Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin—who were among the leading inventors of their day—couldn’t have foreseen technological advancements is patently absurd. Moreover, some technological concepts that we think of as modern are quite old. For example, there is a 12-shot flintlock in the NRA National Firearms Museum. Manufacturing techniques and the absence of industrialization were more limiting factors than imagination back then.
Perhaps most compellingly, if the Second Amendment referred only to technology extant at the time it was drafted, then the First Amendment doesn’t apply to radio, movies, television or the Internet. Once again, the Supreme Court agrees, stating: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008)
Calmly and politely explaining these facts can go a long way to change someone’s mind about the Second Amendment and what it means. Spread the word!
- Harvard University to Waste… by Glenn At New…
Harvard University’s School of Public Health is set to receive a $350 million donation to study “gun violence” and other “complex health threats challenging the U.S. and the world,” CNN reports. The donation, the largest ever received by the university, is being made by the Morningside Foundation, run by the descendants of Hong Kong real estate tycoon T.H. Chan, for whom the school will be renamed.
Billionaire bankrolling of the anti-gun movement is perhaps the most significant new development in the gun control debate in our lifetime. Last year, anti-gun activist Michael Bloomberg donated $350 million to Johns Hopkins University’s School of Public Health, already named for Bloomberg, based upon his previous donations. Bloomberg, the Washington Post reported, also “has committed to spending $50 million of his personal fortune this year to build a national grass-roots movement that will pressure lawmakers to pass more restrictive gun laws.”
In May, we noted that the Democracy Alliance, backed by George Soros, is planning to funnel millions of dollars to a variety of groups that support gun control and other “progressive” causes. According to an internal document (document pp. 54-55) prepared by the “alliance,” those anti-gun groups include the Brennan Center, the Center for American Progress, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown operation, MediaMatters, Organizing for Action/BarackObama.com, the Progressive Majority, and Third Way.
Also in May, the Washington Times reported that anti-gun members of Congress aren’t satisfied with the millions of dollars that their ideological brethren are investing in the anti-gun cause. They want gun owners to help pay for it as well. Toward that end, Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) have introduced legislation proposing to spend $60 million of the taxpayers’ money to study gun violence (i.e., promote gun control) over the next few years.
The Chan family chose Harvard to receive its $350 million donation at least in part because one of the members of the family attended the school previously. However, Harvard’s School of Public Health already had a long record of aggressive support for gun control, largely funded by the Joyce Foundation and other progressive donors. Its Injury Control Research Center, led by anti-gun public health researchers David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, was the source of much of the biased anti-gun advocacy “research” that convinced Congress to prohibit the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from paying for any more of it with the taxpayers’ money.
Gun control supporters would like nothing more than for gun owners to think that resistance to the anti-gunners bottomless pocketbooks is futile. But, we know that no matter how much money the anti-gunners spend, they can’t buy our freedom, because it’s not for sale. Let the anti-gun billionaires know that by Voting Freedom First on November 4.
- Anti-Gun MarketWatch Articl… by Glenn At New…
On August 27, MarketWatch.com, supposedly a website for stock market investors, published a cynical article about gun manufacturers and gun ownership, titled 10 Things the Gun Industry Won’t Tell You. In fact, MarketWatch has been running and re-running the same article for months now, just changing the date every so often, to make it appear brand new.
MarketWatch apparently isn’t interested in dealing with firearm issues in a serious way, however, because the author of the article is fluff journalist Catey Hill. You can get a pretty good idea about Hill’s writing style from the titles of her other articles, such as “10 Things Your Spouse Won’t Tell You,” “10 Things Your Boss Won’t Tell You,” “10 Things Your Coworkers Won’t Tell You” and, luckily for Lindsay Lohan, only “9 Things Lindsay Lohan Should Do to Save Her Career.”
Whatever can be said about those literary gems, Hill’s article insulting the firearm industry consists mostly of unfair innuendos and plain old mistakes. For example, Hill implies that the firearm industry is up to something sinister, claiming that it “won’t tell you” that “Ammo is our secret (business) weapon,” that “Under ‘Gun Ban Obama,’ we’re doing just fine,” and that “Fear is good for our bottom line.”
Where Hill gets the idea that it’s some sort of secret that the firearm industry sells ammunition is anyone’s guess. And we don’t know where Hill has been lately but, for more than a year, real journalists have been reporting that Americans have been buying more guns than usual, due to concerns about anti-gun legislation being pushed by President Obama and his allies in Congress.
Hill claims that the firearm industry “won’t tell you” that “Owning our product may be hazardous to your health.” She bases her opinion on an article in the Annals of Internal Medicine, which reviewed “studies” purporting to show that guns kept at home are more likely to be used to kill someone who lives there, than to kill a criminal.
Par for the course, Hill failed to mention that those studies have been discounted by independent researchers. For example, criminologist Gary Kleck, in his book, Targeting Guns, says that the studies are the source of “the most nonsensical statistic in the gun control debate,” because they don’t consider a gun to have been used for self-defense unless a criminal has been killed. The mistake is, as Kleck points out, criminals are killed in only about one-tenth of one percent of defensive gun uses.
Hill also claims that the gun industry “won’t tell you” that “Gun control may work.” But for whom does she think she is speaking? The industry knows that studies conducted for Congress, for the National Academy of Sciences, and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have concluded that there’s no evidence that gun control reduces crime. Saying that gun control “might work” is a greater stretch of the law of probabilities than saying you “might win” a lottery. After all, occasionally someone wins a lottery.
Finally, no assortment of anti-gun babble would be complete without a Code Red alarm about the fact that Congress hasn’t passed legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the FBI’s Terrorist Watchlist. Hill’s assortment is no exception. She says the firearm industry “won’t tell you” that “We sell guns to people you might not want us to.”
But Hill conveniently forgot to mention a couple of important points. First, the vast majority of people on the Watchlist are foreign nationals who have not been admitted to the United States under immigrant visas. Thus, under federal law, they’re not allowed to buy or possess guns in the U.S. in the first place. Next, while admitting that the FBI sometimes puts people on the Watchlist by mistake, Hill didn’t mention that some aspects of the Watchlist are so lacking in due process as to have been declared unconstitutional.
If MarketWatch is as biased and superficial in its approach to matters of finance, as Hill is where firearms are concerned, we think we’ll get our investment advice somewhere else!
- Ray Ficara on “Repeal the SAFE Act&…Are they in the basement of the Gov's Mansion?
- Ray Ficara on Star Witness In Michael Bro…Is he Jenteal's cousin?
- Ray Ficara on An Automatic Weapon Is What…The Media HAVE their "sources".
- Ray Ficara on Gun-grabber Bloomturd’s epi…The ONLY stores not robbed or burned were guarded by owners with GUNS.
- Glenn At New… on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Notice he 'fesses up only after Bloomturd's last paycheck cleared...
- Ray Ficara on Video: Stupid Liberals Shoo…They ALWAYS do. That's why libs hate ranges and shooting schools.
- Ray Ficara on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…But you can have a NICE living of them.
- Greg Tabor on Bloomturd’s Departing Front…Well, Duh, anyone with half a brain could have told you that it wouldn't work!!!
- Greg Tabor on Trend toward stand your gro…Who else sleeps with a pistol under their pillow?? Mine's a .45, how about yours?
- Greg Tabor on The Second Amendment Only A…Well, Duh, money Rules, Peons eat shit.