New York City Guns archive
Category : Education

Women More Likely to Commit Domestic Violence, Studies Show

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 17, 2014

Football player Ray Rice’s video-captured February attack on his then-fiancée has once again brought domestic violence into the public’s consciousness.

Or has it?

Critics would say that while it has placed a spotlight on violence against women, that isn’t at all synonymous with “domestic violence.”

Because studies show that most domestic violence may actually be violence against men.

This has just been brought to light by Guardian columnist Glen Poole, who recently asked why British actress Kelly Brook has “got away with punching two men”? Complaining that there “is little room for the female perpetrator or the male victim in mainstream modern discourse around violence and [sex],” he goes on to point out:

Women are committing violence against men and boys on a daily basis…. International research suggests that as much as half of domestic violence is committed against men, but in the UK, fewer that [sic] 7% of convicted perpetrators are female. So what can we learn from Brook’s refusal to take responsibility for her own celebrity violence? She is clearly no ordinary women [sic], but the gender script she is performing is predictably ordinary.

Yet not only is this information about sex and violence nothing new, some would say Poole is understating the case. For example, Sophie Goodchild reported in a 2000 Guardian piece on a study showing that women were actually more likely to initiate violence in relationships, writing:

The study … is based on an analysis of 34,000 men and women by a British academic. Women lash out more frequently than their husbands or boyfriends, concludes John Archer, professor of psychology at the University of Central Lancashire and president of the International Society for Research on Aggression.

… Professor Archer analysed data from 82 US and UK studies on relationship violence, dating back to 1972. He also looked at 17 studies based on victim reports from 1,140 men and women…. [H]e said that female aggression was greater in westernised women because they were “economically emancipated” and therefore not afraid of ending a relationship.

This is likely only a small part of why women have become more violent, however. Other observers point out that some women will take advantage of domestic-violence laws and procedures, knowing that if a man they assault retaliates, calling the police will generally result in the onus being placed on him. In addition, increased female domestic assault is part and parcel of a decades-long rise in female violence in general.

Read More…

Gabe Suarez: Multiple, Accelerated OODA Loops

Categories: Education, Skills
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 16, 2014

Man at car

Many, no doubt, have seen this video and have formed some opinion about what should or should not be done in a scenario like this. I have polled several police officers from the lowly rank of officer, like myself, to assistant chiefs. I have polled detectives and am awaiting some results from a few other agencies. What I found was not that surprising. I found that 50% of the people I talked to stated that they would shoot before seeing a gun based on the man’s behavior. The other 50% stated that they would wait to see a gun before they engaged.

I heard and read several responses on the Warrior Talk Forums, where “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” was applied to a scenario like this. If one shoots this guy to the ground and it turns out that he didn’t have a weapon, they argued that one would be screwed legally (criminally & civilly). Others argued that if you didn’t shoot or if you waited to visually acquire a gun before shooting, it would be too late. The “good guy” is behind the power curve and may not catch up to the event happening to him or her. If this is the case, your chances of being shot and/or killed increase. For me, I tend to err on the side of winning the physical fight and shooting him to the ground before visually acquiring a weapon based on the violator’s behavior. That is me, though. Every person has to decide for themselves at what point their “Red Line” has been crossed and its time to engage. Whether or not I’m pursued criminally or civilly is a real possibility……unless……I’m dead. Then it doesn’t matter.

Read More…

“Assault weapon” bans have proved very unpopular — but the anti-gun lobbies aren’t giving up entirely

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 16, 2014

To mark the tenth anniversary of the expiration of the federal ban on so-called assault weapons, the anti-gun lobbies made a surprising announcement: They are not attempting to push for a new ban. This is a smart decision, because there is more than one way to shrink the American gun culture. The “assault weapon” prohibition campaign of the last quarter-century was the most successful effort in American history to ban large numbers of guns. But, ultimately, it proved more harmful than helpful to the politicians who supported it and the groups that promoted it.

No president ever invested so much political capital in gun control as Bill Clinton did in order to drag the federal “assault weapon” ban over the finish line in 1994. It passed the House by a single vote. One of the trade-offs to get the prohibition bill passed was a ten-year sunset provision, plus funding for studies to analyze the law’s effects. There were several interim reports, plus a final report issued in early 2004 by Professor Christopher Koper, then of the University of Pennsylvania. The report concluded: “there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.”

Not surprisingly, when the sunset date arrived in September 2004, the law vanished, with much less public controversy than had accompanied its enactment.

Now, on the tenth anniversary of the sunset, the anti-gun lobbies announced their acceptance that this particular sun may never rise again. The announcement came in the form of a report issued by the Center for American Progress, the dominant think tank of the left wing of the Democratic establishment. The report proposed various new anti-gun laws, including special licensing for “assault weapons,” but did not urge prohibition of those firearms.

Last Friday, the news website ProPublica posted an article titled “Why Gun Control Groups Have Moved Away from an Assault Weapons Ban.” The story quoted officials in the two major anti-gun groups (the Bloomberg group and the Brady Campaign), who said they still wanted to ban the guns, but were not currently pushing the ban as a priority.

Read More…

Busting the Top 3 Myths About the Second Amendment

Categories: Activism, Education, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

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 Millions of Dollars More For Bogus Anti-Gun “Studies”

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

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/, 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 Article in Re-Run Mode

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

On August 27,, 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!

Prohibitionists Give up on Semi-Auto Bans? Not So Fast

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

For the last 25 years, banning so-called “assault weapons” has been at the forefront of the anti-gun agenda. However, in recent days, an article from ProPublica and a “study” from The Center for American Progress indicated that the gun control establishment is shifting away from advocating for semi-auto bans and towards background checks/registration. The “coincidence” of these publications appearing days apart hints at what might be public relations scheming, rather than a genuine shift in viewpoint.

While this supposed de-emphasis on semi-auto bans should be met with skepticism by all gun rights supporters, the items discussing the reevaluation of priorities are instructive in that they illustrate the quarter-century-long campaign against semi-autos was unjustified from inception.

The ProPublica article cites several prominent gun control activists who are now downplaying the importance of semi-auto bans. Bloomberg mouthpiece Shannon Watts, who started Moms Demand Action specifically to target semi-autos, acknowledged to ProPublica that at some point she “realized that pushing for a ban isn’t the best way to prevent gun deaths.” Similarly, Bloomberg employee Erika Soto Lamb mused, in regards to semi-auto bans, “we feel like it’s a more productive use of our time, effort, money, voices, and votes [to focus] on policies that are going to save the most lives.” The Brady Campaign’s Dan Gross also noted a shift in focus, stating that semi-auto bans are not the “greatest opportunity” to “prevent gun violence.”

The ProPublica item goes on to cite the 2004 federally-funded University of Pennsylvania study that determined the federal semi-auto ban’s “impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” NRA has been quoting this study’s findings for a decade.

For its part, the Center for American Progress’ “Assault Weapons Revisited” paper noted that there has been a shift in the gun control community towards supporting restrictions on “who” may own firearms rather than “which” types of firearms Americans can own. Nevertheless, the paper also advocates for an array of policy options for restricting semi-auto ownership, just short of a total ban (see related story).

These acknowledgements and purported changes in goals are a far cry from the hysterical rhetoric we heard when gun controllers were advocating for the federal semi-auto ban in the early nineties and for its renewal in 2004. In 1994, then President of Handgun Control Inc. (later renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) Richard Aborn, emoted, “The case to ban assault weapons is so overwhelming that it need not be discussed further.” In the statement, Aborn went on to insist, “While our children are crying out they are also watching… What message will we send them if the law refuses to respond to their cry for help by failing to remove weapons of war from their midst?” A 1990 Brady ad referred to popular semi-autos as “drug guns.”

In the in the mid-to-late 2000s, the Brady Campaign attempted to gin up support for renewing the federal ban by exploiting the public’s fear of terrorism. Prior to the ban’s sunset in 2004, Brady lamented, “we are on the brink of allowing a flood of that ‘mass-produced mayhem’ to be available to our terrorist enemies who seek the tools of violence.” Other Brady materials called the sunset, a “dire threat to public safety.”

Needless to say, similar rhetoric has accompanied more recent “assault weapon” ban campaigns, with President Obama himself asserting in 2012, “weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets.” New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) even indicated earlier this year that opponents of his expanded “assaults weapons” ban are extremists who “have no place in the state of New York.”

A murder rate that has continued to drop since 2004, multiple studies on the nonexistent effect of the 1994 ban, and now the gun control activist’s own acknowledgements, make clear that the campaign against semi-autos was never about evidence-based public policy. Instead, it was an attempt to use emotion to further a major front in the cultural war on gun owners: banning guns – any guns – by any means possible.

Even though the gun control community’s emphasis may have shifted to background checks and registration, their tactics are the same. Similar to the anti-semi-auto campaign, gun controllers continue to rely on wild rhetoric and misinformation. The most notable recent example is the continued misuse of the statistic purporting to show that 40 percent of firearms sales occur without a background check, to impress upon people just how supposedly vital background check/registration legislation is. Even though the statistic has been debunked by the Washington Post and the recent experience of Colorado, the website for Everytown for Gun Safety (among other gun control outlets) still promotes the fallacy.

NRA members understand the truth. The gun control movement wants to eliminate civilian firearm ownership. As the public would never support this, firearm prohibitionists need to take incremental steps towards their goal. Any incremental step towards their ultimate goal is a victory for them, no matter how illogical or unsupported by fact. When one of their proposals is soundly rejected, they simply shift to another one of their proposals, while temporarily shelving the other for a more opportune time.

Today the primary focus of the major gun control organizations is background check/registration legislation. However, these groups would gladly shift back to primarily advocating for gun bans if given an opportunity to advance such legislation. That is why, regardless of the gun control movement’s current pet cause, gun rights supporters must remain vigilant on all the various issues that affect our rights and the underlying tactics of emotional manipulation and disinformation our opposition uses to promote their agenda.

Rice, Allen Cases Show Danger of Unchecked Prosecutorial Discretion

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

The year 2014 has gone from bad to worse for Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice. In February, he was involved in an ugly confrontation with his then-fiancée (and now wife) Janay Palmer in an Atlantic City hotel casino. A security camera captured the incident, which ended with Rice hauling the unconscious Palmer out of the elevator.

At first, handling of the event seemed to be favoring Rice. The Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office, for its part, was willing to give Rice a break. In May, Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain agreed to allow Rice to enter a pretrial intervention program for first offenders, even though Rice was indicted for felony aggravated assault. The program allows Rice not just the opportunity to avoid prison time but, upon successful completion of the program’s requirements, any conviction whatsoever.

Initially, and perhaps based in part on the leniency shown in the criminal case, the NFL was also notably forgiving. After meeting with Rice and his representatives in June, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on July 24 handed Rice a two-game suspension for violation of the league’s personal conduct policy.

As for Ms. Palmer herself, she was also willing to put the incident behind her. In March, she and Rice were married.

The picture changed radically for Rice this week, however, after additional video footage of the incident became public (readers should be cautioned of the graphic nature of the footage). In the video, the 27-year-old professional football player is seen knocking Palmer out with a brutal punch to her face. Faced with intense public outrage (during which even the President of the United States voiced his condemnation of domestic abusers), the Ravens released Rice, and the NFL reversed its earlier decision and suspended him from the league indefinitely.

You now have to look pretty hard to find anyone willing to defend Rice or suggest that leniency in his case is appropriate. At least one person, however, believed his prosecution was handled appropriately. That would be Atlantic City Prosecutor Jim McClain. Speaking to the media, McClain insisted that Rice would not have gone to prison even upon conviction. “Even if they disagree with why I did what I did, I just want people to know the decision was made after careful consideration of the law, careful consideration of the facts, hearing the voice of the victim and considering all the parameters,” he said. With evident futility, McClain added, “I want people to have confidence in this agency, even if they don’t agree with everything we do.”

Based on a number of scathing editorials, Mr. McClain may find that wish unfulfilled. As we recently reported, McClain’s office took a very different posture in a case involving Shaneen Allen, a single mother from Philadelphia who was arrested last October after a traffic stop, allegedly for weaving within the lane of travel. By all accounts, the worst that could be said of Ms. Allen is that she failed to understand her Pennsylvania concealed carry permit was not recognized under New Jersey law, meaning that when she informed police of the handgun in her purse, they had all the evidence they needed for a felony arrest. Like Rice, Ms. Allen had no criminal history. Like Rice, she was gainfully employed. Like Rice, she was accepted into Atlantic County’s Pretrial Intervention Program (PTI) by its director. Like Rice, Ms. Allen is finding her year getting far worse as it progresses.

Unlike Rice, however, the offense for which she was accused involved no violence, aggression, or harm to another person. Yet McClain’s office nevertheless refused to dispose of the case through PTI, leading the same judge who handled Rice’s case to rule that he would defer to the prosecutor’s discretion. According to the assistant prosecutor who appeared at the hearing, Allen’s prosecution could serve as a “deterrent,” and the alleged offense was “too serious to warrant divergence” into PTI. If convicted, Ms. Allen faces a mandatory minimum of three years in prison, with a possible sentence of up to 10 years.

Numerous commentators (including here, here, and here) have already mentioned the gross disparity in how the Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office and the New Jersey criminal “justice” system have treated the two cases. McClain’s office has refused to address the issue with the media, saying they won’t comment on a pending prosecution.

Ms. Allen’s fate is scheduled to be decided in October by a New Jersey jury. However, as this article is going to press, we can report that McClain’s office has requested her upcoming trial be delayed while he reviews the appropriate resolution of her case, and that a judge has granted McClain’s request.

Whatever the outcome, Congress should act. If states like New Jersey refuse to recognize the Second Amendment, the federal government has a duty to ensure the rights of the American people by passing federal legislation like the pending Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013.

Rest assured, we’ll keep readers apprised of any new developments.

Homeland Security Bulletin: Islamic State Can Attack U.S. Overseas With ‘Little to No Warning’

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

HLS wrnng

The Department of Homeland Security and FBI have put out a joint intelligence bulletin to all federal law enforcement that the Islamic State has the capability to mount attacks on U.S. targets overseas with “little to no warning.”

While the bulletin, obtained by TheBlaze, states that the FBI and DHS are unaware of any “specific, credible threats” against the U.S. homeland, they urge law enforcement to be vigilant about social media postings by Islamic State supporters within the U.S. calling for attacks against America.

The warning was dated Aug. 22, less than a month shy of the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and as U.S. intelligence registered a spike in chatter from jihadi websites ahead of the anniversary.

Read More…

Stop and seize: Cops take hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists not charged with crimes

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

After the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the government called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.

Local officers, county deputies and state troopers were encouraged to act more aggressively in searching for suspicious people, drugs and other contraband. The departments of Homeland Security and Justice spent millions on police training.

ABOVE: : Video images from YouTube, Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office and Seward County Sheriff’s Office.

The effort succeeded, but it had an impact that has been largely hidden from public view: the spread of an aggressive brand of policing that has spurred the seizure of hundreds of millions of dollars in cash from motorists and others not charged with crimes, a Washington Post investigation found. Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.

Stop and Seize: In recent years, thousands of people have had cash confiscated by police without being charged with crimes. The Post looks at the police culture behind the seizures and the people who were forced to fight the government to get their money back.
Part 2: One training firm started a private intelligence-sharing network and helped shape law enforcement nationwide.
Part 3: Motorists caught up in the seizures talk about the experience and the legal battles that sometimes took more than a year.
Live chat at noon Wednesday​: The reporters behind “Stop and Seize” will be online to answer your questions about the investigative series. Submit your questions here.

Behind the rise in seizures is a little-known cottage industry of private police-training firms that teach the techniques of “highway interdiction” to departments across the country.

One of those firms created a private intelligence network known as Black Asphalt Electronic Networking & Notification System that enabled police nationwide to share detailed reports about American motorists — criminals and the innocent alike — including their Social Security numbers, addresses and identifying tattoos, as well as hunches about which drivers to stop.

Many of the reports have been funneled to federal agencies and fusion centers as part of the government’s burgeoning law enforcement intelligence systems — despite warnings from state and federal authorities that the information could violate privacy and constitutional protections.

Read More…

Does the LEOSA (HR 218) Carry Law Apply to You?

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 15, 2014

Photo: Mark W. Clark

Having served in the Marine Corps, I am familiar with the perils of scuttlebutt, an old Navy term for water cooler talk that now means rumors and gossip. In law enforcement, a lot of the recent scuttlebutt focuses on off-duty and retired officer carry laws, covering what you can and cannot do under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA).

Signed into law on July 22, 2004, by President George W. Bush and codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 926B & C, LEOSA was intended to afford qualified active (QLEO) and qualified retired law enforcement officers (QRLEO) the privilege of carrying a concealed firearm in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all other U.S. possessions (except the Canal Zone) notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any state or political subdivision thereof.

LEOSA sounds pretty cut and dried. But unfortunately, it isn’t.

Vague language, confusing amendments, and a relative shortage of interpretive case law have allowed scuttlebutt and confusion to take over common sense application of its principles. And clarifying this law and what it means for law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement officers is a large part of my job as attorney for the National Rifle Association.

Qualification Requirements

Initially intended to apply only to people who are QLEO and QRLEO, LEOSA was amended in both 2010 and 2013, opening the door to individuals separated after an aggregate of 10 years or more service as an active, reserve, auxiliary, or volunteer law enforcement officer, as well as military and DOD police and law enforcement officers. In addition, LEOSA now applies for active law enforcement officers of the Amtrak Police Department, Federal Reserve, and executive branch of the Federal Government, even if they lack statutory powers of arrest. However, because of a failure to remain consistent with the language used in both parts of the statute, those without arrest authority are unable to qualify upon separation.

While many agencies argue that only full-time officers qualify for the privileges afforded by LEOSA, the plain language of the statute and case law interpreting it prove otherwise.

Read More…

Upstate New York braces as Remington Arms packs up to leave (Thanks CuHomo!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 13, 2014

An upstate New York lawmaker said the loss of manufacturing jobs in the state last month is due to an anti-gun administration that has ignored pleas from local officials to be involved in the negotiating process.

“Remington talks have come to a halt,” said Assemblyman Marc W. Butler (R.-Newport), whose district includes the Village of Ilion, where the Remington Outdoor Company has been located for almost 200 years. “We are losing 105 jobs at the Ilion primary plant,” said Butler.

In February he predicted long-term consequences of Remington’s decision to expand to Huntsville, Ala., instead of Ilion, N.Y. The small community of 8,000 people Northwest of Albany will be hit-hard by the layoffs, said Butler. Remington, the country’s oldest firearm manufacturer, is adding a 500,000 sq.-ft. development site in Huntsville.

“It is very unfortunate for us in New York,” he said. “We have a great, quality work force; expansion here would have been ideal.” There were talks about additional facilities at “The Pumpkin Patch” in Herkimer County; however he said information was not given to the area senator or county officials, until after they learned about it in the news.

“The core product line at Ilion has not been affected by the job losses,” he said. “We could preserve what remains there.” The Ilion branch of Remington, which has about 1300 employees, has a building that is old, and antiquated, said Butler. If the facility is modernized, he is hopeful Remington will find a way to sell its sub-products there.

Remington 1911 and Bushmaster is shifting from New York to Alabama due to the odious provisions in the SAFE Act, he said. “Bushmaster rifles are considered assault weapons.” Bushmaster, who is the leading supplier of AR15-type rifles in the nation, is sold to consumers for hunting, recreation, competition, and home defense.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo dismissed criticism that the Mohawk Valley gun-giant has laid off workers because of the state’s gun-control laws, said Thomas H. King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the largest state affiliate of the National Rifle Association.

It is Cuomo’s anti-gun agenda that has hurt business and will continue to hurt business in New York, he said. “Remington has been critical of the SAFE Act since the gun-control law was championed by Cuomo in January 2013.”

Butler, who has called for the repeal of the SAFE Act, said he was told by Herkimer County officials in February that the state offered a proposal to Remington to expand in New York but when he wrote Empire State Development Commissioner Kenneth Adams over 7 months ago to request details of its proposal, no response was forthcoming.

“Twenty-four states made proposals for Remington to expand in their state,” he said. “What did New York bring to the table?”

Read More…

After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth”

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 13, 2014

In a stunning op-ed released Friday, the NY Times finally admitted that “assault weapons” are a made-up political term fabricated by anti-gun Democrats.

Op-ed writer Lois Beckett also admitted that once the term was manufactured and used to outlaw a class of weapons that dishonest anti-gun Democrats had used to con an entire nation, nothing happened.

It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000.

Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets.

This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban.

Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

Banning sales of military-style weapons resonated with both legislators and the public: Civilians did not need to own guns designed for use in war zones.

On Sept. 13, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed an assault weapons ban into law. It barred the manufacture and sale of new guns with military features and magazines holding more than 10 rounds. But the law allowed those who already owned these guns — an estimated 1.5 million of them — to keep their weapons.

The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.

They created and then banned a class of weapons.

“Assault weapons” is a made-up term, used to scare citizens into thinking that military weapons were commonly being sold and used on the streets of the United States. Thanks to a dishonest and incompetent media, millions of Americans thought (and still think) that machine guns could simply be purchased at the local gun store. The reality that the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act outlawed the manufacture of automatic weapons for the civilian market in 1986, was always hushed up.

Yes, it has been 28 years since a single machine gun was manufactured for the American public. There are no assault rifles being sold in the United States. There are only firearms that look like weapons of war, but which lack their ability to fire multiple shots with a since pull of the trigger.

Read More…


Categories: Education, Reviews, Shooting, Skills
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 13, 2014


This is the first in a series of articles discussing how to carry a weapon without detection, as well as how to detect others that may be carrying weapons. I have been carrying concealed firearms all of my adult life. I carried in spite of regulations before my life in law enforcement. I carried officially during off duty hours and while working various plain clothes as well as undercover details as a police officer in Southern California. Later, I carried weapons as a “private businessman” in various non-permissive environments overseas in Africa, and Latin America as well as Europe. There are some things to consider and some points to always observe.

1). Always carry a gun, the biggest gun you can conceal (which means “hide”) for the job at hand. If you cannot carry a big gun, carry a small gun. A Walther PPK in 32 ACP in the hand is better than a Glock 21 at home.

2). If you can’t carry a gun, carry a knife. Actually, you should always have a knife whether you have a gun or not. Be as good with the knife as you are with the gun. The power of the will to use the weapon is 90% of the matter.

Read More…

Wyoming endorses firing squad for capital cases when drugs are unavailable (Gotta Love It!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: September 12, 2014

The Wyoming Department of Corrections should be able to employ a firing squad to execute condemned inmates if the state can’t find the drugs to carry out lethal injections, a legislative committee voted Friday.

Meeting in Laramie, the interim Joint Judiciary Committee advanced a firing-squad bill for the full Legislature to consider when it convenes early next year. The committee rejected another bill that would have called for the state to repeal the death penalty altogether.

Read More…

Training Schedule

9/27/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

10/11/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

10/25/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/8/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/22/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/6/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

12/20/14 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

Awesome Vulgarity Warning!
“AR-15 Bans Die Painfully”


Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Shop & Support Us
Real Gun Facts
Welcome , today is Wednesday, September 17, 2014