'IF MARYLAND FELONS CAN VOTE, CAN THEY ALSO OWN GUNS,' CCRKBA ASKS MARRIOTTby nancy'IF MARYLAND FELONS CAN VOTE, CAN THEY ALSO OWN GUNS,' CCRKBA ASKS MARRIOTT BELLEVUE, WA – Maryland Delegate Salima Siler Marriott wants to restore voting rights to convicted murderers, rapists and armed robbers, so would she support legislation that restores gun rights to people convicted of assorted crimes as well? That's the question posed by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) after Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, launched her latest campaign to allow felons to vote in Maryland. According to a story in the Washington Times, an estimated 150,000 convicted felons would be able to cast ballots if Marriott's plan becomes law. By no small coincidence, the newspaper noted, an estimated 85,000 of these felons are likely to vote for Democrats, according to the penal reform organization Justice Maryland. "Each year, thousands of Americans discover that, because of some conviction years ago, perhaps when they were juveniles, they can no longer legally own a firearm," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Others find themselves stripped of their gun rights by some misdemeanors, without ever having been convicted of a felony. We're talking about people victimized by insidious gun laws, people who have frequently become model citizens in their communities. "Yet, here comes Delegate Marriott with a scheme to re-enfranchise tens of thousands of violent, hardened criminals simply because she thinks most of them will vote for her party," Gottlieb observed. "Evidently, some politicians can't help but strive for a new low when it comes to scraping up votes. However, nobody ever accused liberal Democrats of being consistent on matters of public policy. "Owning a firearm is as much a civil right as casting a vote," Gottlieb said. "If a person has paid his or her debt to society and Marriott believes they should once again assume the responsibilities of citizenship by voting, then shouldn't people also be allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights as well? "The Bill of Rights is an all-or-nothing proposition," he said. "If Marriott can trust a rapist or murderer with a vote, then shouldn't we trust someone who may have been living an exemplary life after being convicted of some juvenile offense that may have been a victimless crime thirty years ago by allowing that person to own a gun?" -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2006 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com with remove in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply. To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list. |
Column: New government will have to deal with gun legislationbyColumn: New government will have to deal with gun legislation Date: Jan 24, 2006 8:07 AM PUBLICATION: Times & Transcript (Moncton) DATE: 2006.01.24 PAGE: B6 SECTION: Everett Mosher BYLINE: WORD COUNT: 628 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- New government will have to deal with gun legislation ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- As this was written yesterday, the outcome of the federal election was still very much an unknown. Yet, regardless of that outcome, hunters, target shooters, collectors and all others that own firearms will be affected in one way or the other. Paul Martin has proposed the banning of all privately owned handguns. Steven Harper has stated that he will do away with Bill C-68. Yet, almost everyone is well aware that banning handguns will only affect the law abiding owners of currently registered handguns and will have no affect on the illegal use of handguns by criminals. Conversely, there is some doubt that Harper will completely do away with all aspects of the bill. Full implementation of this legislation was supposed to cost no more than $119 million, yet the current cost is over $1.5 billion (that's $1,500,000,000) and steadily increasing. That $1.5 billion has been spent and can never be recovered. Current yearly costs are projected to be around $100 million, give or take $10-20 million. If we look at a cross-section of the Canadian public, we find a small percentage that would outlaw the private ownership of all firearms, with their possession limited to the police and the military. Some of those folks have lost loved ones killed by a firearm, yet there are also those that have supported this viewpoint for purely political reasons, or for reasons of personal profit, power, etc. Then we have the majority of Canadians who do not own a firearm, yet are concerned that firearms are being used for criminal purposes. These folks can be swayed either for or against private ownership, depending on what they read or hear. For the average firearm owner, the hassle involved in acquiring a firearm licence and registering their firearms stirred up considerable resentment towards the Liberal government in Ottawa. They have also been more than a little upset about what it has cost them financially and that it has cost all Canadian taxpayers, firearm owner and non- firearm owner alike, $1.5 billion to date. Despite the spending of all this money, there is no evidence that it has reduced the criminal use of firearms one iota. In the firearms community a significant percentage are very much opposed to both the licensing of the firearm owner and the registration of firearms. Most of these folks are of the firm belief that firearm registration is but the first step to eventual confiscation. Martin's proposed ban on handguns lends credibility to this belief. Note that in Great Britain the private ownership of all handguns has been banned. Olympic pistol shooters have to travel to another country in order to practiae. In Australia, the ownership of all semi-auto and pump action long guns has been banned for several years. Yet, in both countries the criminal use of firearms has risen substantially since then. It seems very elementary common sense to say we should register and ban the criminal, not the firearm. Although the figures are not precise, less than 10 per cent of the population commits 90 per cent of the crimes. When a criminal gets out of jail, he or she is very likely to go on committing more crimes. We currently have a revolving door system with criminals. Instead, if we had a "three strikes your out" policy like California where, if a criminal is convicted of a crime for the third time they are sent to jail for life, it's speculated that crimes in this country would drop by as much as one- half. We should be targeting the criminal element, not an inanimate object such as a firearm. The newly elected government should not do away with the licensing of firearm owners. They do, however, need to start a registry of those who were refused a firearm licence, information that is not currently kept. As for the possible discontinuance of the current long gun firearm registry, we must first ask certain questions. The public very much wants to know if this registry actually reduces the criminal use of firearms, and, if so, to what extent; and, does the benefits justify the costs. Yet, the key question to ask is just how much Bill C-68 has infringed on the privacy and other rights of firearm owning Canadians. And that may well be the primary reason why the legislation should be thrown out, replaced with firearm legislation that would be common sensed, practical, cost effective and target the criminals, without infringing on the rights of law- abiding Canadians. No soap opera can ever compare to what has gone on in political circles in Ottawa, including having a separatist party in the Canadian parliament. Thus what goes on in Ottawa the next few months should be more than a little interesting, especially since it will affect each and every Canadian |
CCRKBA APPLAUDS CANADA GUN OWNERS FOR KICKING OUT LIBERAL EXTREMISTSby nancyCCRKBA APPLAUDS CANADA GUN OWNERS FOR KICKING OUT LIBERAL EXTREMISTS BELLEVUE, WA – A dozen years of disastrous Liberal government in Canada came to an end Monday as Canadian gun owners turned out in large numbers to unseat the party that "didn't learn a thing from the experience of liberal anti-gun Democrats in the United States," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said Tuesday morning. "Early indications are that Canadian gun owners were pivotal in throwing out more than 20 Liberal members of Parliament," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan M. Gottlieb, "and they had it coming. For the past 12 years, Liberals under Jean Chrétien and then Paul Martin have waged a war of social bigotry against Canadian gun owners, and it is clear from Monday's election results that gun owners have had enough. "Despite an overall low voter turnout," Gottlieb observed, "it appears Canadian gun owners did not sit out the election. They knew that spending more than a billion dollars on a scandal-ridden gun registration boondoggle hasn't prevented a single violent crime in their country. They knew that Martin's threat to ban all privately-owned handguns would not prevent a single criminal from getting his hands on one. "Just like liberal, anti-gun Democrats in the United States in the 1990s, Canada's Liberals became too arrogant," Gottlieb noted. "Democrats believed they were ballot-proof as they pushed one gun control scheme after another, holding firearms owners responsible for crimes they didn't commit. Canadian Liberals forgot what happened to liberal Democrats in 1994, and evidently didn't notice they've been out of power ever since. "Liberal Democrats now need to take a lesson from Canada's election," Gottlieb stated, "because the whole world is watching. It's clear there is a movement growing around the globe. Brazilian citizens last year rejected a national gun ban, and now, Canadian gun owners have spoken. Americans have been telling liberal Democrats for more than a decade that gun control is a losing proposition, and the elections in Brazil and Canada prove that. "Gun owners around the world can't make it any more plain," Gottlieb concluded. "We're telling politicians to keep their hands off our guns, because firearm ownership is more than a recreational pastime, it is a symbol of liberty. There's a line in the sand stretching from Houston to Hudson's Bay. Cross it at your own peril." -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2006 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com with remove in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply. To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list. |
FW: NEWS RELEASE/COMMUNIQUÉ - Statement by Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper/Déclarationby nancyFW: NEWS RELEASE/COMMUNIQUÉ - Statement by Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper/Déclaration du Premier ministre élu Stephen Harper Date: Jan 24, 2006 4:27 PM Attachments: image001.gif FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 24, 2006 Statement by Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper OTTAWA – Statement by Prime Minister elect Stephen Harper: “The Conservative transition team will be led by Derek H. Burney, who served previously as Canada's Ambassador to the United States and as Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. Mr. Burney will be assisted by a group with extensive experience in government. Their main objective will be to ensure a smooth transition from the outgoing to the incoming administration.” -30- For further information: Marie-Josée Lapointe (613) 355-3011 POUR DIFFUSION IMMÉDIATE 24 janvier 2006 Déclaration du Premier ministre élu Stephen Harper OTTAWA – Déclaration du Premier ministre élu Stephen Harper : « L’équipe de transition conservatrice sera dirigée par M. Derek H. Burney, ancien ambassadeur du Canada aux États-Unis et ancien chef de cabinet du Premier ministre Brian Mulroney. M. Burney sera épaulé par un groupe de personnes possédant une vaste expérience en gestion gouvernementale. Leur principal objectif sera d’assurer une transition sans heurt de l’administration sortante vers la nouvelle administration. » -30- Pour de plus amples renseignements : Marie-Josée Lapointe au (613) 355-3011
|
A HANDY 'SHOPPING LIST' FOR CRIMINALS OUT TO STEAL GUNS -- AND BULLETSby Nancy A HANDY 'SHOPPING LIST' FOR CRIMINALS OUT TO STEAL GUNS -- AND BULLETS Date: Jan 22, 2006 12:30 PM PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2006.01.22 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 10 ILLUSTRATION: 2 photos BYLINE: MARK BONOKOSKI COLUMN: Page Ten WORD COUNT: 823 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AMMUNITION RECORDS LISTING LEGITIMATE GUN OWNERS MAY PROVIDE A HANDY 'SHOPPING LIST' FOR CRIMINALS OUT TO STEAL GUNS -- AND BULLETS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the pre-election panic of seeing his Liberal party plummeting in the polls, Prime Minister Paul Martin jumped on the tragedy of Toronto's Year of the Gun and vowed to ban all handguns in this country -- his crosshairs obviously focused on legal collectors and sport shooters. Illegal handguns, after all, are already banned. His target, therefore, became the law-abiding citizen. The prime minister was aided and abetted by Toronto Mayor David Miller, who, despite proof to the contrary, took to the podium to nonetheless state that "about half" the handguns bringing blood and crime to the streets of this city were stolen from legal gun owners. If that were the case, then "about half" of those guns would have had to have been already seized. Otherwise there is no way of knowing whether they had once been legally registered. But this has not happened. What made the political bullets truly fly, however, was the high-profile story of a well-known Toronto gun collector and firearms instructor named Mike Hargreaves whose North Toronto apartment broken into while he was away visiting his son in Florida. Thirty-five high-powered weapons were stolen -- from Glock handguns to machineguns. The true hook on which the story hung, however, was the fact that one of those stolen guns was used last September in a triple homicide involving suspected gangbangers. Hargreaves, in a phone call from Florida, remembers getting a call from a senior officer at 41 Division. "Where's your Glock?" he was asked. "Why?" Hargreaves replied. "Because it's sitting here on my desk," said the officer. Hargreaves admits to being "devastated by the news" that the gun had been involved in a homicide and almost as devastated by the fact there is now a warrant out for his arrest for unsafe storage of those weapons -- despite the fact they were stored in a 771-kilo concrete-and-steel safe and that it took the industrious thieves two days using blowtorches and sledge hammers to gain access to it. "I went far and beyond what was legally required," said Hargreaves, indicating the vault was so heavy "that the elevator dropped 15 cm when the safe was loaded on." "It was hardly unsafe storage," he said. The fact that one of Hargreaves' guns ended up in the hands of a gang member, however, seemingly came as no surprise to Insp. Dave McLeod, head of the Toronto Police's newly minted urban organized crime squad. "We know (gangs) are gathering intelligence on gun owners," McLeod is quoted as saying. "But we don't know how they are doing it." Flashback to 1994, and a quick and emotionally driven response by Premier Bob Rae's NDP government over the shooting death of a young Toronto police officer. On July 23 of that year, one month after the on-duty murder of 25-year-old Const. Todd Baylis, Ontario became the toughest place in North America to buy ammunition as Bill 181 went into effect, requiring all ammunition retailers to keep records of all transactions -- the name and age of the purchaser, his or her address, the date and time, the type of identification used, plus any serial number and the type and quantity of ammunition purchased. It was called the Baylis Bill and, according to those representing legal gun owners, the book in which all those transactions are kept has evolved into a treasure chest of information for gangbangers looking for targets to case and then rob. "It's become a shopping list," says Larry Whitmore, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association. "Those books, in the wrong hands, provide a lot of information as to who has guns, where they live, as well as what calibre of ammunition they are buying. "They can be photocopied by a clerk running with a bad crowd. They can be sold for a price. Those books, quite often, are simply left on the counter," he says. "If the police are looking for where gangs are getting their information on gun owners, this is definitely one place to look -- thanks to the Rae government." William Hargreaves agrees. "Is it possible (ammunition) records at retail outlets are being used by gangs? Absolutely," he says. "Considering what happened to me, these are obviously not stupid people. "And what about the gun registry itself? If hackers can get into the Pentagon's computer, then who is to say they have not been able to hack into the federal gun registry? "It's a government-created mess." For years, Hargreaves purchased a great deal of ammunition at Ontario Sporting Supplies on Hwy. 7 in Vaughan. In September 2002, however, as many as six masked bandits stormed the gun shop, smashing display cases, stealing between 75 and 85 handguns, and then shooting employee John Fullerton without provocation. Fullerton, 40, died 24 hours later at Sunnybrook Hospital. Mike Hargreaves, a friend of 20 years, was at Fullerton's bedside -- along with Fullerton's mother, father and brother -- when the heart monitor flat-lined. Could the ammunition record book have been stolen as well on that day in September when Ontario Sporting Supplies was hit and John Fullerton shot? "You can't discount anything," says Hargreaves. "It doesn't take Einstein to figure that (ammunition) records could be a prime source of information." According to Det.-Sgt. Doug Quan, head of the Toronto Police guns and gangs task force, the favoured handguns of today are either 9-mm or .45-calibre. A black-market .22-calibre pistol costs $300 to $500, a .45-calibre handgun $800 to $1,000, a Tech 9 "point-and-spray" rapid-fire pistol $3,000. Since Ontario requires ammunition buyers to have an ownership licence and then have their information recorded at point of purchase, Quan has indicated that gangbangers now pay up to $10 a round -- with the ammo "usually" coming from "domestic break-ins" -- and that his squad last year seized about 18,000 illegal bullets. Guns, after all, cannot kill unless loaded. Every time a bullet is legally purchased, it leaves a paper trail -- a trail that has the potential of leading to a law-abiding citizen and a prime target for the gangs who abide by no law at all. ---------------------------------- NEWS RELEASE - January 10, 2006 NUMBER OF LEGAL GUNS STOLEN IS NO MORE THAN 16% - NOT 48% "It's time to make criminals pay a heavy price for stealing guns," saysBreitkreuz. http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/2006/news_release/jan_10b.htm |
TORONTO SUN: 218 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR THE LIBERALSby Nancy :)TORONTO SUN: 218 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR THE LIBERALS Date: Jan 22, 2006 12:30 PM PUBLICATION: The Toronto Sun DATE: 2006.01.22 EDITION: Final SECTION: News PAGE: 4 BYLINE: LINDA WILLIAMSON, TORONTO SUN WORD COUNT: 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 218 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR THE LIBERALS ------------------------------------------------------------------------ After 12 years, we at the Sun think it's self-evident that the Liberals have to go, and polls show most Canadians agree. But just in case you're still not sure, we've compiled a list of the lowlights of Liberal rule since 1993. There's plenty more where these came from, but we've narrowed it to 218 reasons not to vote Liberal. Take your pick: You really only need one. THIS ELECTION -- WE DID NOT MAKE THIS UP 1 Pre-election spending: $22.2 billion, according to Canadian Taxpayers Federation. 2 Pre-election tax relief: $30 billion -- about $323 per taxpayer; up from May budget total of only $16/year. 3 Attack ads. Smearing Stephen Harper. And our soldiers. Approved by Paul Martin himself. In Canada. 4 "Soldiers" ad pulled in English but French version continues in Quebec. Several Liberals say the ad is appalling. 5 TV journalist Mike Duffy accuses Liberal strategist John Duffy of trying to intimidate him into not discussing the ad. 6 Jan. 9: Martin suddenly vows, mid-debate, to scrap the feds' ability to use the "notwithstanding" clause in Charter cases. Even senior Liberals are shocked. 7 Conservatives accused of planning to "take away a woman's right to choose," despite promises to the contrary. 8 Grits charge Conservatives won't keep promises. Hmm. 9 Courting Toronto votes in the wake of record gun murders, Martin promises to ban handguns -- which have effectively been banned since 1937. 10 Also promises to ban weapons in outer space. 11 PM pledges mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes, despite Justice Minister's assertions they don't work. 12 Promises "heroes" fund for injured firefighters and rescuers -- an idea 57 Grits earlier voted against. 13 Spokesman Scott Reid declares parents would only blow the Tories' child care subsidy on "beer and popcorn." 14 Ontario VP Mike Klander resigns over blog comparing NDP's Olivia Chow to a dog and blasting Jack Layton. 15 Industry Minister David Emerson says NDP Leader Layton has a "boiled dog's head smile." 16 Oakville riding association president quits after telling anti-gun-registry voter to take her "gun-loving ass back to the U.S." 17 Martin blasts Conservative plan to cut GST; in 1993, he co-wrote Red Book promising to get rid of it. 18 Ex-Harvard prof and would-be leader Michael Ignatieff's nomination engineered over protest in Etobicoke-Lakeshore. 19 33% of voters believe Liberals have a "hidden agenda," as opposed to Conservatives (25%), according to Ipsos-Reid. 20 Chinese head tax: Liberals refused to apologize; PM suddenly offers "personal regret" on Chinese-language TV. 21 Separatism: Martin calls this a "referendum election." 22 80% of Quebecers dislike Martin (Strategic Counsel poll). 23 Martin vows to fight Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe on "every street corner" but later refuses to debate one-on-one. 24 Martin criticizes U.S. on Kyoto at climate conference -- even though Canada's emissions record is worse than theirs. 25 When U.S. ambassador points this out, Martin declares he won't be "dictated" to and will "stand up for Canada." 26 Martin stages photo- op with ex-U.S.-prez Bill Clinton. MINORITY MADNESS, SPRING FEVER 2005: 27-37 27 April: Martin pleaded on TV to be allowed to govern until 30 days after Justice John Gomery's final report on AdScam. 28 Grits then announced $23 billion in pre-pre-election spending. 29 May: Opposition days suspended so they can't call non-confidence vote. 30 NDP deal: Backroom deal to buy NDP support forced budget changes -- adding another $4.6 billion in spending. 31 Martin reversed sensible stand on U.S. missile defence. 32 Aid to Darfur boosted in bid to buy support of Independent MP David Kilgour. 33 Promised Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty $5.75 billion to fix "fiscal imbalance" over five years. 34 May 10: Grits lost vote 153-150 calling for them to resign, but refused to do so. 35 Secret health deal proposed to NDP; Layton rejects it. 36 May 17: Belinda Stronach wooed into Liberal caucus -- and cabinet -- just in time to win non-confidence vote. 37 Post-Belinda, Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal revealed tape recordings of PMO staffer Tim Murphy and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh discussing possible incentives if he crossed the floor. Grits said tapes were doctored. PAUL MARTIN'S LEGACY -- MR. DITHERS TAKES THE HELM: 38-63 38 Worked with loyal team for more than a decade to take over party from Jean Chretien. 39 Only rival left for leadership was Sheila Copps. 40 Put his company, Canada Steamship Lines, in a "blind trust" that wasn't. As PM, was allowed to transfer ownership to his sons, keeping it in the family. 41 Registered several CSL ships under foreign flags to avoid Canadian taxes. 42 Used U2 singer Bono for his star power; left him "mystified" and "crushed" by failing to deliver on world poverty. 43 Extended term of big-spending Gov.-Gen. Adrienne Clarkson; appointed Michaelle Jean without thoroughly checking out her past association with separatists. 44 Promised to "fix health care for a generation" with $41-billion deal with the provinces in 2004. Some fix! 45 Made separate side deal with Quebec on health care, calling it "asymmetrical federalism." 46 Agreed on "wait times strategy" with provinces in 2004. Still waiting for it to be implemented. 47 Personal doctor runs a private clinic. 48 Promised to change the way Supreme Court judges were appointed -- but only allowed MPs to question Justice Minister about them, after the fact. 49 Promised to diminish Western alienation or "I will have failed." 50 Slow to return from vacation after the South Asian tsunami, and dithered on sending Disaster Assistance Response Team. 51 February 2005: The Economist magazine immortalized "Mr. Dithers" nickname for his "faltering leadership." 52 May 2005: 63% told Strategic Counsel poll Martin was most dishonest party leader; 61% felt he was most likely to lie. 53 Sent controversial same-sex marriage bill to Supreme Court; didn't insist on a ruling on traditional marriage. 54 Invoked closure to ram same-sex bill into law June 28; cabinet members not allowed to vote their conscience. 55 Gave $2.2 billion in gas tax revenues to public transit, but none of it to repair crumbling roads. 56 Cut capital gains tax on charitable donations of securities to 50% in 1997, refused to eliminate it. 57 2004: Feds shamed over plan to send 70 bureaucrats to 60th anniversary D-Day event -- but only 60 veterans. 58 Tolerated Carolyn Parrish ("Damn Americans -- I hate those bastards") in caucus until she dissed him personally. 59 Blamed America for Canada's gun problem. 60 Before becoming PM, opposed the Clarity Act. 61 Ditto same-sex marriage. 62 And the Kyoto accord. 63 Also leaned toward joining the U.S.-led war in Iraq. MARTIN'S TURNCOAT MINISTERS: 64-67 Each of these converts to Paul Martin's Liberal team just happened to score a cabinet post: 64 Belinda Stronach (ex-Conservative leadership contender) -- in charge of Human Resources and, yes, ethics reform. 65 Scott Brison (ex-PC leadership hopeful) -- Public Works. 66 Ujjal Dosanjh (ex-NDP B.C. premier) -- Health. 67 Jean Lapierre (co-founder of Bloc Quebecois) -- Quebec lieutenant and Transportation. LAST ELECTION, JUNE 2004, MAJORITY TO MINORITY: 68-75 68 Pre-election spending: $8 billion for everything from health care to highways. 69 Martin shut down Commons AdScam committee, announced Gomery inquiry -- then promptly called the election before it could start. 70 Attack ads against Conservatives accused them of wanting to recriminalize abortion, send troops to Iraq, and govern like Brian Mulroney and Mike Harris. 71 Accused Harper of plotting with Alberta's Ralph Klein to destroy medicare. 72 Called Conservative forecast of $50-billion surplus over five years a "black hole"; Grit surpluses now exceed that. 73 PM's handpicked Winnipeg candidate Glen Murray lost to quadriplegic Conservative Steven Fletcher. 74 Mid-campaign, Martin promised Newfoundland premier Danny Williams an oil and gas revenue deal; then reneged post-election until Williams went ballistic. 75 Ministers Judy Sgro and John McCallum dispatched to heckle Harper at events. Promises, Promises -- Grit Moments in Dithering: 76-85 76 1993: Red Book promised an independent ethics commisioner reporting to Parliament. Not implemented until 2004. 77 1993: Promised national daycare program: Signed first deals with provinces to begin implementing it in 2005. 78 1993: Promised to boost immigration levels to 300,000 per year: Announced the same target twice last fall -- despite a current 700,000-person backlog. 79 1993: Promised to reform Young Offenders Act. Youth Criminal Justice Act finally took effect in 2003, and is even worse. 80 1993: Promised national pharmacare program. No action. 81 Ditto for their 1993 promise of national home care. 82 1994: Justice minister Allan Rock promised national sex offender registry: Finally established in 2004, but had to be amended in 2005 to include Karla Homolka. Ditto for national DNA databank -- finally passed before this election. 83 1995: Martin imposed 1.5c/litre "deficit-fighting" tax on gasoline. Deficit was eliminated in 1997, but tax is still there. Now Grits justify it as part of the gas tax "deal" for cities. 84 1999: Justice minister Anne McLellan told the Commons: "The government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same-sex marriages." 85 20 years after Air India bombing, after years of resisting calls for an inquiry, Grits announced a limited one before this election. Patronage, Piggery and 'Entitlements': 86-98 86 Martin appointed Francis Fox, who worked in his PMO and on his leadership, to the Senate. 87 Also Dennis Dawson, another staunch Martin backer. 88 And James Cowan, his leadership head in Nova Scotia. 89 Ditto Liberal fundraiser Rod Zimmer. 90 And Art Eggleton, who stepped aside in 2004 for Martin protege Ken Dryden. 91 October: Feds refused to cut gas taxes, but raised MPs' and staff travel allowances 4.6c/km due to high gas prices. 92 2001: MPs gave themselves pay raies of 20% -- retroactive to January. Cabinet ministers got 22%; PM Jean Chretien 42% -- boosting his pension 82%! 93 Among Chretien's many patronage appointments: Former PMO spokesman Jim Munson to the Senate. 94 Same for former chief of staff Percy Downe. 95 And longtime adviser David Smith. 96 PMO crony Jean Pelletier went to head VIA Rail (from which Martin has now fired him twice over AdScam). 97 Andre Ouellett got Canada Post, where he once cashed over $300,000 in expenses with no receipts (fired by Martin). 98 David Dingwall got the Mint; was fired over expenses but is fighting for severance: "I'm entitled to my entitlements." INTEGRITY -- FAMOUS GRIT WORDS: 99-103 99 "The government will restore the public's faith and trust in the integrity and good management of government." -- Martin government's first throne speech, Feb. 2004 100 "We are going to condemn to history the practice and the politics of cronyism ... No longer will the culture in Ottawa be one of entitlement." -- Martin speech, March 2004 101 "Perhaps there was a few million dollars that might have been stolen in the process; it is possible." -- Jean Chretien, 2002, defending the sponsorship program 102 "Cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high ... Honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored." -- 1993 Red Book, co-written by Paul Martin 103 "Screw the Red Book. Don't tell me what's in the Red Book. I wrote the goddamned thing. And I know that it's a lot of crap." -- Martin as quoted in the 1996 book Double Vision: The Inside Story of the Liberals in Power MINISTERIAL AND MP MISDEEDS: 104-125 104 Joe Volpe expensed $138 for a "pizza dinner for two." 105 Pierre Pettigrew took his chauffeur on $10,000 worth of trips, even though he didn't need him to drive. 106 Judy Sgro said the ethics commissioner "vindicated" her in the foreign strippers scandal, when he found her in "clear violation" of parts of the conflict-of- interest code. 107 Ralph Goodale said in 2004 the surplus would be $1.9 billion -- it turned out to be $9.1 billion. 108 Don Boudria spent a weekend at the luxury ski chalet of Quebec advertising honcho Claude Boulay. 109 So did Denis Coderre. 110, 111, 112, 113, 114: Allan Rock, Claudette Brashaw, David Anderson, Jane Stewart and Bob Thibault all accepted free fishing trips and/or flights from the wealthy Irving family of New Brunswick. 115 Hedy Fry falsely claimed racists in Prince George, B.C. were "burning crosses on lawns." 116 Herb Dhaliwal called U.S. President George Bush a failed statesman. 117 Lawrence MacAulay lobbied the RCMP and Corrections Canada to fund training at a college his brother headed. 118 Art Eggleton lost his post as defence minister for giving a contract to an ex-girlfriend. 119 Scarborough MP Tom Wappel refused to help an 81-year-old blind war vet because he didn't vote for him. 120 John Manley proposed subsidizing Canadian NHL teams up to $3.5 million each; scrapped the idea two days later. 121 Andy Scott was overheard on a plane saying he would have to "cover" for Chretien at the 1998 APEC inquiry. 122 Sheila Copps' Heritage department spent $15 million on "free" Canadian flags for all. 123 Copps kept her promise to resign when the Grits failed to scrap the GST -- and was promptly re-elected. 124 Michel Dupuy attended a 1995 dinner with Liberal lobbyists and others who ended up receiving federal grants. 125 Jag Bhaduria was expelled from caucus over revelations that he falsified his background and wrote threatening letters. ADSCAM, THE MOTHER OF ALL SCANDALS: 126-137 Justice John Gomery's November report is reason alone not to vote Liberal. Here's just a tiny taste of why: 126 Gomery inquiry testimony drove separatist support to highest level in a decade. 127 Gomery summed up AdScam: "A story of greed, venality and misconduct" featuring "a complex web of financial transactions among Public Works ... Crown corporations and communication agencies, involving kickbacks and illegal contributions to (the Liberal) party." 128 Gomery on the Liberal party (Quebec wing): "The (party) as an institution cannot escape responsibility for the misconduct of its officers and representatives." 129 Jean Chretien openly taunted the judge by bringing golf balls to the inquiry, saying they weren't "small-town cheap." 130 Martin led cheers in caucus for Chretien the next day. 131 The forensic accountants who exposed the Enron scandal said even they couldn't tell where all the AdScam cash went. 132 Among the things sponsorship money paid for: 1,200 golf balls bearing Chretien's signature; 133 $46,300 worth of maple-leaf neckties; 134 Montreal Grand Prix tickets for senior Grits; 135 $100,000 worth of Christmas decorations; 136 A TV series airing in China. 137 A $16,000 plaque and flag in a store in Chretien's riding. Speaking of Scandals: 138-158 138 Gun registry: Supposed to cost $2 million, now at nearly $2 billion (even AG can't fathom it), with gun crimes rising. 139 Income trusts: Suspicious trading before Ralph Goodale's Nov. 23 announcement now under RCMP investigation. 140 Option Canada: Secret 1995 unity fund now being probed by RCMP. 141 HRDC boondoggle: $1 billion blown on dubious job-creation projects (including a fountain in Shawinigan). 142 Helicopters: Cancelling contract to replace aging Sea Kings in 1993 cost $500 million and put troops at risk. New contract finally issued in July 2005. 143 Submarines: $750 million to buy used British subs that leak and, in one case, caught fire, killing one submariner. 144 Home heating rebate: Finance minister Martin doled out $1 billion in pre-2000-election cheques to people who didn't need them, including 7,500 who were dead. 145 Shawinigate: Chretien lied about intervening to secure a federal business loan for an associate in his riding. Later said such interventions were "the normal operation." 146 Francois Beaudoin: Raided, intimidated by Liberal operatives and forced from his federal bank job after questioning the loan to Chretien's Shawinigan associate. Judge Andre Denis later called it "an unspeakable injustice." 147 Hepatitis C: Liberals, under Chretien's orders, voted in 1998 against compensating excluded victims of tainted blood scandal; changed their tune in 2004 -- no money has flowed yet. 148 Airbus: Feds apologized in 1997 and paid $2 million to former PM Brian Mulroney for false kickback allegations. 149 Challenger jets: Chretien made secret, rushed, untendered $100-million deal to buy two from Bombardier in 2002. 150 Somalia inquiry: Grits shut it down prematurely in 1997. 151 Agent Orange: Feds dithered on compensating soldiers exposed to the toxic Vietnam-era chemical in Gagetown, N.B. 152 Zahra Kazemi: Canadian's murder covered up in Iran; Canada's response was weak. 153 Bill Sampson: Canadian wrongly imprisoned and tortured in Saudi Arabia for 3 years; Canada's response was weak. 154 Maher Arar: Canadian wrongly imprisoned in Syria for a year; Canada's response was weak (inquiry is now pending). 155 Tobacco suit: $1-billion civil suit in the U.S. against a Canadian tobacco giant for allegedly evading billions in taxes by smuggling cigarettes was thrown out. Cost: $17 million. 156 Air security fee: Imposed excessive $24/round trip tax in 2001, raking in $1 million/day (since cut to $14/round trip). 157Ads: AG Sheila Fraser said on top of AdScam, some $800 million in ad contracts since 2000 were questionable. 158 Canada "wordmark": Feds paid ad firms $1 million to "develop" it; later conceded it's existed since 1965. OVERALL LIBERAL RECORD 159-183 159 Increased spending 37% since 2000; 55.8% since eliminating the deficit in 1997, says Canadian Taxpayers Federation. 160 Increased federal staff 10% since 1999, the CTF says. 161 Tax Freedom Day in 1993: June 6. Last year: June 26, according to Fraser Institute. 162 Average family income increase since 1993: 37%. Average increase in that family's taxes: 50%, according to CTF. 163 Spending predicted (in November) to rise 25% by 2010. 164 In past two budgets, stashed $9 billion in untouchable "foundations" -- AG warned of lack of accountability. 165 1998: Martin, as finance minister, reduced EI premiums 15c/$100 but hiked CPP premiums 30c/$100, costing taxpayers $59 a year. 166 1999: AG found EI surplus excessive. 167 1996: Spent $1 billion getting Atlantic provinces to "harmonize" GST and PST. 168 2000-2005: Fiscal surplus forecasts understimated by a total of $35.3 billion. 169 Promised to decriminalize marijuana, satisfied no one. 170 Encouraged Corrections Canada to release inmates as early as possible -- prisons boss said goal was 50% release rate. 171 1996: Brought in conditional (house arrest) sentences for violent crime, including homicide. 172 1997: Tightened notorious "faint-hope clause" that lets murderers appply for parole after just 15 years -- but only to exclude serial killers, and only those who kill after 1997. 173 2005: Established $3.7-million pilot project to set up tattoo parlours in prisons. 174 1994-97: Refugee backlog doubled. 175 1997: Wasted more than $300 million a year paying social benefits to backlogged refugee claimants, AG found. 176 1998: Lost track of 4,613 refugee claimants up to August. 177 2003: Lost track of 36,000 immigrants ordered deported, AG found. 178 2002: Senate Committee on National Security and Defence said Armed Forces were so overstretched they should step down from all peacekeeping operations for two years. 179 2005: Same committee found Canada not equipped to handle a major disaster. 180 1997: Low-paid soldiers resorted to using food banks. 181 2001: Troops sent to Afghanistan in forest-green uniforms. 182 Ottawa too secretive, Information Commissioner reported. 183 10 years after the 1995 Quebec referendum, 48% of Quebecers told Strategic Counsel pollsters they would vote "Yes" to separation again; 47% said "No." JEAN CHRETIEN'S LEGACY -- 'A PROOF IS A PROOF' 184-199 184 1993: Kept campaign promise to cancel Pearson airport privatization deal. Estimated cost of cancellation: $1 billion. 185 1993: Broke campaign promise to get rid of GST. 186 1993: Embraced NAFTA, 27 days after winning election promising to fight it. 187 1995: Almost lost the country in Quebec referendum. 188 1995: Created sponsorship program in response. 189 1996: Throttled a demonstrator at Flag Day event. 190 1996: Claimed he had regular chats with a homeless man. 191 1998: Joked about RCMP pepper-spraying demonstrators at APEC summit in B.C.: "Pepper, I put it on my plate." 192 1998: Called 64c dollar "good for exporters." 193 2001: Did nothing for 25 Canadians killed in 9/11, delayed visiting attack site. 194 Blamed U.S. "greed" for terrorism. 195 2002: Staffer Francie Ducros called George Bush a "moron." 196 2002: Responded when asked what kind of proof he'd need to join the invasion of Iraq: "A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven." 197 2002: Refused to join Iraq war, or to confirm Canada had 31 soldiers serving there with U.S. and British forces. 198 2002: Announced his retirement -- for 2004! 199 Refused to declare Ontario SARS crisis a disaster; offered paltry aid. 2000 ELECTION -- CHRETIEN'S LAST LAUGH: 200-207 200 Pre-election spending: $2.248 billion in week before vote called, according to Canadian Taxpayers Federation. 201 Premature election ended shortest majority mandate in 90 years (three years) -- cost $200 million. 202 Lifted Canadian Alliance platform promise: $100 billion in tax cuts. 203 $100 billion tax cut really $55.4 billion when other things like CPP increases are factored in, CTF calculated. 204 22 RCMP investigations ongoing into Grit grant and loan programs, including four in Chretien's riding alone. 205 Elinor Caplan, immigration minister, told voters supporters of the Alliance were racists and Holocaust deniers. 206 Alliance accused of supporting "two-tier" health care. 207 Chretien openly talked about quitting post- election. 1997 ELECTION -- LIBERAL MAJORITY SHRINKS: 208-210 208 Pre-election spending: $8 billion. 209 Vote called despite Manitoba flood crisis. 210 35% of voters said June 2 election call was premature. WHERE CANADA STANDS NOW: 211-218 211 Economy: 12th among industrialized nations, according to Conference Board of Canada (down from 3rd in 2003). 212 Competitiveness: 14th, according to World Economic Forum (down from 4th in 1997). 213 Health care: 30th in efficiency, according to World Health Organization. 214 Ethics: 14th, says Transparency International, due to "marked increase" in corruption (down from 5th). 215 Military spending: 153rd out of 192 countries, based on percentage of GDP; 14th in per-capita spending. 216 Peacekeeping: 36th, according to UN. 217 Personal income tax burden: Highest in G-8, says OECD. 218 Marginal tax rates: Second only to China, says C.D. Howe Institute. |
Statistics Indicate Gun Control Only Increases Crime by Pierre Lemieuxby Nancy :)http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artaubin.html Published in the The Gazette, January 22, 2006, p. A15. Statistics Indicate Gun Control Only Increases Crime by Pierre Lemieux |
Montreal Gazette Column: Statistics indicate gun control only increases crime:by Nancy :)Montreal Gazette Column: Statistics indicate gun control only increases crime: Date: Jan 22, 2006 11:36 AM PUBLICATION: Montreal Gazette DATE: 2006.01.22 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial / Op-ed PAGE: A15 BYLINE: PIERRE LEMIEUX SOURCE: Freelance WORD COUNT: 685 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Statistics indicate gun control only increases crime: Governments ignore evidence. In U.S. states where handgun laws were relaxed, violent crime decreased ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henry Aubin's Jan. 18 column ("Canada's gun law works, so why kill it?") repeats urban legends propagated by groups financed by the state to lobby the state, such as the Coalition for Gun Control |
MICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTSby NancyMICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS Date: Jan 21, 2006 12:28 PM MICRO-DISARMAMENT: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND HUMAN RIGHTS David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen “Micro-disarmament” is a term of art in the small arms prohibition community, referring to the disarmament of the civilian population in a particular country. Advocates of micro-disarmament argue that the success of microdisarmament in particular countries demonstrates that reducing or eliminating the prevalence of firearms reduces violence. Micro-disarmament successes are touted as proof of the desirability of ever-broader campaigns to disarm civilian populations worldwide. This article examines six case studies of microdisarmament: Cambodia, Bougainville, Albania, Panama, Guatemala, and Mali. In each of these six countries, we argue, micro-disarmament has failed or has not been nearly as successful as firearms prohibitionists have claimed. We suggest that the emphasis on disarming civilians as the key to peace is mistaken, because, as these six case studies demonstrate, true and lasting peace must be based on protection of human rights. When human rights are secure, violence will diminish; conversely, when human rights are denied, many people willrefuse to surrender the tools necessary to defend their lives and liberties.1 http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/MicroDisarmament.pdf IS RESISTING GENOCIDE A HUMAN RIGHT? By David B. Kopel Paul Gallant & Joanne D. Eisen Closely examining the Darfur, Sudan, genocide, and making reference to other genocides, this Article argues that the genocide prevention strategies which are currently favored by the United Nations are ineffective. The Article details the failures of targeted sanctions, UN peacekeepers, and other anti-genocide programs. Then, the Article analyzes the Genocide Convention and other sources of international human rights law. Because the very strong language of the Genocide Convention forbids any form of complicity in genocide, and because the Genocide Convention is jus cogens (meaning that it prevails over any conflicting national or international law), this Article concludes that the Genocide Convention forbids any interference, including interference based on otherwise-valid laws, against the procurement of defensive arms by groups which are being victimized by genocide. Forthcoming in the Notre Dame Law Review, volume 81, issue no. 4, 2006. http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf |
If You Disagree With Us, You Don’t Belong in Canada, Say the Liberalsby Nancy :(If You Disagree With Us, You Don’t Belong in Canada, Say the Liberals Posted by Eric @ 11:15 am in categories: Canadian News, Election 2006 As if we needed one, here’s another example of what kind of party the Liberal Camp is really running. Take a look at this little excerpt from an article talking about a recent debate: [Liberal candidate] Don Lindsay’s self destruction continued when club member and Canadian Veteran George Tompkins stood to ask the candidates his question. “If the handgun ban goes forward. What plan would your party offer to compensate those of us who legally own the guns that would be confiscated?” To which Lindsay replied “Sir America is our neighbor not our nation, if you elect a society that talks about that kind of perspective I suggest that perhaps you go there!” Absolutely disgusting. The sad thing is that most Canadians probably won’t even hear about this — and for the ones who do, their votes probably won’t be affected. I wonder what it takes to outrage those Canadians who are still supporting the Liberal Party? Update: To send an e-mail to Mr. Lindsay about his view that those who disagree with his party should leave Canada, please feel free to contact him at don@donlindsay.ca (as I just have) or at the following: 210 Lochiel St.S. Renfrew, Ontario K7V 1W7 (613) 432-2922 |
Fw: Liberal candidate tells anti-gun control veteran to leave for the U.S.by Nancy :( Fw: Liberal candidate tells anti-gun control veteran to leave for the U.S. Date: Jan 21, 2006 12:58 PM Someone who said he heard a taped section of this exchange on CFRA, said the audience went wild when the Liberal candidate told the vet he should leave Canada... http://www.stevejanke.com/archives/152930.php ---- January 21, 2006 Liberal candidate to veteran: Get out of Canada! Steve Janke at 08:32 AM Related articles: Technorati Cosmos :: CanConv :: Blogging Tories At the Pembroke Outdoor Sportsman's Club, Liberal candidate Don Lindsay revealed a portion of the Liberal platform related to complensation for gun owners should their legally owned weapons be confiscated. Essentially, if you think you are owed something, think again. To be even more precise, if you think the Liberals owe you something, you should hit the road: Don Lindsay's self destruction continued when club member and Canadian Veteran George Tompkins stood to ask the candidates his question. "If the handgun ban goes forward. What plan would your party offer to compensate those of us who legally own the guns that would be confiscated?" To which Lindsay replied "Sir America is our neighbor not our nation, if you elect a society that talks about that kind of perspective I suggest that perhaps you go there!" Maybe Lindsay thought grabbing Paul Martin's line from the leader's debate would work for him. Of course, Linday's comments don't even make much sense. If the majority of voters do elect a government with that sort of policy, then wouldn't it make sense that Lindsay be the one looking for somewhere else to live? I don't think he needs to. He is welcome to stay, of course. I don't think people should leave for holding different opinions, and voting based on those opinions. Too bad he couldn't extend that courtesy to a man who fought for this country. It's moments like these that a Conservative candidate lives for. Cheryl Gallant showed she can think on her feet: Cheryl Gallant responded to the question with "George I have seen you at the legion in uniform representing our country I hope you stay in Canada," she said. "This is not an issue if the Conservative's get elected because there will be no ban on handguns. But if the Liberals are elected we know there would be no compensation, there never is," she said. Well, maybe the right thing to do is to put emotion aside and depend on logic. Let's see how that works for the Liberals: Club member Don Linke stole the show with his question for the candidates. "It seems like we are blaming legal gun owners for the theft of their guns. Should we also ban banks from holding money because that's what causes all bank robberies?" Gallant responded that a Conservative government would put money towards a victims support program to compensate victims of crime. Lindsay simply responded "No we won't ban banks from holding money." OK, logic isn't Don Lindsay's strong suit, either. |
Canada, let's make a swap.....by NancyWe'll trade you Canada - All American unarmed liberals please go to Canada... All Canadian feedom Loving "gun nuts" welcome in the good ole USA This way Canada can be "safer"  I can see it now,: Attn all North American Criminals - The USA is now Fully Armed, Canada is now full of unarmed liberals Where would you rather be? |
SAF Alerts :Oh, Canada! Your restrictive gun laws pushed crime beyond U.S. ratesby NancySAF Alerts Date: Jan 20, 2006 5:28 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oh, Canada! Your restrictive gun laws pushed crime beyond U.S. rates By Alan Gottlieb Canada's long-ruling Liberal government, now headed by Prime Minister Paul Martin, has lately been blaming the United States for a dramatic increase in violent crime up north. There's plenty of blame to spread around, but it all belongs north of the border. The problem isn't Americans illegally running guns to Canada, but Canadian criminals illegally importing guns from wherever they can get them. Blaming the United States for Canadian crime is an argument that does not pass the smell test. Canada's experience has simply demonstrated that no matter what kind of gun control law a government passes, that law is doomed to failure because instead of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, the law disarms the wrong people. Canada's gun control scheme has not just failed, it has failed disastrously. Clear evidence of that can be found in a comparison of the crime rates for Canada and the U.S. While advocates of Canada's type of restrictive gun laws will play with raw figures and show how many more homicides there might be in such cities as Chicago or Miami or Detroit than there are in Toronto, the real story is found by comparing the per capita crime rates. Do that, and you will discover that Canada's crime rate is skyrocketing while down in the states, overall crime is declining. The situation is so bad that in the Jan. 3 edition of Canada's National Post, writer David Frum startled readers by revealing that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States." He further noted, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80% of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities." Look at the most recent complete data available from both countries. In 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population was more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate. The situation hasn't improved for Canada while it has for the United States. Toronto had 78 murders in 2005, according to Frum, which represents a 28 percent increase in homicide since 1995. By no small coincidence, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has, for the past several years, occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted so-called "right-to-carry" and "shall-issue" handgun laws. During the same period, Canada's gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry – a deadly billion-dollar boondoggle – being incompetently implemented. It didn't save four Mounties in Alberta last year, or scores of Toronto residents. And now Mr. Martin has declared he will push to ban private handgun ownership, further demonstrating that, given the opportunity, a Liberal would rather impair the liberty of law-abiding citizens than imprison criminals. While Canada has clamped down on its citizens' gun rights, American citizens have been empowered against criminals by passage concealed carry laws. The disparity in crime rates between the two countries says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary. Since declaring war on guns under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation's history. There are more rapes, more robberies and more murders. If that tells Canadian citizens anything at all, it's that Paul Martin and his Liberals have literally been "dead wrong" on guns and crime reduction. Frum said it best when he noted that "Gun registration and gun bans…do not work," adding later, "It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals." Martin and the Liberals are not the solution to violent crime in Canada. They're the problem. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2006 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved. Second Amendment Foundation James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@saf.org To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to safalerts@liberty.seanet.com with REMOVE in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply. To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add safalerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list. |
"Green Mountain Boys Gun" Raffle Tickets at Yankee Sportsmen's Classicby Nancy "Green Mountain Boys Gun" Raffle Tickets at Yankee Sportsmen's Classic Date: Jan 19, 2006 10:34 PM The "Green Mountain Boys Gun" will be at the Federation Booth at the Yankee Sportsmen's Classic The “Green Mountain Boys Gun” is being raffled by the The Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Club to raise funds for Vermont National Guard members and their families. The Green Mountain Boys Gun is a NRA “Operation Enduring Freedom” 9 mm Beretta pistol that is a more finely blued and embellished version of the service sidearm of our deployed troops. The “Operation Enduring Freedom” series is a Beretta onetime production run made for the NRA Foundation. Only 2,500 such pistols created. (Image of the “Green Mountain Boys Gun” below) All of the profits from the sale of the raffle ticket will be given to the Vermont’s National Guard families. The raffle ticket contains an addressed postcard, with a George Washington stamp, containing the message to Vermont National Guard members and their families: “We Support, We Appreciate You, We Will Not Forget You” The purchase of a “Green Mountain Boys Gun” raffle ticket is not only a chance to win a very collectable firearm. It is an act of supporting our Guard members with funding and telling them by the postcards we stand with them, as they have stood up for us. (Image of the “Green Mountain Boys Gun” raffle ticket below) (front) (back) The winning ticket will be drawn by Vermont National Guard Adjutant General, Martha Rainville at the Federation’s annual banquet at the Montpelier Elks Club on the evening of Saturday, March 18, 2006. Raffle tickets are $5.00 each or five for $20.00 at the Federation table at the Barre Fish & Game Club Gun Show on Saturday and Sunday, February 4 & 5, and the Morrisville Gun Show on Saturday and Sunday, March 4 & 5. RAFFLE TICKETS MAY BE PURCHASED at Lenny’s Shoes & Apparel Stores in Barre, St. Albans and Williston (Taft’s Corners) The Federation has made arrangements for the winner to donate the "Green Mountain Boys Gun" to the Vermont National Guard Museum, if the winner desired to so honor the museum. http://www.vtfsc.org/ABOUT_US/SpecialGunRaffle.htm Updated: 7 November 2005 |
COLUMN: CONS HAVE REASON TO VOTE LIBERALby NancyCOLUMN: CONS HAVE REASON TO VOTE LIBERAL Date: Jan 19, 2006 6:42 AM PUBLICATION: The Winnipeg Sun DATE: 2006.01.18 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 11 BYLINE: ROBERT MARSHALL Robert Marshall was a police officer for 27 years. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONS HAVE REASON TO VOTE LIBERAL ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If justice is on your mind as you make your way to the polling booth on Monday, remember this. The Liberals have failed spectacularly on that front. Victims' groups know it. Most front-line people know it. And if that's not enough, the ringing endorsement of Paul Martin's gang by Canada's prison population should clinch it. Reporting from Stony Mountain Pen last weekend, CTV National News said that "from cell to cell, prisoner after prisoner told (the reporter) they were voting Liberal, with no exceptions." ***And if I were in their shoes I'd vote Liberal, too. Because Liberals would be my best chance of staying out of jail, no matter what.**** Remember, it was the Liberals who dreamed up conditional sentences that allow violent offenders to serve their time on the couch, and the lack of supervision ensures the con's comfort is never compromised. Even if caught breaching conditions, chances of being shipped off to jail are less than 50%. In fact, one option is to adjust the conditions, to make it easier for the con to comply. In 2004 Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that he'd look at the conditional sentence issue but that high priorities like marijuana reform might get in his way. Since then they've done some vote-getting tinkering. For example, by ruling out house arrest for terrorist activity. I love it when they talk tough. Ergo -- no real change. The Youth Criminal Justice Act, brought on by former justice minister Anne McLellan, has even some left-wing judges wringing their hands. It expects meaningful, rehabilitative consequences to be meted out to young people who are encouraged, by legislation, to hide behind the special rights that promote dishonesty and keeps the truth distant. Just the answer for any youngster leaning toward a deviant life. DNA is the No. 1 crime-busting tool of all time. But Orwellian propaganda resulted in the Liberals writing restrictive, labyrinth-like legislation that guides its use. An expert who appeared before a justice committee testified that "the holes in this net are too large to be truly helpful to the homicide or sexual assault investigator." Another said, "It's like getting a new car with all the bells and whistles but no wheels." Properly enacted legislation could yield tens of thousands more success storied than the few there are now. Despite minor improvements, the administration of federal DNA labs are in such a mess that the auditor general has gathered a team to investigate and is expected to report back to Parliament later this year or in early 2007. And a mess down at the forensic lab is just what a predator wants to hear. Astonishingly, until just recently the Liberals paraded like peacocks in the justice ring, and denials followed the growing levels of violence witnessed by Canadians. Even following the spring slaughter of four Mounties in Alberta, Liberal MP Paul Devillers blabbed on about today's safer society. But with the election, those theatrics are in storage and new, get-tough talk on minimum sentences take the stage. In reality, though, Cotler, an intense opponent of minimum sentences, and Martin would rather choke before they walk that walk. And the crooks know that, too. As for Stephen Harper, his platform is clear. Mandatory minimums for serious drug trafficking, weapon and violent offences. The end of conditional sentences for violent, sexual and other serious offences. Protection of citizens, especially women and children, through an enhanced DNA data bank. Harper says he recognizes that society has an obligation to at-risk youth. He says he'll shift resources from wasteful bureaucracies, like the billion-dollar gun control program, to the front lines and offer alternative opportunities and environments. He also says meaningful consequences and punishment are part of that obligation. Sounds like work. And sounds different from the current reality of being sentenced to hang around the mall with your gang buddies. Harper is on solid ground stating, "Our collective obligation is clear, we want to make sure every young person in this country has the opportunity to live in a safe environment, to grow up and become a productive citizen who is neither a criminal or a victim of crime." Harper says, "We've got to put people who play by the rules first, not the ones who break them." Compare that with Paul Martin, who in the wake of Toronto's Boxing Day massacre spouted off that "the tragic act" was committed by young people who have felt marginalized and excluded by society. A tightened justice system will make Canada a better country. Harper has promised to get tough and make the criminal life far less appealing. Helping those in conflict and preventing future crimes go hand in hand with, but are not a substitute for, tough law enforcement. Finally, Martin has promised to pay $250,000 to the families of police killed in the line of duty. I guess he's feeling guilty about letting guns, drug and gangs flourish and creating a Canada more dangerous than ever. Martin has said time and again that his values are very different from Harper's. Those values make it clear why the cons are voting Liberal. |
CALGARY SUN EDITORIAL: GUNNING FOR TROUBLEby NancyCALGARY SUN EDITORIAL: GUNNING FOR TROUBLE Date: Jan 19, 2006 9:29 PM PUBLICATION: The Calgary Sun DATE: 2006.01.19 EDITION: Final SECTION: Editorial/Opinion PAGE: 14 COLUMN: Editorial WORD COUNT: 287 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GUNNING FOR TROUBLE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Calgarians can't be blamed for feeling confused and outraged as a suspected gunrunner wanders the streets a free man. Police on both sides of the border are steamed, to put it mildly, that this fugitive from U.S. justice was let out of jail by a Canadian immigration adjudicator. Phong "Danny" Hoang is wanted in the U.S. for conspiracy to export firearms and related charges. His Dec. 20 arrest was the result of some sharp teamwork by Canada Border Services and Calgary and Great Falls, Mont., police. One of the guns Hoang is accused of smuggling wound up in the hands of suspected gang members in Calgary, and American officials allege he has connections with the California gang the Tiny Rascals. Given the rash of gang-related murders in this city, it is unbelievable a suspect facing such charges is now walking the streets. If Hoang is convicted in the U.S., he could get 40 years in prison. We bet he just can't wait to cross the border to face the charges. Not only is Hoang footloose and fancy free, he's become a poster child for the problems plaguing Canada's justice system. Instead of being safely tucked behind bars or deported to face the law in the U.S., Hoang now enjoys virtually the same status as any other visitor to this country. It's ironic that on the same day the story about Hoang made front-page headlines, Mayor Dave Bronconnier named crime and public safety as the new focus of his administration. Bronconnier's initiative, which includes hiring more police, is commendable, but the Hoang case reveals our justice system contains loopholes big enough to blast a .38 slug through. Despite superlative police work, our justice system is only as strong as its weakest link. For the sake of the public's peace of mind, not only must an appeal of Hoang's release be fast-tracked, but the circumstances surrounding his release should be thoroughly probed. The new federal government elected Monday must move swiftly to implement mandatory minimum sentences to deal with gun-totin' perps after police have arrested them. Gang-related gun crime has become a scourge in our cities. We must throw everything we've got at the war to defeat it. Sadly, this incident is a frightening reminder that, until we've fixed our justice system, we're only gunning for trouble. |
Boston's Crime Gun Source: It Ain't VTby Nancy Boston's Crime Gun Source: It Ain't VT Date: Jan 19, 2006 12:40 PM Attachments: dingbat_story_end_icon.gif The article has dropped VT has a source of Boston's guns used in crimes. But, folks down there are convinced ME and NH are still a source problem, in spite of the U.S. Attorney in Concord, NH using federal data to show otherwise. Boston has a problem with dealing with their convicted violent criminals. It's that simple. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/19/two_women_charged_with_transporting_guns_to_mass/> Lesson RE-learned - If somebody wants something bad enough they will find a way to get it, legal or not ! ***Mills told police that she tried to buy the guns from a pawn shop but was turned away because she was not an Alabama resident and instead bought the weapons from unidentified people on the streets, the ATF affidavit stated.***
|
CANADA'S GUN REGISTRATION FAILURE: VIOLENT CRIME RATE DOUBLE THAT OF U.S.by WAGCCANADA'S GUN REGISTRATION FAILURE: VIOLENT CRIME RATE DOUBLE THAT OF U.S. Date: Jan 19, 2006 12:27 AM NEWS RELEASE CANADA'S GUN REGISTRATION FAILURE: VIOLENT CRIME RATE DOUBLE THAT OF U.S. BELLEVUE, WA – Canada's billion-dollar boondoggle – the national gun registration scheme – has proven itself an abysmal failure, as that country's violent crime rates are double those reported in the United States, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) noted today. "We looked at violent crime rates per 100,000 population in both countries, using the most recent available data," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "and we were not surprised at what we found. Since Canada started this ridiculous and costly program, violent crime has gone up dramatically, at the same time that crime in the United States has declined. Yet, there are people in the states who think Canada's gun legislation should be the model for America. "By comparing the data," he detailed, "we found that the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population is more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada is also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate." Noted CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron: "What happened in the states to actually contribute to a reduction in our overall crime rate is simple. We've got 38 states with shall-issue, right-to-carry concealed handgun laws. While Canada has clamped down on its citizens' gun rights, our citizens have been empowered against criminals by passage of these laws. The disparity in crime rates between the two countries says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary." A Jan. 3 story in Canada's National Post by writer David Frum confirmed CCRKBA's independent finding. Frum wrote, "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States." Later, Frum added: "Gun registries and gun bans…do not work." "Instead of promising to ban legally-owned handguns in Canada," Waldron observed, "Prime Minister Paul Martin should be urging citizens to arm themselves. He should encourage Parliament to scrap gun registration and replace it with a gun ownership and training program." "Since going on the warpath against guns, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation's history," Gottlieb said. "There are more rapes, more robberies and more murders. If that tells Canadian citizens anything at all, it's that Paul Martin and his Liberals have literally been ‘dead wrong' on guns." -END- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2006 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 |
Victoria Times Colonist Editorial: After England, Canada had the worst crime rate of 35 coby NancyVictoria Times Colonist Editorial: After England, Canada had the worst crime rate of 35 countries Date: Jan 16, 2006 9:27 PM Jan. 16, 2006 - Victoria Times Colonist Editorial: After England, Canada had the worst crime rate of 35 countries http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/2006/articles.htm |
PROVOCATIVE ARTICLES FOR SHOOTERS, HUNTERS . . . "Why Gun Bans Don't Work…and What to Do"by NancyPROVOCATIVE ARTICLES FOR SHOOTERS, HUNTERS . . . "Why Gun Bans Don't Work…and What to Do" is an excellent article by Dr. James Swann, posted on ESPN http://espn.go.com/outdoors/general/columns/swan_james/2283831.html Outdoors Web site, that provides facts and suggestions for becoming pro-active in the gun debate. "The End of Hunting," by Christina Larsen, appearing in the Washington Monthly, clearly spells out how important creating access is for the hunting heritage to survive. "Hunting for Reasons More Elusive Every Year," in the Oregonian, mourns declining hunter numbers and asks, if not hunters, then who will pay the costs of preserving habitat and managing fish and wildlife. |
KENYA TO RECONSIDER SPORT-HUNTING BAN . . . Reuters reports that a three-decade-long ban oby NancyKENYA TO RECONSIDER SPORT-HUNTING BAN . . . Reuters reports that a three-decade-long ban on sport hunting is being considered as part of broader revamping of its wildlife policies. "The ban on hunting is one of those [policies] up for review and discussion," said the director of the Kenya Wildlife Service. Sport hunting has serious economic significance in Africa. Foreign hunters bring $165 million a year into South Africa's economy. The article quotes Laurence Frank, researcher with the Wildlife Conservation Society, who says, "Hunting is the most lucrative way of utilizing wildlife, and it has the least impact." |
SHOT SHOW NEWS . . . SHOT Show is rapidly approaching and attendees should act immediatelyby graygalSHOT SHOW NEWS . . . SHOT Show is rapidly approaching and attendees should act immediately in making reservations for events at the show. Tickets are nearly sold out to the State of the Industry Dinner-Concert Gala. The deadline for online ticket sales to the gala is Jan. 25. Firearms dealers attending SHOT are encouraged to register for an impressive lineup of seminars at SHOT Show University. Click here to view course descriptions and to register. Tickets still remain to the Future Leaders luncheon, which will feature a keynote address by business growth expert and author Steven S. Little. Tickets to the Women in the Industry luncheon are sold out. To stay informed on all SHOT Show happenings in the coming weeks, subscribe to the SHOT Show Blast. The e-newsletter is e-mailed weekly to the thousands attending the show and also offers exhibitors the opportunity to insert paid sales messages. Exhibitors interested in this opportunity can contact Chiara Renella at 1-800-598-1055.
|
LEGENDS SPORTING CLAYS SHOOT . . . The Legends Celebrity Invitational Sporting Clays Teamby NancyLEGENDS SPORTING CLAYS SHOOT . . . The Legends Celebrity Invitational Sporting Clays Team Challenge will be held on the Saturday before SHOT Show (Feb. 4) at Desert Lake Country Club, located just outside Las Vegas. Those attending the show are invited to attend. A number of celebrities are planning to shoot, including Roger Clemens, John Elway and Dan Marino. NSSF is a sponsor of the event. For more information, visit http://legendscelebrityinvitational.com/events_clays.htm. |
Should Christians Shoot to Kill in Self-Defense?by NancyShould Christians Shoot to Kill in Self-Defense? Date: Jan 16, 2006 6:17 PM FYI (copy below): http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=11362 ************************************************************ Ringgold, GA 30736 January 16 2006 Should Christians Shoot to Kill in Self-Defense? Don Boys, Ph.D. I have been asked if Christians should “shoot to kill” in self-defense, No, they should shoot to stay alive! A truism very appropriate today in America is, a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. Courts have ruled that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. In real, everyday life, you and your family are on your own! As Dad you are to be the provider, priest, and protector of the family. You are the paladin "Have Gun, Will Travel" and that means you may have to shoot another person to keep the family safe. Most Americans admit that self-defense is American but is it Christian? I think so, although many will disagree. In Genesis 14, some kings kidnapped Lot along with others and fled the countryside. Abraham, being responsible for his nephew, armed his 318 trained servants and pursued them almost to Damascus. He fought the enemy and brought back Lot, his family, and servants and all the bounty. Abraham believed in using force. It is never mentioned by pacifists that Hebrews 11:34 highly commends Abraham and other famous Old Testament men who were very aggressive against wrong. In fact the writer says they “waxed valiant in fight.” In Exodus 22:2 God permits the defense of your home. If you are awakened during the night by a thief in your house, you have every right to kill the invader without any sense of guilt. However, if it is daylight you do not have the right to kill the intruder unless he tries to kill you. All right, but what about the New Testament teaching? First of all, no Christian has a right to retaliation or personal vengeance; however, he does have a Scriptural and constitutional right to defend himself, his family, and his property. In Luke 19-11-27, Jesus describes a king who killed those who opposed him. According to many authorities, the king in the parable represents Jesus Himself when he returns to set up his kingdom on earth. If killing is always wrong, then why would Christ use a parable wherein one representing Himself kills someone? In all the examples in the Gospels, Christ or His disciples never told a soldier to not fight or not kill in time of war or self-defense. They had many opportunities to make the point if they wanted to make it. They did not. Those who boast of not believing in self-defense are almost always inconsistent. They will use seat belts, locks on their autos and homes, take flu shots, etc. but balk when it comes to protecting themselves with guns. Evidently they believe in a “little” self-protection but not “big” protection. Or do they believe in protection against “things” but not against people? Or do they know what they believe? What pacifists do know is that they have the freedom to espouse their illogical talk because brave, aggressive men like General Patton kicked down the tyrants’ doors to maintain the freedom for pacifist doves to fly around cooing “peace, peace;” when they did nothing to produce that peace. National defense, like self-defense is not wrong—it is right. Quakers and others opposed to weapons point out the absence of swords or their use in the New Testament after the Book of Acts, but so what? The Bible doesn’t refer to sandals after the Book of Acts, but does any sane person believe Christians did not wear them? Swords were common in those days, so if it was wrong for believers to own or use swords, we can expect Scripture to clearly say so; but it doesn't. My critics point out that Jesus told Peter to put up his sword when he cut off the servant’s ear during His arrest in the Garden; however, Christ was clearly saying that His time had come for Him to die for man’s sins, so Pete was not to attempt to stop what must take place. “But self-defense is so unlike the gentle and mild Jesus” says someone; however, let me point out that the “gentle and mild Jesus” drove the moneychangers out of the Temple with a whip. One of Christ’s last commands before going to Calvary was to tell the disciples to sell their cloak and purchase a sword! (Luke 22:36) The meaning is, let him procure a sword at any expense, even if he is required to sell his clothes for it, intimating that the danger would be very great, and a sword would offer protection from wicked men. My critics say that Christ did not mean to purchase a sword; He only meant that they would face many battles as they preached the gospel. Not so, because in verse 38 the disciples said, “Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.” No figurative language there. Christ told them to possess swords as they traveled the world preaching the gospel, although two swords would be sufficient. Why did He tell them to purchase a sword? Because shotguns had not been invented yet! A used shotgun will be much more practical than an extra suit. Have you obeyed His command? If you permit a murder or rape of an innocent child when you could have stopped it, then you are morally responsible for it. Go sell your suit and buy a gun, learn to use it, and be willing to use it when necessary. However, remember if you carelessly shoot the Avon lady or paper boy, you will have to take the responsibility. (Dr. Don Boys is a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives, author of 13 books, frequent guest on television and radio talk shows, and wrote columns for USA Today for 8 years His book, ISLAM: America's Trojan Horse! was published in 2003. His website is cstnews.com.) Copyright 2006, Don Boys,Ph.D. P.O. Box 944 Ringgold, GA 30736 706 965 5930 Dr. Boys’ columns are copyrighted but permission is given for them to be republished, reposted, or emailed providing that full credit is given and that Don’s web site address is included. Radio or television Talk Show Hosts interested in scheduling an interview with Don should contact DBoysphd@aol.com Please visit Don’s website at http://www.cstnews.com. Don Boys, Ph.D. (dboysphd@aol.com) International Director Common Sense for Today P . O. Box 944 Ringgold, GA 30736 Phone : 706-965-5930 Fax : 706-965-5930 |
Shooting program resumes for 4-H membersby graygalShooting program resumes for 4-H members Date: Jan 16, 2006 6:11 PM http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/01164-Hguns.html Shooting program resumes for 4-H members Lisa Nicita The Arizona Republic Jan. 16, 2006 12:00 AM Arizona 4-H members lost their Shooting Sports Program for three days in December, until outraged parents and participants persuaded the Board of Regents to bring it back. But the future of one of the most popular and fastest growing 4-H programs in the nation remains uncertain in Arizona. Glenn Westmoreland, a shooting sports leader for Queen Creek 4-H, has grown used to the pop of gunfire as participants practice at his home. Things were silenced when he received a letter in mid-December saying the popular youth program had been canceled. "It was kind of a shock to everybody," he said. The Board of Regents, which oversees the University of Arizona-sponsored 4-H, decided to end the program statewide after an audit alerted board members to the existence of the longtime program. Anne Barton, Board of Regents spokeswoman, said the board wasn't comfortable with the university being responsible for the guns. While the participants or clubs use and maintain their own guns, the UA, as the program sponsor, would be legally responsible if there were any accident or incident related to the guns. The board reversed its decision to cancel the program a few days later, after receiving a flood of e-mails and letters from parents who wanted their kids to continue to learn about firearms. "We definitely want to keep the program," said Rachele Golliher, program coordinator for Maricopa County 4-H. "It's something they really seem to enjoy." The program, which teaches marksmanship and responsible firearm use with 22-caliber rifles, air pistols, air rifles, archery, shot guns and muzzle-loading arms, does not use live ammunition. 1,000 kids, 11 counties About 1,000 kids from 11 Arizona counties participated in the 4-H project during the 2004-05 year. Kids generally meet twice a month for practice and participate in county, state and national competitions. Westmoreland said he likes the program because it keeps his kids busy and out of trouble. "It's a constructive outlet for the kids' time," Westmoreland said. "It just seems like whatever the deal is that's caused them (board members) to make their decision, they've forgotten about the kids and that's who the program is set up for." Jon Wootten, a Queen Creek Town Council member and an active leader with Queen Creek 4-H, said the shooting program provides an additional avenue for kids to participate in once they grow out of or grow tired of animal competitions. He said he was shocked when he heard the program was cut. "No matter your feelings about guns, the idea that we would want to remove an option for kids to compete and learn about these things is just mind-boggling to me," 'Vital program' Wootten said. "It's absolutely a vital program." Barton, the regents' spokeswoman, said the support expressed by the parents and kids involved with the program prompted the board to re-evaluate the decision. But no one is sure of the program's future. The board has asked the university to look into whether the program can continue without the school bearing legal responsibility for the weapons. It's unclear what the alternatives might be. "They thought it was important enough to at least give the opportunity to the university to bring back some more information," Barton said. "The ball is back in the University of Arizona's court." The next Board of Regents meeting is Feb. 2-3, but the issue has not yet been scheduled for further discussion. |
Homicide spike ranks high for cities Boston's sizeby graygalHomicide spike ranks high for cities Boston's size Date: Jan 16, 2006 6:07 PM El Paso had the lowest murder rate of a city close to the size of Boston. So, Boston's Mayor Menino would probably argue this makes sense, as El Paso is a much greater distance for guns from Maine, NH and VT to travel. Mayor Menino will not grasp the logic in how less restrictive gun laws in Texas, like ME, NH and VT, result in a lower crime rate than Boston's. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/01/09/homicide_spike_ranks_high_for_cities_bostons_size/ Homicide spike ranks high for cities Boston's size But rate per person is in middle range By Suzanne Smalley and Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | January 9, 2006 Boston's homicide count last year not only hit a 10-year high, but also took one of the biggest jumps for a city of its size, a Globe review found. Boston's death toll increased by 17 percent to 75, the sixth-highest percentage increase among 15 cities with comparable populations surveyed. The number of killings fell last year in five of the similarly sized cities, and also in the nation's largest cities -- New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Even with last year's increase, Boston's homicide rate per person falls in the middle of the pack of cities with estimated populations between 500,000 and 700,000, the Globe's review found. About 13 people per 100,000 residents were homicide victims last year in Boston, a rate higher than cities such as Austin, Seattle, and Portland, but lower than cities such as Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, where 42 people per 100,000 residents were slain last year. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who started his fourth term last week and has been stung by criticism that he is not doing enough to fight violent crime, said Boston is one of many cities struggling with a surge in killings. ''There are a lot of communities out there facing similar challenges," Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole agreed. Menino said he would like to add hundreds of officers to the Boston police patrol force, but that the cost is prohibitive. The 300 or more additional officers proposed by some, including last week by City Council President Michael F. Flaherty, would cost the city at least $21 million a year, Menino said. Although recent classes that have graduated from the Police Academy have replenished the ranks, the patrol force is down about 75 people since mid-2000, to about 1,400. The mayor blamed the spike in homicides on the increase in the population of young males in the city, and the simultaneous decline in federal and state assistance. ''When I came into office, they told me that in eight to 10 years a bubble of adolescents would come on the scene," he said in an interview. ''It's happening now at the same time our [youth outreach] programs are being cut." There is some evidence for the mayor's assertions. Of the 75 homicide victims last year in Boston, 37 were men between the age of 15 and 24. Through the first 10 months last year, those 24 and under accounted for two-thirds of all firearm-related arrests, according to police statistics. While the city's overall population grew by less than 3 percent between 1990 and 2000, the number of males under 18 increased by nearly 8 percent, according to a Boston Redevelopment Authority report compiled from Census data. Nationally, young males age 18 to 24 are disproportionately involved in homicides, either as victims or perpetrators, the US Justice Department said. In some cities where homicides declined last year, officials credit innovations in how they fight crime, not how many patrol officers they have. Chicago officials, for instance, said they have installed surveillance cameras in high-crime areas and Baltimore detectives have sharpened their focus on repeat offenders. ''We have established lists in all of our police districts of those repeat violent offenders who have been causing us the most trouble and we've gone after them," said Matt Jablow, a police spokesman in Baltimore, where the homicide count dropped about 3 percent last year. In other cities where homicides went down, however, officials said they could not pinpoint a reason. ''You can't tie it to staffing levels, you can't tie it into anything like that," said Officer Catherine Kent, police spokeswoman in Portland, where homicides fell to 22 in 2005 from 28 in 2004. ''It's just an unpredictable crime." The difficulty of establishing why homicides are increasing in some cities and dropping in others, specialists say, underscores the challenges facing cities such as Boston, Milwaukee, and Memphis in trying to reverse double-digit percentage increases in homicides. Professor Alfred Blumstein, a criminologist at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, said that compared with a decade ago, when violent crime was plummeting across the country, the national trend is now mixed. Blumstein said the surge in violent crime has been fueled in some places by ''a greater willingness to use extreme violence," especially among young people. David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said it often takes one killing to set off a series in cities like Boston plagued by gangs. As a result, homicide rates can spiral out of control quickly. ''The streets in this hard-core population we're talking about are a tinderbox and it can take very little to set them ablaze," he said. Police have blamed the uptick in Boston on more teenage males on the streets, a wider availability of guns, a culture of retaliation, and a lagging economy, among other reasons, but Kennedy said the reasons for an increase be much more visceral. ''It's respect, it's boy-girl, it's back-and-forth vendettas," he said. In Milwaukee, where homicides increased by 38 percent to 122 last year, officials have impaneled a commission to investigate what's fueling the increase there. ''We have no identifiable trend we can point to," said Lieutenant William Jessup. ''We started a homicide review commission comprised of various agencies to help us determine what the root causes are." El Paso had an increase of three homicides in 2005 to 14, but with 2.4 homicides per 100,000 people it boasts the lowest rate of cities close in size to Boston. Lieutenant Alfred Lowe credited a strengthened homicide unit and more attention to specific types of murders. In the early 1990s, for example, most homicides in the border city were gang-related drive-by shootings. The department responded by creating teams to focus on solving drive-by killings, Lowe said. |
CCRKBA BLASTS SEATTLE PLAN TO HIRE 'CRIME GUN' PROGRAM COORDINATORby WAGCCCRKBA BLASTS SEATTLE PLAN TO HIRE 'CRIME GUN' PROGRAM COORDINATOR BELLEVUE, WA – The City of Seattle plans to hire a "Crime Gun Program Coordinator" who, from all indications, will be "nothing more than a bureaucrat whose job will be to create and advocate gun control schemes under the guise of stopping criminal misuse of firearms," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today. The Crime Gun Program Coordinator will be hired – at a cost to taxpayers of between $61,366 and $92,060 – by the Seattle Police Department. This coordinator will, according to the job description, "develop, maintain and coordinate a centralized and regionally comprehensive crime gun database and integrate the data with relevant information" from the State Department of Licensing, Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other law enforcement agencies. That person will also be an "inter-agency liaison" at various meetings "pertaining to crime gun issues." "This position is nothing more than the Seattle Police Department's official gun control advocate," said CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. "They're using an inflammatory term – ‘crime gun' – to demonize any and all firearms that may, for example, be stolen and later recovered from residential or commercial burglaries, but are never really used in a crime. "Look closely at the job description and it is obvious what this taxpayer-funded position is really all about," Waldron continued. "Much of what this so-called crime gun coordinator will do is help the Office for Intergovernmental Relations develop ‘gun legislation.' It's already against the law in Washington State to assault, rob or murder someone with a firearm, or to have a gun if you are a convicted felon, or if you are under indictment, subject to a domestic violence restraining order, a former mental patient, drug or alcohol abuser. "Short of proposing new laws designed solely to impair the gun rights of law-abiding citizens, or chip away at state preemption, or erode Washington's concealed carry statute, just what kind of law would this coordinator be proposing," he wondered. "You don't suppose a department run by an anti-gun police chief who originally came from Buffalo, New York would dare try to erode the Washington State Constitutional right to bear arms, do you? "If the Seattle Police want to spend up to $92,000 on a crime gun specialist," Waldron said," that person's first order of business should be to go out and recover the handgun that was stolen from Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske's car more than a year ago. Other than that, I can't think of a single useful thing this job will accomplish." -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2006 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com with remove in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply. To ensure your alerts are delivered to your inbox (and not inadvertently diverted to a bulk or junk email folder by spam filters), be sure to add cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com to your email address book or contact list. |
Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady)by graygalSecret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1/10/06 -- full contact info at end New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed "Decommissioned" Guns Nearly As Good As Confiscations by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America The Brady group and its congressional supporters are proceeding, and making headway, with a below-radar effort to ban operating firearms from the general public, without having to actually disarm America's 80 million gun owners. The plan is now evolving around an innocent-sounding new legal term. It was tucked deep in a 400,000-word spending bill under president Clinton (law # P.L. 105-277), and it is now spreading throughout federal gun laws. Its latest use, the eighth, is in the frivolous-lawsuit ban just enacted (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, law # P.L. 109-92; S.397). Described at the end of this report, it accents a liability all Americans -- not just gun owners -- are increasingly under, a tightening legal noose few people realize is around their necks. The phrase is "secure gun storage or safety device." It includes almost anything that will keep a gun from working. At its simplest, it's gun locks. This and closely related tactics are sometimes called "decommissioning schemes." Gun-control advocates -- the mainstream ones who seek to disarm the public -- will essentially win their cause if they can require guns to be disabled, disassembled, locked up or turned off by remote control. This approach is already working in National Parks where possession of a working gun subjects you to immediate federal arrest, confiscation of your property, and endless aggravation. No criminal act of any kind is required, just legal possession of personal property -- any firearm. However, a gun in pieces so it cannot be fired, locked in your car trunk is allowed. Interestingly, no statutory authority for this denial of civil rights can be found. And of course, statutory denial of civil rights would be unconstitutional on its face. Washington, D.C., is currently under a similar "decommissioning model" too, though its registration system gets more attention. In addition to a full ban on handgun registration since 1976, firearms that were owned before that date cannot be assembled, or even carried -- at home. It's almost as good as taking the guns away, from a gun-ban perspective. Any gun use, including legitimate self defense, implies assembly and carriage, and is banned. Even the widely hailed federal "Firearm Transportation Guarantee" (law # 18 USC 926A) relies on decommissioned guns. It was enacted as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, to help counteract high levels of federal abuse under the 1968 Gun Control Act. It guarantees a person the right to transport a firearm from any legal place to any other, anywhere in the country. However, the firearm must be unloaded and locked in the trunk, rendering it useless. If you bear it in any manner while you travel, the protection does not apply. Under Brady-supported decommissioning schemes, you can keep your guns, but if they're ever workable, or available, you become a criminal and subject to arrest. It's pretty clever actually. And it has been working, even though forced decommissioning is infringement of the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The Byrne Grant program (law # 42 USC 3760) provides federal money for law-enforcement firearm training and other purposes. Changed under president Clinton, it now authorizes federal funding to train the public in the use of... gun locks. Under a gun-unfriendly administration (anti-rights advocates believe they will have this one day), little prevents this funding from going into large-scale campaigns to convince people to only possess decommissioned guns, "for safety." While on one hand, who could rationally argue against making guns safe, gun guru Col. Jeff Cooper has succinctly pointed out that, "A gun that's safe isn't worth anything." And that turns out to be the very heart of this gun-ban plan -- a gun that's safe isn't worth anything. But gun-rights advocates know guns are dangerous, they are supposed to be dangerous, and they're not any good if they're not dangerous. Anything requiring guns to be "safe" is the true danger, and the secure storage device has now become "incentivized." The Republican party, in control for half a decade, hasn't used Byrne Grants for their other authorized purpose: training the public in "the lawful and safe ownership, storage, carriage or use of firearms." Will Republican failure to use this law (for gun-safety training) also deter Democrats from using it (to promote gun locks)? Nah. And now, with gun locks slipped into the gun-industry protection bill... As the subtle tactic of decommissioned guns continues, the right to keep and bear arms is at risk. The next time the anti-rights factions slip in the phrase "secure gun storage or safety device," you had better look very closely. All it will take is one use, with the word "required," to wipe out our cherished Second Amendment rights. And they won't have to take your guns away to do it. OCCURRENCES of "secure gun storage or safety device" (SGSSD) 18 USC 921(34). The "secure gun storage or safety device" is defined. 18 USC 923(d). Dealers are required to carry SGSSDs, unless they are unavailable due to supply-chain problems outside the dealer's control. 18 USC 923(e). Dealer's license can be revoked for failing to carry SGSSDs, unless they were unavailable due to supply-chain problems. 42 USC 3760. The Byrne Grant law is amended to allow training the public in use of SGSSDs, and use of firearms. 18 USC 922(z)(1). Dealers now required to provide SGSSDs with every firearm sold. 18 USC 924(p)(1)(A). Stiff fines and license suspension added to penalties for dealers who fail to provide SGSSDs. 18 USC 922(z)(2). Proper authorities at every level of federal, state and local government are exempt from the SGSSD laws. Someone should write a paper just on that. 18 USC 922(z)(3)(A). This was inserted by Brady-backed anti-gun-rights legislators. It went into the gun-industry-protection, frivolous-lawsuit ban (Oct. 2005): A person who uses an SGSSD on a gun has liability protection if a criminal steals the gun and then uses it in criminal activity. Providing an "incentive" to decommission your firearms, as this law does, is sinisterly clever. In the name of safety, you are threatened with legal nightmares that are little more than corrupt abuses of the justice system. These are the actions of a resolute and unprincipled enemy of the human and civil right to keep and bear arms. ---------- Note: When a criminal steals your property, and then uses it to harm someone or violate the law, the criminal -- not you -- should be liable to the victims. Because the court system is broken (I'm being nice), such cases often proceed, even if they have no legal footing to come after you, or grounds to win. Their main purposes are the huge costs they inflict, the aggravation factor and the chance for a settlement, all shameful abuses of the court system. Protection from such abuse is the very thing the gun industry just got under the lawsuit bill (the public was not included in the protection). All Americans, not just gun owners, are increasingly under this abominable legal corruption. A man sued Ford because his daughter had a flat. He lost of course, but frivolous cases used to get their attorneys disbarred. They no longer do. Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS "We publish the gun laws." 4718 E. Cactus #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com We gots 'em! -- 2006 Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the 50 States New 22nd edition of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide New Tenth Anniversary edition of Gun Laws of America Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog. Use the home-page blue button to get our emails. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran. |
NH Union Leader: Boston illegal: Guess what? Criminals kill peopleby Nancy :)NH Union Leader: Boston illegal: Guess what? Criminals kill people Date: Jan 16, 2006 3:36 PM Boston illegal: Guess what? Criminals kill people NH Union Leader, Jan 16,2006 http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Boston+illegal%3a+Guess+what%3f+Criminals+kill+people&articleId=474a1b6f-2f71-40e5-aa00-ff07364a00f7 BOSTON'S 2005 homicide rate was its highest in a decade, and a year-end review of the city's murders indicates that a rise in criminals, not guns, was the primary culprit. Last year Boston Mayor Tom Menino blamed an influx of guns from northern New England for the city's spiking murder rate. But an analysis by The Boston Globe last week found a more plausible culprit. A rise in young men. Typically, cities that see large increases in their population of young males also see large increases in crime. Boston was no exception. "While the city's overall population grew by less than 3 percent between 1990 and 2000, the number of males under 18 increased by nearly 8 percent," the Globe reported. Menino even admitted that soon after he took office he was warned that this demographic trend, and its attendant crime wave, was coming. Some experts told the paper that Boston's explosion in homicides was a combination of more young men, lots of gang activity, and a thug culture centered on primitive displays of "respect." In that culture, if someone "disrespects" you, you kill him. None of this suggests that guns are the root of the problem. It suggests that — surprise! — criminals are. If Boston officials don't want a repeat of 2005, they'd do well to turn their resources toward finding and locking up gang members and drug dealers rather than changing gun laws in New Hampshire, Maine and Vermont. |
TX: Back in the holster againby graygalTX: Back in the holster again Date: Jan 16, 2006 3:55 PM Posted on Sun, Jan. 15, 2006 Back in the holster again By J.R. Labbe Star-Telegram Staff Writer Granny's got her gun back. Two months and two days after Arlington police confiscated the .38-caliber revolver that Susan Gaylord Buxton used to defend herself and her granddaughter from an intruder in her Arlington home, the firearm was returned. It took a local attorney jawing with Tarrant County District Attorney Tim Curry, references to case law provided by the legal counsel for the National Rifle Association and a court order, but it happened Wednesday. "We have all won this battle," an elated Buxton e-mailed last week. "That battle is to NOT treat us -- the individual, law-abiding citizen -- as if we were part of the local criminal element. Gee, especially when we're helping the law enforcement authorities to catch these jerks!" The "jerk" whom Buxton helped the police catch, Christopher Lessner, remained in the Tarrant County Jail last week, where he's been since Nov. 9, unable to make the $15,750 bail that stems from charges of criminal mischief, criminal trespass and evading arrest, and a theft case unrelated to Buxton's. Lessner, 22, lunged at the 66-year-old Buxton after she discovered him hiding in her hall closet. According to police, he took refuge there after fleeing from Arlington officers during a traffic stop. It earned him a gunshot wound in the leg. Buxton never could cotton on to why police seized her gun in the first place. She understood that it had to be secured while they investigated the 911 call. But she didn't know why they kept it, given she hadn't done anything wrong. If it was needed in court, she would have been more than happy to produce it at trial. "The Arlington Police Department had the gun and was told by the DA to hang onto it," Arlington attorney Albert Ross, who helped Buxton, said Thursday. "My discussions with the DA's office were most understanding and cooperative. Actually, I did not have to file a motion. Tim Curry saw fit to have one of his assistants look at the issue and then ask the judge for an order releasing the gun." That assistant was Eric Nickols; the judge was Mike Thomas of Criminal District Court 4. According to Nickols, Thomas signed a court order on Dec. 22 asking for the gun's return. It may have helped that, during his chats with Curry, Ross was armed with a letter from Stefan Tahmassebi, deputy general counsel to the NRA, that cited four cases involving the seizure of a firearm. Tahmassebi wrote that the state has a right to seize weapons that are used to commit a crime. (This wasn't the case with Buxton.) Police and the prosecutor still have a right to use seized property as evidence in a criminal proceeding if it is necessary to prove said crime. (Also not the case with Buxton.) "However, if these circumstances are not present, the state has no right to seize or to refuse to return seized property. In fact, a refusal to return such property may violate constitutional due process guarantees," Tahmassebi wrote. Very persuasive stuff. Buxton was miffed about her experience Wednesday in retrieving the firearm. She and Ross had to cool their heels while the police ran both the firearm and Buxton through federal databases to ensure that neither were wanted in connection with any crime, even though Ross had contacted the department on Tuesday to let officials know they were coming. As much as the records check irritated Buxton, Ross acknowledged that it was standard departmental procedure. "If there was an issue to raise about it, it was that the police should have run those checks right after they picked up the gun, not while we were waiting in the lobby," Ross said. Buxton also was floored that the gun, which was in a brown paper bag secured by red tape and marked "evidence," was returned separately from the three bullets that were in it at the time the gun was seized. "They wouldn't release my three remaining rounds (Hydra-Shock hollow points) at the same time they gave me the gun," Buxton e-mailed. This is where Buxton crosses the line to unreasonable. It's completely understandable that the gun was returned unloaded, with the bullets in a separate container. Buxton may be the most law-abiding person on the face of God's earth, but it only takes one person acting a fool to result in a dead officer. Police can never be too cautious when it comes to being around other people handling guns. Sadly, that's a fact of life. It was not a statement about Buxton as an individual -- it is a policy that is meant to keep everyone alive. "Everyone has rules and procedures to follow," Ross said. "I certainly understand the hoops we had to go through in order for Susan to take physical possession of the gun. "All in all, everything worked just wonderful."
|
JPFO ALERT: Perfect Example of "Reasonable" Victim Disarmament in S.F.by WAGC JPFO ALERT: Perfect Example of "Reasonable" Victim Disarmament in S.F. Date: Jan 16, 2006 11:04 AM ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization January 16, 2006 JPFO ALERT: Perfect Example of "Reasonable" Victim Disarmament in S.F. Hurry. Before this link expires, click on http://tinyurl.com/7kstn Or, you can search the website, www.sfgate.com, for the article by Joan Ryan, dated January 8, 2006, entitled "A Woman, A Batterer, and A Gun" The lady was convicted of unlawfully possessing a concealed firearm -- when she thought she had a legitimate right to carry, based upon the restraining order against her stalker and based upon California's complicated gun laws. Bad news -- unbeknownst to her, the restraining order had expired. So -- she gets jailed, she loses any right to possess a gun at all for any reasons, and she has lost her anonymity so her stalker can find her. Thanks a bunch, California "gun control" supporters. Read the whole story in the San Francisco Chronicle. You'll learn how "reasonable gun control" schemes work directly against female victims of stalkers. This poor woman lives in constant fear, now even more because the State of California has disarmed her. Next time one of your anti-self defense friends pipes up about how great "gun control" is, you'll have this story from San Francisco, the capital of "gun control" in the western states. The "gun control" advocates actually want this kind of result to occur -- the disarming of women against predators. They must want this result, because their policies actually cause the result by their very design. The woman has no recourse. Read our book, _Dial 911 and Die_, and you'll see how American citizens generally have no right to demand police protection. We're on our own ... and too often our governments make sure we must live in fear of crime without defense tools. Why? - The Liberty Crew PS: There are 328 days left until Bill of Rights Day 2006. Are YOU ready for a Bill of Rights Culture? Read our two- part article, "You'll Be Freer and Richer in the Bill of Rights Culture" at http://www.jpfo.org/borculture.htm . ============================================================ JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net ============================================================ LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts! Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jpfoalerts-unsubscribe@jpfo.org ============================================================= Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today! http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html ============================================================= Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact information is included: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership PO Box 270143 Hartford, Wisconsin 53027 Phone: 1-262-673-9745 Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!) Fax: 1-262-673-9746 Web: http://www.jpfo.org/ ============================================================= JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!) Join for 2 years and receive a free JPFO lapel pin! Life Membership: $500 or $41.67/month for 12 months. |
Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005by NancyCrime in England and Wales 2004/2005 Date: Jan 14, 2006 10:47 PM Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005 http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hosb1105.pdf October 15, 2004 - Times survey finds that shootings are becoming commonplace http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1312280,00.html January 12, 2003 - BBC: Gun crime soars by 35% http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2640817.stm February 24, 2002 - The Telegraph: Gun crime trebles as weapons and drugs flood British cities http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/24/nguns24.xml UK Home Office stats (02/03 figures - published Jan 04) http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb0104.pdf |
Column: U.S. crime rate is no match for Canadaby NancyColumn: U.S. crime rate is no match for Canada Date: Jan 14, 2006 10:52 PM PUBLICATION: New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal DATE: 2006.01.14 PAGE: A9 SECTION: Opinion ------------------------------------------------------------------------ U.S. crime rate is no match for Canada ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Tuesday's debate all the other leaders echoed Stephen Harper's "get tough on crime" line, although the Liberals haven't got tough during 13 years in power and both Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe seem doubtful that crime can be successfully fought unless poverty is eliminated. Reluctant as many Canadians may be to concede it, the Americans have a lesson for us on this issue. In its 2006 edition of Pocket World in Figures, The Economist reports that Canada's crime rate is nearly double that of the United States, 8,025 compared to 4,119 per 100,000 population. What? We nice Canucks are more crime-prone than those obstreperous Yanks? Impossible! Regrettably, it's true. A major reason is that the United States keeps convicts in jail or penitentiary much longer than Canada usually does. Here sentences are light for many crimes and most of our convicts are paroled after serving one-third of their sentences. In an absurd New Brunswick case four years ago a smuggler lied, got caught with undeclared goods in his truck, and was twice acquitted by judges on the ground that - under our sacred Charter of Rights - the Canada Customs officer had no cause to doubt his truthfulness! The U.S. had the world's highest proportion of its people in prison - 714 per 100,000 population - in the latest year for which figures are available. Russia was second with 532 prisoners per 100,000 population. Canada's figure was 103 in 2001. The U.S. has slightly more than two million people locked up. With approximately one-ninth of the American population, Canada's proportionate prison population would exceed 200,000. Our actual figure in 2001 was about 32, 000. When criminals are in prison, they can't smuggle drugs, burgle homes, rob stores, steal cars or shoot cops or innocent bystanders. Have you got that now, Paul, Jack and Gilles? Mr. Martin keeps promising to ban handguns, ignoring the fact that civilian ownership has been limited to such harmless uses as collection and target shooting for the past 72 years. That hasn't stopped criminals from getting hold of them, although it may help to explain the much lower rate of gunshot crimes in Canada than in the U.S. Perversely, the knowledge that few households contain handguns may promote the much higher rate of property crimes in this country. Another probable cause of Canada's shockingly higher total crime rate: fewer cops on the beat. The U.S. has 243 policemen per 100,000 people. Canada has 182. The Tories promise more of them. ROBERT NIELSEN Wilmot |
Paypal is anti gun !by Nancypaypal Date: Jan 14, 2006 7:44 PM Rick Stanley Constitutional Activist Phone: 303-329-0481 E-mail: rick@wtpconstitutionalactivism.org We the People Scoop 1/14/06 ====================================================================== WE THE PEOPLE SCOOP - TO EXPOSE! Visit the offshore website at: http://www.wtpconstitutionalactivism.org Like the Scoop? Forward it to everyone you know! SPECIAL NOTICE: Many of our readers know that the Scooplist has been down for just over a month. Our previous site at www.stanley2002.org was just closed down by the Powers That Be that do not want to see this kind of info coming out. ====================================================================== OPINION RELEASE: PayPal and Firearms From: Thomas R. Ascher [lifeforce@rockymountains.net] > Subject: Fw: PayPal and Firearms > Dear Friends and Family: > > > >The email below is from a lady who is a licensed firearms dealer in >Colorado. This communication concerns PayPal and their policy which is >Anti >Second Amendment. I encourage everyone who gets this message to refrain >from doing business through PayPal. Don't give aid and comfort to your >enemies. > > > >Subject: Re: PayPal and Firearms > > > > Gwen: I refused using PayPal a long time ago, because I know who the >people are who run that company. No different than AOL/Time Warner. They >are part of "the agenda" to destroy your rights, and not just your Second >Amendment rights. I am going to forward your comments to my list with a >strong recommendation that the recipients NOT use Pay Pal for ANY reason. >Tom > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: > >To: <>; "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@mail1.amigo.net > >Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:51 PM > >Subject: PayPal and Firearms > > > >Good Evening, > >I thought you might be interested in this exchange. I had this first email >in my inbox when I came back from the trade show. They have limited my >PayPal account because I have allowed three people to pay for GunBroker.com >auctions through my PayPal account. The second part is my first response >to >PayPal. I called the number listed, and the lady on the phone said she >could not help me, I needed to email them an explanation. > >Within five minutes of when I sent my first outgoing message ( the second >one on here ) I had a return email from them ( the third one in this series >). That was barely enough time for someone in a huge corporation to read >the >email, let alone type an educated response to it. The final portion is my >reply to them. > >Hopefully it was easy enough to read and understand that they might >actually >consider what is being said. I seriously doubt my two little emails will >make a difference in corporate policy of one of the largest, if not the >largest, online business entities in the universet. PayPal is an Ebay >company, you know. > >Well, hope this helps the cause at least a bit! Otherwise it is a lot of >typing for naught!!!! > >Have a great evening! > >Cya, > >*Gwen > >**************************************************************************** >***************** > >**************************************************************************** >***************** > >Dear Gwen Chermack, > >The PayPal User Agreement states that PayPal, at its sole discretion, >reserves the right to close an account for any violation of the User >Agreement, including the Acceptable Use Policy. Under the Acceptable Use >Policy, PayPal may not be used to send or receive payments for any firearm, >in addition to certain firearm parts and accessories, ammunition, >destructive devices, militaria and ordnance, weapons, and knives. The >complete Acceptable Use Policy addressing Firearms, Weapons, and Knives can >be found at the following URL: > >http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside ><http://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=p/gen/ua/use/index_frame-outside&e >d=weapons> &ed=weapons > >We are hereby notifying you that, after a recent review of your account >activity, it has been determined that you are in violation of PayPal's >Acceptable Use Policy. Therefore, your account has been closed. > >You will need to remove all references to PayPal from your website(s) >and/or auction(s). This includes not only removing PayPal as a payment >option, but also the PayPal logo and/or shopping cart. We thank you in >advance for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact >the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy Department at aup@paypal.com. > >Sincerely, >PayPal Acceptable Use Policy Department PayPal, an eBay Company > >**************************************************************************** >******************************** > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From > >To: aup@paypal.com > >Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:23 PM > >Subject: Account Limitation > > > >To Whom It May Concern, > > > > I received an email stating that my account had been limited due to >violations of the Acceptable Use Policy. I called a customer service >representative who explained that I had been limited due to firearms sales >being paid into my PayPal account. This is true. I have had several such >transactions of late. > > > > I had been under the impression that PayPal did not allow firearms >transactions, and have NEVER listed your site as an acceptable payment >method on any of my hundreds of auctions on GunBroker.com or on >AuctionArms.com. > > > > I am a Federally licensed Firearms dealer, and only ship my firearms >to >other Federally licensed dealers. The internet sale of firearms is very >heavily regulated, and requires a significant amount of effort on the part >of the seller and the buyer to complete a transaction. Most people choose >to >pay with a money order, as they must mail me a copy of their license with >an >original signature anyhow. > > > > Several months ago I had a gentleman contact me and ask if he could >PayPal me the payment for one of my auctions that he won. I explained to >him that firearms transactions are not allowed through PayPal, and he said >that he pays for his firearms auctions that way frequently. I told him I >was more comfortable with taking a credit card number over the phone. > > > > Recently when I was listing several firearms on the GunBroker website, >I >noticed that GunBroker.com now lists PayPal as one of the several options >for the seller to select as payment methods they accept. I did not check >that box, but had approximately fifteen people over the last few months >contact me to ask if I could accept a PayPal payment if they won the >auction. I have completed three or four such transactions, I believe. > > > > I am distressed to loose my PayPal account and standing after several >years of being a loyal customer, both as a buyer, and a seller on Ebay. I >most certainly did not intentionally break any rules or regulations. I >followed the given information from the largest online sporting goods >auction site on the net. I was tickled to see your name on their site, and >happy that you had apparently changed your standing on legal sales of >sporting firearms. > > > > To date, I have been very pleased with my PayPal experience, and hope >to >continue to do business with your company. > > > > > >**************************************************************************** >****************** > >Dear Gwen The limitation on your account will not be reversed. Due to the >violation >of PayPals Acceptable Use Policy, your account has been closed. This >decision may not be appealed, as accounts that have violated PayPal's >Firearms Policy will not be reinstated. > >PayPal has a no tolerance policy for violations of the Firearms Policy, >therefore, your account will remain limited. We apologize for any >inconvenience this may have caused. > >If you have any further questions, please contact the PayPal Acceptable Use >Policy Department at paypal-compliance@paypal.com. > >Sincerely, >PayPal Acceptable Use Policy Department PayPal, an eBay Company > >**************************************************************************** >*********************** > >To Whom It May Concern, > > > > I am assuming that someone received my earlier email, and is >responding >to said message. To dispel any discomfort about the type of people and >firearms that are in question, I would like to take a moment to explain the >process that is followed to legally sell a firearm over the internet. > > > > The first rule is that it must be shipped from one Federal Firearms >License holder to another Federal Firearms License holder. There are a >myriad of restrictions on whom can obtain said license, and how they must >behave once they hold one. They are relatively expensive to obtain, and >must be renewed frequently. I am explaining this to clarify the type of >people who hold such a license. They are generally "squeaky clean" people >with a desire to help others. > > > > When any firearm is sold on the internet, the purchaser must know all >of >the firearms laws in his region and/or state, and comply with ALL of them. >He must secure a Federally licensed dealer in his area to receive the gun. >They must mail a copy of their Federal license with an original signature >to >the selling license holder. > > > > Once the seller receives said license, he must keep VERY detailed, >explicit and time consuming books as to dates, serial numbers, make, model, >and caliber of firearm, where it was sent, and when it was sent. > > > > UPS, FedEx, and USPS heavily regulate the shipping of firearms, and >depending upon what is being sent, may require more paperwork to be filed >and maintained. > > > > Once the firearm arrives, the buyer must fill out at least one federal >form about the purchase of the gun, sometimes many state forms, and must >observe their state mandated waiting period while the government THOROUGHLY >checks that individual for any violations or patterns that would make them >a >danger with a gun. The buyer usually has to pay the license holder a fee >of >about $25 for the tremendous paperwork involved. > > > > These are honest, law abiding citizens who are purchasing hunting >rifles >to put meat on the table and feed their families. They are police officers >purchasing duty guns. They are single moms with an abusive ex-husband who >has vowed to kill them. They are collectors who will put the gun in a safe >and never fire it once. They are Olympians purchasing guns to practice >with. They are not criminals trying to get ready for a "rumble" that >weekend. > > > > Considering the average online purchase of a firearm takes between two >and three weeks to complete, government involvement, registration, >background investigations, and a significant cost to the purchaser, it is >obvious that the type of people who shop on GunBroker.com are not the type >who will use those firearms for any type of illegal activity. It has cost >them too much time, effort, and money to do something stupid. > > > > It appears as though PayPal is trying to make a political statement >about firearms sales, which is not a sound business decision, a sound moral >decision, or a sound ethical decision. With over one hundred firearms >sales, my average selling price on GunBroker is between $400 and $500 per >auction. PayPal could be keeping three percent of each one of those >transactions. PayPal could be continuing to uphold the Constitution of The >United States, namely the second amendment thereto. PayPal could be >involved in saving untold lives by helping people to protect themselves >from >the type of people who are not allowed to legally own a firearm. > > > > The type of people who have already broken laws that would prohibit >them >from legally obtaining a firearm are not the type of people who are going >to >jump through all of the government hoops in place for internet firearms >sales in order to get a gun. They are the ones who will go to a 7-11 >parking lot and buy one from some guy in a van for $50 and then not have >any >intention of keeping any other firearms related laws. Stricter gun control >will not work. We cannot enforce the already overwhelming firearms laws on >the books, how can one more make a difference? > > > > Please reconsider your stand toward firearms purchases. Please >reinstate my account. As I stated previously, I did not intentionally >violate any of your rules or policies. > Sincerely, > Gwen |
Canada: Star Phoenix - Cotler misstated handgun ban supportby NancyStar Phoenix - Cotler misstated handgun ban support Date: Jan 14, 2006 10:20 AM PUBLICATION: The StarPhoenix (Saskatoon) DATE: 2006.01.14 EDITION: Final SECTION: Local PAGE: A4 BYLINE: Betty Ann Adam SOURCE: The StarPhoenix ILLUSTRATION: Photo: (Irwin) Cotler WORD COUNT: 344 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cotler misstated handgun ban support: adviser ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ontario is the only province that has endorsed a Liberal proposal to ban handguns, an adviser to federal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said Friday. Cotler said last weekend in Saskatoon that support for the Liberal proposal is "not just in Ontario." He mentioned Manitoba, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Quebec, saying some provinces would buy in and others would not. But Cotler did not intend to give the impression other provinces support the plan, said Leigh Lampert. Lampert said Cotler was talking about a bill to amend the Criminal Code that was tabled before the government fell in November. "Coming out of the federal, provincial, territorial meeting in Whitehorse in November (Cotler) talked regularly about the three-prong strategy to combat gun violence and that was tougher laws and penalties, increase in the effectiveness of enforcement and what he's called recently the hope and opportunities package. "When he was speaking with the reporters in the scrum on Saturday, when he said he had the support of other provinces, it's only Ontario that's supported the actual ban, but the other provinces he mentioned have publicly supported the three-prong strategy to combat gun violence," Lampert said. The ministers in Yellowknife talked at length about mandatory minimum penalties, but they did not discuss banning handguns, Lampert said. "If he left the impression he has commitment from each of those provinces, that they're 100 per cent supportive, that's the not the message he intended. It's Ontario that requested the handgun ban," he said. The British Columbia government does not support the Liberal handgun ban proposal, said Mike Morton, press secretary for British Columbia Premier Gordon Campbell. The Manitoba government is not commenting on any proposals or promises made by any of the parties during the election campaign, said spokesperson Peter Dalla-Vicenza. The handgun ban proposal was not part of the November meeting of federal and provincial justice ministers, he said. The Manitoba government is not in favour of the gun registry, Dalla-Vicenza said. Nova Scotia also is not commenting on election promises, said Richard Perry, spokesperson for the Justice Department in that province. "I take issue with the fact he claimed a bunch of provinces support it when they don't," said Eric Lerhe, a Nova Scotia target shooter who owns three handguns, two rifles and a shotgun. "It's a crazy idea," he said. |
OWNING A GUN AND HUNTING ARE NOT RISKY ACTIVITIES SAY INSURANCE COMPANIESby NancyOWNING A GUN AND HUNTING ARE NOT RISKY ACTIVITIES SAY INSURANCE COMPANIES Date: Jan 14, 2006 2:02 PM NEWS RELEASE - March 11, 2003 OWNING A GUN AND HUNTING ARE NOT RISKY ACTIVITIES SAY INSURANCE COMPANIES “The Liberals could have saved taxpayers a billion dollars by checking with the insurance actuaries.” http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/guns79.htm NEWS RELEASE - May 30, 1995 INSURANCE COMPANIES SAY, "GUN OWNERS NOT AN IDENTIFIABLE RISK GROUP." "Rock refuses to provide statistical evidence because he knows it will prove him wrong." http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/breitkreuzgpress/done/guns35.htm |
Guns Don't Kill People, Junk Food Kills People!by NancyGuns Don't Kill People, Junk Food Kills People! Date: Jan 14, 2006 2:24 AM Wednesday, June 02, 2004 Guns don't kill people, junk food kills people PDF | Print | E-mail -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Herald Guns don't kill people, junk food kills people Chubby cellulite-laden children and adults are now the country's number-one health concern. Yet cities are choosing to connect with UTOPIA which encourages people to cozy up to their computer cyberspace, cuddle on their couch cushions to watch cable and chit chat endlessly on their phone calls. A better commitment of cash would be to contribute cardiovascular equipment to communities and to champion chores, calisthenics, cycling and the U.S. Constitution. As for complaints about carrying concealed weapons on campuses, the public should be more concerned abut the abundance of chocolate, cookies, cake, candy, combo meals, cheese, carbonation, cigarettes, caffeine, carbohydrates and calories consumed by students. These foods not only contribute to cavities and cancer, but heart disease, which is the primary killer in the United States.. The good thing about firearms is that they are fat-free and have been proven to be 100 percent more effective in stopping criminals than a coconut-covered cupcake. Janalee Tobias, South Jordan This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5. |
Canada: HOW DO CRIMINALS KNOW WHERE THE REGISTERED GUNS ARE?by NancyHOW DO CRIMINALS KNOW WHERE THE REGISTERED GUNS ARE? Date: Jan 12, 2006 10:23 PM (1) We have unconfirmed reports of 19 thefts of multiple numbers of handguns from registered owners in the Edmonton area. Two of these victims of crime have complained repeatedly to the RCMP and the Edmonton Police Service that they believe that they were targeted because information in the registry was breached. The Information Commissioner is currently investigating my ATI request to the RCMP on this issue because the RCMP responded that they had no records - even though gun owners complained specifically to the police. GUN REGISTRY BEING USED AS A SHOPPING LIST BY CRIMINALS? RCMP & CFC HAVE NO RECORDS? http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/news/newinfo2005.htm (2) CPIC is breached by persons with access to CPIC computers - some are caught, many are not. These breaches could all result in information on registered guns and their owners addresses being sold or given to criminals or gangs. The RCMP is stalling giving me the updated numbers. The Information Commissioner is investigating my delay complaint. MAY 23, 2003 - RCMP REPORT: 306 CONFIRMED BREACHES OF CPIC SYSTEM SINCE 1995 - 121 BREACHES STILL UNDER INVESTIGATION http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/CPICBreaches-2003-05-23.pdf NOTE: RCMP HAVE FAILED TO RESPOND TO GARRY BREITKREUZ'S AUGUST 11, 2005 ACCESS TO INFORMATION REQUEST FOR UP-TO-DATE INFORMATION ON CPIC BREACHES (3) The fact is that the RCMP have no way of knowing whether CPIC computers have ever been hacked either. RCMP DON'T KNOW IF CPIC COMPUTERS HAVE BEEN HACKED http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/CPIChacked.htm (4) JANUARY 11, 2006 - TORONTO STAR LETTER: Easy to get names from [ammunition] record book PUBLICATION: The Toronto Star DATE: 2006.01.11 EDITION: ONT SECTION: Letter PAGE: A19 WORD COUNT: 156 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Easy to get names from [ammunition] record book -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Streets gangs zero in on gun owners Jan. 8. Your article hints there is a degree of mystery concerning how legitimate gun owners are being identified by criminal gangs. While there is evidence that suggests the federal gun registry is now being accessed by criminals, the most glaringly obvious mechanism is the "record book" that the government of Ontario requires ammunition retailers to maintain. All ammunition sales are recorded, with such juicy details as the name, address and firearms licence information of each customer. At major retailers where ammunition is sold in the "sporting goods" department, these records are usually left out in the open, unattended and readily accessible to criminals. Furthermore, the employees handing these records are rarely bonded. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty could make our streets safer by doing away with this record-keeping requirement - and it wouldn't cost a penny. Ken Nener, Ottawa ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
WHERE DID ALL THE REGISTERED HANDGUNS AND THEIR OWNERS GO?by Nancy WHERE DID ALL THE REGISTERED HANDGUNS AND THEIR OWNERS GO? Date: Jan 12, 2006 11:00 PM WHERE DID ALL THE REGISTERED HANDGUNS AND THEIR OWNERS GO? (1) The RCMP's 1994 Annual Firearms Report stated that in 1994 ". . . there are more than 1.2 million restricted weapons registered in Canada. Of these, 950,000 handguns are registered to about 560,000 private individuals." (2) In the 1997 Annual Firearms Report, the RCMP indicated that there were 992,963 restricted firearms registered to private individuals. Another 208,677 restricted firearms were registered to businesses, museums, and other government agencies. (3) The 1999 Report on the Administration of the Firearms Act by the Canadian Firearms Registry, again prepared by the RCMP, indicates that in 1999 there were still 965,660 restricted guns registered to 520,669 private individuals. Again, not that much different from 1994. (4) DECEMBER 2005 - Liberal MP, Jim Peterson: Important Information on Hand Gun Policy http://www.jimpeterson.ca/index.php/en/content/view/full/392 Q: How many handguns are there in Canada? A: There are 183,000 licensed handgun owners in Canada with approximately 550,000 hand guns in Canada. Handguns currently fall under two regulated classes in Canada: § Restricted - there are currently 397,000 registered restricted firearms in Canada, most of this class being handguns. § Prohibited - there are currently 166,000 registered prohibited handguns in Canada. THE GUN REGISTRY TEN YEARS AND $2 BILLION LATER: NUMBER OF GUNS UNREGISTERED http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/issues/guninfo/fafu_2005_05_17.doc MAY 2005 - STATISTICS CANADA: 11,497,574 FIREARMS IMPORTED INTO CANADA SINCE 1966 http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/inthehouse/misc/05_may30_misc.htm |
Sgt. Mark Tonner Column: A finger that's in jail can't pull a trigger:by NancySgt. Mark Tonner Column: A finger that's in jail can't pull a trigger: Date: Jan 8, 2006 11:43 AM PUBLICATION: The Province DATE: 2006.01.08 EDITION: Final SECTION: Unwind PAGE: B6 COLUMN: Out of the Blue BYLINE: Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer SOURCE: The Province ILLUSTRATION: Colour Photo: CanWest News Service File Photo / A growingnumber of victims of public gun violence are being buried in Canadian cities, but there seems to be no matching flow of perpetrators into jail. WORD COUNT: 607 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A finger that's in jail can't pull a trigger: Get the shooters off the streets and the weapons will follow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ My New Year's resolution was to stop writing such career-hazardous law enforcement columns. That lasted all the way through the first sentence of this one -- when I began thinking about handguns, and what else politicians might consider banning for 2006. Clearly, crystal meth and crack cocaine should go. The two C's claim lives by the thousands. With all the hurt and loss out there, we'd be mad not to add assault and theft to the list. But wait -- these things have already been banned, and they're still epidemic! Yes, it is hard to resist smart-mouthing when outlawing of pistols is paraded as a fix for urban violence. Murder is already against the law, as is blasting away on city streets. The handguns themselves? I can't remember the last time I dealt with someone shot by a legal one. What is fresh in memory is courtroom disappointment. A B.C. Provincial Court justice was recently presented with a Mr. T., who was caught with an illegal handgun. He'd jumped into False Creek during a fight at the Plaza of Nations' Plush nightclub. VPD people fished him out and discovered a pistol in his waistband. The gun was traced to Washington state, making it a result of cross-border smuggling -- almost certainly part of the dope-for-guns trade. Mr. T. chirped that he'd found the handgun on the pavement outside the club, and picked it up out of worry it might be used to hurt someone. A responsible citizen, no less. The judge bought it and set him loose. The judicial mindset seems to be that heavy-handedness from our courts is no solution. The problem centres on this misperception. The laws in Canada are strong, but getting our judiciary to live up to them seems near impossible. Until we're able to vote for our judges -- until we have the will of the people expressed in our courts -- thinking up new ways to ban things is pointless. After all, as everyone knows, guns don't kill people; hands do. That was the sarcastic flavour of remark at any number of Christmas sessions, police and otherwise. Trigger fingers should be impounded at adolescence, we decided, and re-issued under licence, to those promising to use them nicely. So there goes any hope of swearing off cynicism for 2006. Cliches are something I'll promise to avoid, but the "people kill people" truism is worth a moment. Analyse the human urge to kill deeply enough and you're left without an answer. No community-based or problem-oriented policing model will ever make it go away. Society is called upon to arrange things so that those with homicidal feelings are afraid to indulge them. In Canada, we're expected to believe that our legal system provides that deterrent. Anti-Americanism tends to impair Canadian hearing, but I've listened to some interesting arguments in favour of deterrence through a better-armed populace. I know state troopers who maintain that America needs more guns still. An armed society is, by and large, a polite society -- or so the theory goes. Knowing that anyone you attack may have the means to respond lethally makes violence less appealing. That's crazy talk, by Canadian standards -- unless you consider how sharply crimes of violence decline in states where concealed weapons permits are granted more freely. Carrying of loaded handguns is something no one is proposing for Canada. Legitimate owners in these parts just want to be left alone. What I'm listening to now is griping from people who decided to comply with the latest gun registry rules. Their worry was that the government would move to confiscate firearms once they figured out where they were. That may be paranoia proven right. My fear is that banning handguns will create criminals where there were none before. It's standard wisdom that when you have enemies in your midst, you don't turn on your friends. Jailing of bad guys is the answer, not finding new ways to ban things already illegal. Sgt. Mark Tonner is a Vancouver police officer whose column appears every two weeks in Unwind. His opinions aren't necessarily those of the city's police department or board. |
National Post Column: Commit the crime, do the timeby Nancygee what a novel idea......... ------------------------- National Post Column: Commit the crime, do the time Date: Jan 9, 2006 10:38 PM Articles of Interest http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/2006/articles.htm Jan. 9, 2006 - National Post Column: Commit the crime, do the time |
Educational Trip to D.C. for Sophomores & Juniors in High Schoolby NancyEducational Trip to D.C. for Sophomores & Juniors in High School Date: Jan 12, 2006 12:04 AM The Vermont Friends of the NRA Banquets Committees have funded such a trip(s) for Vermont 10th & 11th graders. Announcement Free Summer Program for Sophomores and Juniors in High School Applications are now being accepted for the National Rifle Association's 2006 Youth Education Summit, a free summer program for high school sophomores and juniors. Forty students will be hand selected to spend a week with NRA staff in Washington, D.C. All attendees have to pay for is transportation to and from Washington, D.C. This week-long program is spent learning about the NRA, U.S. Congress, the federal government, and the military. Attendees in past years have had the chance to meet NRA's Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, visit Capitol Hill, spend a day at Quantico training on courses used by Marines for basic training, visit the White House, visit the Smithsonian museums, and much, much more... The 2006 program is scheduled to take place June 19-25. Applications are due in on April 1. If you or anyone you know is interested in attending, visit http://www.nrafoundation.org/yes/application.asp and download an application. |
FW: Fallacy of DC Gun Banby Nancy FW: Fallacy of DC Gun Ban Date: Jan 11, 2006 8:00 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert Vol. 13, No. 1 01/06/06 THE KIDS SET HIM UP-- Marion Barry Inadvertently Exposes the Fallacy of D.C.'s Gun Ban Washington, D.C. has a gun ban, and gun bans stop crime. That's the ruse the gun ban lobby and their cronies would have you believe. That's what Washington, D.C. Council member and former mayor Marion Barry (D) would have you believe. But, in an ironic twist of fate, Barry's anti-gun premise has been challenged by circumstances involving none other than Barry himself. This week, the ex-mayor was the victim of a violent crime in "gun-free" Washington, D.C. He was robbed at gunpoint by two young men who entered his apartment, held a gun to his head, and robbed him of his wallet, cash, and credit cards. The nearly three-decades-old ban did nothing to protect Barry. Despite the ban, Barry admitted that "guns are everywhere." What he didn't say is that those guns are in the hands of criminals, while the District's law-abiding citizens are prohibited from possessing them. Clearly, the ban has done nothing to stem the tide of armed criminals carrying out violent crimes. While not suffering any physical injuries during the ordeal, Barry did indicate that his feelings were hurt. "There is a sort of an unwritten code in Washington, among the underworld and the hustlers and these other guys, that I am their friend....I was a little hurt that this betrayal did happen." Councilman Barry, himself a convicted felon, says he does not want to prosecute the perpetrators (if they are ever caught), but also says that he will push the city council to pass a bill he introduced that would increase penalties for carrying a gun in the District! Such is the contradictory logic of the ex-mayor. Pass more gun laws, and don't enforce existing ones. Of course, violent crime in D.C. is nothing new. Homicide had been declining in D.C. before the 1976 ban, but increased after the ban was imposed. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more than 200%. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose only 12% during the same period. Since then, the District has ranked at, or near, the top of the list for highest per capita murder rate of major cities in the nation. If gun bans work, how can this tragic and shameful distinction possibly be? In the wake of his most recent ordeal, Barry called for a summit of the city's leaders to address the "pandemic" of gun violence in the District. Clearly, he and the law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia would be better served by a summit convened to call for the enactment of S. 1082 and H.R. 1288--the Senate and House versions of the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act." As we continually note, this legislation seeks to restore the constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights of the law-abiding residents of the District of Columbia. It would allow these citizens to lawfully defend themselves and their families from violent crime. It is time to pass this critically important and obviously necessary law. |
Texas' Concealed Handgun Law - 10 years later by Jerry Pattersonby NancyTexas' Concealed Handgun Law - 10 years later Date: Jan 11, 2006 7:37 PM FYI (copy below): http://www.amarillo.com/stories/010906/opi_3650101.shtml Guest Column: Texas' Concealed Handgun Law - 10 years later By Jerry Patterson Opinion AUSTIN - When the Texas Concealed Handgun Law took effect in 1996, pundits and naysayers predicted anarchy. Any minute, there surely would be mass violence as armed Texas citizens began roving the streets, settling arguments with gunfire. Certainly, several proclaimed, within a year there would be blood in the streets as Texas returned to the days of the Wild West. Ten years later the facts paint a different picture. Texas under the Concealed Handgun Law isn't the Wild West, but the Mild West. No recurrent shootouts at four-way stops, no blood in the streets. Quite the contrary, Texans are safer than before. But why are we safer? Why did the fears of the naysayers fail to materialize? One of the reasons I authored Senate Bill 60, the Concealed Handgun Law, was because I trust my fellow Texans. Contrary to opinions expressed on almost every editorial page across the state, I knew that when law-abiding Texans' constitutional right to keep and bear arms was restored with the passage of SB 60, they would exercise good judgment and behave responsibly. Ten years later, and the statistics continue to prove the point. Since the passage of the Concealed Handgun Law, the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows an 18-percent drop in handgun murders, down from 838 in 1995 to 688 in 2004; and a 13-percent drop in handgun murders per 100,000 population, down from 4.5 murders per 100,000 Texans in 1995 to 3.95 per 100,000 in 2004. In 2000, on the fifth anniversary of the Concealed Handgun Law, the National Center for Policy Analysis issued a report that indicated Texans with concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit a serious crime than the average citizen. According to the report, the more than 200,000 Texans licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. The report illustrated that Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense. They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense. And they are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder. H. Sterling Burnett, a senior policy analyst at the NCPA and the author of the report, concluded: "Many predicted that minor incidents would escalate into bloody shootouts if Texas passed a concealed-carry law. That prediction was dead wrong," Burnett said. With 247,345 concealed handgun licenses active in Texas as of December 2005, the number of law-abiding licensees has had a positive effect on the crime rate. Texas Department of Public Safety Uniform Crime Report indicates the overall crime rate in Texas has continued to drop during the past 10 years. In 1997, DPS reported 5,478 crimes per 100,000 Texans, based on a population of 19,355,427 Texans. In 2004, with almost 3 million more Texans, the crime rate is 5,032 per 100,000. The effect of the Concealed Handgun Law has been so positive, it has converted some of its most outspoken initial critics. John Holmes, former Harris County district attorney, wrote to me several years after the passage of the law: "As you know, I was very outspoken in my opposition to the passage of the Concealed Handgun Act. I did not feel that such legislation was in the public interest and presented a clear and present danger to law abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets," Holmes wrote. "Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed state-wide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless." Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association, shared this view: "I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened," White told the Dallas Morning News. "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." To the supporters of individual liberty and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, this outcome is no surprise. However, the Concealed Handgun Law isn't just about personal safety. Perhaps even deeper than its roots in constitutional freedom, the Concealed Handgun Law is about trust. And after 10 years, the Concealed Handgun Law is a shining example of what happens when elected officials have faith in their fellow Texans. The legacy of Senate Bill 60 is grounded in the concept that our government should place its trust in us, not the other way around. Jerry Patterson is the 27th Texas land commissioner and, as a state senator from Pasadena, was author of SB 60, the Concealed Handgun Law. |
QUOTES TO REMEMBERby NancyThe pool of guns that get turned in in buybacks are simply not the same guns that would otherwise have been used in crime. — Harvard professor David Kennedy, as reported on FoxNews |
FW: Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady)by Nancy FW: Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) Date: Jan 10, 2006 5:10 PM This is why we need a political "divorce" from the liberals (trade 'em to Canada) because we have to throw them a bone every time we pass good legislation, and sooner or later it comes back to haunt us and take away our rights. We have to make our state and our country so conservative that they start immigrating to Canada and Europe in hordes. We would be so much further ahead if every piece of legislation our conservative leaders pass didn't have to be watered down to appease the slease. Pancho V. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gunlawupdates@gunlaws.com [owner-gunlawupdates@gunlaws.com] On Behalf Of alan@gunlaws.com Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:02 PM To: gunlawupdates@gunlaws.com Subject: Secret Gun Ban Plan (Brady) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1/10/06 -- full contact info at end New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed New Brady Anti-Gun Strategy Revealed "Decommissioned" Guns Nearly As Good As Confiscations by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America The Brady group and its congressional supporters are proceeding, and making headway, with a below-radar effort to ban operating firearms from the general public, without having to actually disarm America's 80 million gun owners. The plan is now evolving around an innocent-sounding new legal term. It was tucked deep in a 400,000-word spending bill under president Clinton (law # P.L. 105-277), and it is now spreading throughout federal gun laws. Its latest use, the eighth, is in the frivolous-lawsuit ban just enacted (The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, law # P.L. 109-92; S.397). Described at the end of this report, it accents a liability all Americans -- not just gun owners -- are increasingly under, a tightening legal noose few people realize is around their necks. The phrase is "secure gun storage or safety device." It includes almost anything that will keep a gun from working. At its simplest, it's gun locks. This and closely related tactics are sometimes called "decommissioning schemes." Gun-control advocates -- the mainstream ones who seek to disarm the public -- will essentially win their cause if they can require guns to be disabled, disassembled, locked up or turned off by remote control. This approach is already working in National Parks where possession of a working gun subjects you to immediate federal arrest, confiscation of your property, and endless aggravation. No criminal act of any kind is required, just legal possession of personal property -- any firearm. However, a gun in pieces so it cannot be fired, locked in your car trunk is allowed. Interestingly, no statutory authority for this denial of civil rights can be found. And of course, statutory denial of civil rights would be unconstitutional on its face. Washington, D.C., is currently under a similar "decommissioning model" too, though its registration system gets more attention. In addition to a full ban on handgun registration since 1976, firearms that were owned before that date cannot be assembled, or even carried -- at home. It's almost as good as taking the guns away, from a gun-ban perspective. Any gun use, including legitimate self defense, implies assembly and carriage, and is banned. Even the widely hailed federal "Firearm Transportation Guarantee" (law # 18 USC 926A) relies on decommissioned guns. It was enacted as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986, to help counteract high levels of federal abuse under the 1968 Gun Control Act. It guarantees a person the right to transport a firearm from any legal place to any other, anywhere in the country. However, the firearm must be unloaded and locked in the trunk, rendering it useless. If you bear it in any manner while you travel, the protection does not apply. Under Brady-supported decommissioning schemes, you can keep your guns, but if they're ever workable, or available, you become a criminal and subject to arrest. It's pretty clever actually. And it has been working, even though forced decommissioning is infringement of the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. The Byrne Grant program (law # 42 USC 3760) provides federal money for law-enforcement firearm training and other purposes. Changed under president Clinton, it now authorizes federal funding to train the public in the use of... gun locks. Under a gun-unfriendly administration (anti-rights advocates believe they will have this one day), little prevents this funding from going into large-scale campaigns to convince people to only possess decommissioned guns, "for safety." While on one hand, who could rationally argue against making guns safe, gun guru Col. Jeff Cooper has succinctly pointed out that, "A gun that's safe isn't worth anything." And that turns out to be the very heart of this gun-ban plan -- a gun that's safe isn't worth anything. But gun-rights advocates know guns are dangerous, they are supposed to be dangerous, and they're not any good if they're not dangerous. Anything requiring guns to be "safe" is the true danger, and the secure storage device has now become "incentivized." The Republican party, in control for half a decade, hasn't used Byrne Grants for their other authorized purpose: training the public in "the lawful and safe ownership, storage, carriage or use of firearms." Will Republican failure to use this law (for gun-safety training) also deter Democrats from using it (to promote gun locks)? Nah. And now, with gun locks slipped into the gun-industry protection bill... As the subtle tactic of decommissioned guns continues, the right to keep and bear arms is at risk. The next time the anti-rights factions slip in the phrase "secure gun storage or safety device," you had better look very closely. All it will take is one use, with the word "required," to wipe out our cherished Second Amendment rights. And they won't have to take your guns away to do it. OCCURRENCES of "secure gun storage or safety device" (SGSSD) 18 USC 921(34). The "secure gun storage or safety device" is defined. 18 USC 923(d). Dealers are required to carry SGSSDs, unless they are unavailable due to supply-chain problems outside the dealer's control. 18 USC 923(e). Dealer's license can be revoked for failing to carry SGSSDs, unless they were unavailable due to supply-chain problems. 42 USC 3760. The Byrne Grant law is amended to allow training the public in use of SGSSDs, and use of firearms. 18 USC 922(z)(1). Dealers now required to provide SGSSDs with every firearm sold. 18 USC 924(p)(1)(A). Stiff fines and license suspension added to penalties for dealers who fail to provide SGSSDs. 18 USC 922(z)(2). Proper authorities at every level of federal, state and local government are exempt from the SGSSD laws. Someone should write a paper just on that. 18 USC 922(z)(3)(A). This was inserted by Brady-backed anti-gun-rights legislators. It went into the gun-industry-protection, frivolous-lawsuit ban (Oct. 2005): A person who uses an SGSSD on a gun has liability protection if a criminal steals the gun and then uses it in criminal activity. Providing an "incentive" to decommission your firearms, as this law does, is sinisterly clever. In the name of safety, you are threatened with legal nightmares that are little more than corrupt abuses of the justice system. These are the actions of a resolute and unprincipled enemy of the human and civil right to keep and bear arms. ---------- Note: When a criminal steals your property, and then uses it to harm someone or violate the law, the criminal -- not you -- should be liable to the victims. Because the court system is broken (I'm being nice), such cases often proceed, even if they have no legal footing to come after you, or grounds to win. Their main purposes are the huge costs they inflict, the aggravation factor and the chance for a settlement, all shameful abuses of the court system. Protection from such abuse is the very thing the gun industry just got under the lawsuit bill (the public was not included in the protection). All Americans, not just gun owners, are increasingly under this abominable legal corruption. A man sued Ford because his daughter had a flat. He lost of course, but frivolous cases used to get their attorneys disbarred. They no longer do. Contact: Alan Korwin BLOOMFIELD PRESS "We publish the gun laws." 4718 E. Cactus #440 Phoenix, AZ 85032 602-996-4020 Phone 602-494-0679 FAX 1-800-707-4020 Orders http://www.gunlaws.com alan@gunlaws.com We gots 'em! -- 2006 Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the 50 States New 22nd edition of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide New Tenth Anniversary edition of Gun Laws of America Call, write, fax or click for a free full-color catalog. Use the home-page blue button to get our emails. If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran. |
National Post Column: Commit the crime, do the timeby NancyNational Post Column: Commit the crime, do the time Date: Jan 9, 2006 10:38 PM Articles of Interest http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/election/2006/articles.htm Jan. 9, 2006 - National Post Column: Commit the crime, do the time |
New York's Bloomberg, Kelly Both Wrong on Rightsby NancyNew York's Bloomberg, Kelly Both Wrong on Rights By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman New York's liberal Mayor Michael Bloomberg, what many consider a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only), and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly recently began promoting a national campaign to push New York's gun control laws in every state in the country. Bloomberg evidently sees this campaign as a way to elevate his political status, and earn national name recognition. Kelly seems to be along for more than just a ride, remarking that, "We have the toughest gun laws in the country right here in New York City, and I think they're eminently reasonable." Here's a little advice for Bloomberg, who plans to take his message to "every capital of every state that permits guns to flow freely across its borders" and Kelly, who wants to spread his "reasonable" gun laws across the map: Better stay east of the Mississippi River, perhaps east of the Appalachian Mountains and definitely north of the Mason-Dixon line. It would be bad form for Kelly to start spouting off within sight of the Rockies, as he did within sight of the Empire State Building recently, that people have a "right to have a handgun" if they have a "premises permit." An even worse blunder would be to try convincing any of the millions of law-abiding, legally-armed private citizens outside of his gulag jurisdiction that they "have a right to carry a handgun if you can show a need for it. Yes, you have to show a fairly high threshold of need." Typically, wealthy celebrities meet that threshold, but average New Yorkers do not. What Kelly has described is not a civil right, but a privilege, and he evidently does not know the difference. This will come as a shock to Bloomberg and Kelly, but there is no "Bill of Needs" in the U.S. Constitution or in the state constitutions where keeping and bearing arms is discussed. We're talking about constitutionally-protected civil Rights. Kelly may be stunned to learn that 38 states have Right-to-Carry laws, meaning that people like him can't tell people like us that our safety is subject to their whimsical discretion. Trot your philosophy out for the good citizens of Cheyenne, Helena, Boise, Bismarck, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City or Austin, for example, and you might find yourselves being laughed out of town. Try spreading your wisdom through the hunting camps and gun ranges of Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon or Alaska, and you could become guests of honor at a tar and feather party, and only then because someone can't find a rope. Across the vast expanse of "Middle America," from the Texas hill country to the Dakota Badlands, from the Piedmont to the prairies and on to the shining mountains; from West Virginia to Eastern Washington, Mayor Bloomberg's one-track mind, three-piece suit and two-bit attitude about gun ownership will be less welcome than an outbreak of bubonic plague. You have a problem with illegal guns in New York City? Solve it by eliminating the Draconian laws that fostered and perpetuate the black market in firearms. If you're worried about violent criminals preying on defenseless citizens for whom you work, scrap the Sullivan Law, stop disarming those people and allow them the means to fight back. Nothing dissuades a thug faster than the sight of a legally-armed citizen, backed by the force of a strong self-defense statute, who is willing to protect his life and property. It may pain Bloomberg, Kelly and other Nanny State disciples to acknowledge this, but given the opportunity, and liberty from government interference, most Americans can take care of themselves. The overwhelming majority of American citizens can be trusted with the firearms they own, because they know how to use them. They don't need millionaire politicians or Big Apple police administrators meddling with their civil rights while stripping away their personal safety. Perhaps it's not their fault. Bloomberg and Kelly are, after all, products of their environment. That being the case, they should be encouraged to stick to their own ground, and leave the rest of us the hell alone. Alan Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org). Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week (www.gunweek.com). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > |
GLOBE EDITORIAL: Harper right to propose scrapping the bloated, inefficient gun registryby NancyGLOBE EDITORIAL: Harper right to propose scrapping the bloated, inefficient gun registry Date: Jan 7, 2006 10:18 AM PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL DATE: 2006.01.07 PAGE: A18 SECTION: Editorial EDITION: Metro WORD COUNT: 517 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crime and punishment ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The problem is crime. The politicians are paying attention. On Thursday, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced a move to better co-ordinate the activities of police and Crown prosecutors in tackling criminal acts by gangs. He listened to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair and prosecutors last month and, on Thursday, phrased his reaction succinctly: "It became apparent to us that we're going to have to do more with respect to providing more support, more resources, more personnel to our police, prosecutors and courts." Accordingly, the government will accelerate its timetable for hiring and deploying police officers and prosecutors. It is a simple recognition that those branches tackling gun and gang violence have been understaffed for a complicated task, and that the nature of gang offences, including the intimidation of witnesses, calls for dedicated courtrooms that can tackle such cases quickly and with adequate security. Also on Thursday, federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper embraced a tough law-and-order platform, some parts of which are valuable. He is right to propose scrapping the bloated, inefficient gun registry and putting those resources to better use. While the rigidity of his proposed three-strikes-and-you're-out policy will require further study, he is right to deplore the revolving-door syndrome that has allowed some extreme criminals to commit one violent crime after another without being tagged as dangerous offenders. And his proposal that all 14-year-olds convicted of serious crimes be sentenced as adults would fix a vexing anomaly. In 2003, the Youth Criminal Justice Act lowered the threshold of eligibility for (modified) adult sentences to 14 from 16, but Ottawa agreed this would apply only to provinces that signed on. (Quebec was leery of treating 14-year-olds as adults.) Offenders shouldn't be subject to huge discrepancies in their legal treatment solely because of the province they live in; Mr. Harper's move would bring national uniformity. At the same time, the sheer weight of his platform suggests a desire to throw everything at crime and hope something sticks. There are real problems in the system -- a tendency to give parole too easily to those serving life sentences, an underestimation of how often sex offenders reoffend when released -- that tougher measures can address. But increasing mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes -- to between five and 10 years, up from the current one to four years -- will pack the prison population without necessarily making society safer. Here, as in his tougher approach to parole, Mr. Harper would remove discretion from judges and boards with little acknowledgment that the wildly varying circumstances of crimes don't lend themselves to a one-size-fits-all solution. The Conservatives should be commended for taking a clear, strong stand. The devil, as always, is in the details.
|
A GIRL'S GUIDE TO GUNS **** BY JOHN LOTTby Nancy :) A GIRL'S GUIDE TO GUNS Date: Jan 6, 2006 9:09 PM John Lott. FYI (copy below): http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/NYPostRevPaxtonBook.html Published Sunday, January 1, 2006, in New York Post A GIRL'S GUIDE TO GUNS By John R. Lott, Jr.* WHAT should a woman do when attacked by a criminal? Should she behave passively? Use pepper spray? A gun? Most people hope they'll get lucky and never be attacked. For those who want to think ahead, there is Paxton Quigley's new book, "Stayin' Alive." It turns out that pepper spray may not do you a lot of good when it is raining or snowing. A woman is just as likely to disable herself as the attacker when it's windy or when using the spray indoors. Knives and baseball bats are particularly problematic, because women have to get very close to their attackers to use them, and male criminals — that is, most criminals — tend to be much stronger physically than their female victims. When it comes to physical contact, women generally lose those fights. The advantage of a gun is that it is ideal for keeping the criminal far away from the victim. And the victim isn't responsible for restraining the criminal, as police officers are when arresting suspects. A woman simply wants to keep the criminal away from her. There have been a lot of good books lately exploding the myth that guns endanger people's safety. (And at least one very notable movie, Larry Elder's "Michael & Me," devastatingly tackles many of the false claims in Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine.") Quigley's book covers a lot of ground, such as the myths about personal defense, when it is appropriate to use lethal force, whether there are any risks to firing a gun while pregnant (apparently not), how often children are killed by accidental gun shots (very rarely) and how one goes about choosing the best gun for a particular individual's needs. The book answers these questions from a woman's perspective. What works defensively for men doesn't always work for women. As Quigley points out, women who used a gun to resist an attack were 2.5 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who behaved passively. Guns aren't as beneficial for men. They are only 1.4 times more likely to escape uninjured than those who behaved passively. The book includes real-life examples of defensive gun use and offers academic research on the millions of times each year that people use guns defensively. These good-news stories help Quigley illustrate how women actually react in life-threatening situations. And she also does well explaining what women should know before choosing a gun. The book could have gone further debunking common misperceptions about guns. Take the claim that "you're more likely to shoot yourself or a family member than kill an attacker." This study assumed that whenever anyone in a gun-owning home was killed by a gun, it was that gun that caused the harm. But academics have found that at least 86 percent of the time, that assumption was wrong — and most of other cases were suicides. While recent polls show that more households own guns after 9/11, there is still a lot of fear and uncertainty about guns, which may keep people from doing what is best for their family's safety. Quigley's book cuts through a lot of that unjustified fear. John R. Lott Jr. is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "The Bias Against Guns." |
JPFO ALERT: Kicking Off Our "Boot" Campaignby NancyJPFO ALERT: Kicking Off Our "Boot" Campaign Date: Jan 2, 2006 6:36 PM ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization January 2, 2006 JPFO ALERT: Kicking Off Our "Boot" Campaign We asked for your support, and we've gotten it: the response to our "Boot the BATFE" campaign (http://www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm) has been overwhelmingly positive. With "Boot the BATFE," we'll bring to light the arbitrary and capricious nature of BATFE "testing" through the placement of ads in national media. We want to let everyone know exactly how this agency operates! To help spread the message, we're offering our "Boot the BATFE" t-shirts (http://www.jpfo.org/jpfowear.htm) for 20% Off the regular price! With each shirt, you'll receive a "Boot the BATFE" lapel pin, and a copy of the Congressional Research memo documenting what the BATFE and Department of Justice never wanted gun owners to know: that the BATFE has NO standardized testing procedures for determining the legality of a firearm! This offer is good ONLY until January 12, 2006, so act quickly! If you haven't followed our reports about the BATFE in the past, you may wish to peruse the articles on our "BATFE: Exposing the Threat" page (http://www.jpfo.org/batfearticles.htm) and also read "The End of the Republican Party?" (http://www.jpfo.org/alert20050923.htm). Once you've read these articles, you'll understand how important it is to rein in this dangerous agency. By the way, in our most recent "Common Sense" column in Shotgun News announcing our campaign (which you can read at http://www.jpfo.org/cs200601.pdf ), we mention that "...we plan to run ads..." Thanks to our generous supporters, the ads are now designed and in the process of being placed, considerably ahead of schedule! Please help us keep the momentum going: visit http://www.jpfo.org/bootbatfe.htm and help us give the BATFE the boot! - The Liberty Crew ============================================================ JPFO mirror site: http://www.jpfo.net ============================================================ LET JPFO KEEP YOU INFORMED -- Sign up today for JPFO Alerts! Just send a blank e-mail to jpfoalerts-subscribe@jpfo.org. To unsubscribe, send a blank email to jpfoalerts-unsubscribe@jpfo.org ============================================================= Regain your freedom - download the song "Justice Day" today! http://www.rebelfirerock.com/downloadjd.html ============================================================= Original Material in JPFO ALERTS is Copyright 2005 JPFO, Inc. Permission is granted to reproduce this alert in full, so long as the following JPFO contact information is included: Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership PO Box 270143 Hartford, Wisconsin 53027 Phone: 1-262-673-9745 Order line: 1-800-869-1884 (toll-free!) Fax: 1-262-673-9746 Web: http://www.jpfo.org/ ============================================================= JPFO ALERTS is provided as a free service to the Internet Community. If you wish to help support this service, consider joining JPFO! $20/year (no, you don't have to be Jewish!) Join for 2 years and receive a free JPFO lapel pin! Life Membership: $500 or $41.67/month for 12 months. |
Pro-, Anti-Gunners Drawing Major Battle Lines, for 2006by NancyPro-, Anti-Gunners Drawing Major Battle Lines, for 2006 Date: Jan 2, 2006 6:38 PM The New GUN WEEK, January 1, 2006 Page 11 Pro-, Anti-Gunners Drawing Major Battle Lines, for 2006 By Dave Workman Senior Editor This could be a pivotal year for gun politics, as legislatures begin meeting across the country and the 2006 campaign sea son starts heating up. Spokesmen and women for gun rights and gun control organizations contacted by Gun Week have pretty well defined where the battle lines will be drawn, and what the major issues will be. They include attempts to require background checks at gun shows, protection of employees who have firearms in their private vehicles at work, the Washington, DC, handgun ban, expanding concealed carry, and bans on semi-automatic firearms. Two organizations, the Violence Policy Center and Americans for Gun Safety, did not return repeated calls from Gun Week requesting comment. However, Peter Hamm with the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence told Gun Week that his organization will be pushing its agenda more at the state level, and looking at some key congressional races. Acknowledging that the gun control lobby is “not going to be able to forward a national agenda" while Congress retains its present makeup, he suggested that state-level issues will provide some opportunity. One big issue, he indicated, is legislation regarding the ability of employees to have firearms in their cars on company property. He contended that the National Rifle Association (NRA) has blundered with this issue, because “the only political lobby more powerful than the gun lobby is the business lobby." Businesses, he said, will likely fight such laws vigorously, both as a safety issue and as a property rights issue. Splitting Conservatives “The guns-in-workplace-parking-lots (issue) is going to be a hard one," Hamm said. “I don’t think that was their brightest idea.... It splits conservatives. It turned a lot of moderates and progressives like myself to the whole property rights is sue.... I would think that if the NRA had their druthers they would back off the parking lot issue and put that back on the burner five years from now." However, Larry Pratt, head of Gun Owners of America (GOA), disagreed. “Legislators who are interested in keeping that day job know they don’t want to tick off their employers," Pratt observed. “The idea of being fired for having a cased gun in your car where it doesn’t do you any good anyway.... Mr. Hamm is whistling past the graveyard." Another issue in the Brady sights is the introduction of so-called stand-your-ground legislation, which his camp calls the “Shoot First" law. The NRA’s Christopher Cox, head of the Institute for Legislative Action, agrees. “The castle doctrine law we had passed in Florida, we’re going to take that nation wide," Cox said. “We’re going to work that issue just like we did with right-to-carrv." The NRA has been remarkably effective over the past 15 years, getting concealed carry laws passed in dozens of states. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Gun Week that these “right-to-carry" statutes are increasingly being passed with reciprocity or blanket recognition tenets that allow licensed citizens from other states to carry concealed when they visit. While gunowners may have to wait for Congress to act on the issue of national concealed carry, the passage of reciprocity laws at the state level will likely speed that up, Gottlieb suggested. Cox also noted that another of NRA’s challenges this year will be to examine the emergency statutes in all 50 states, to make sure that they protect, rather than usurp, the right of law-abiding citizens to keep their firearms. That concern grew out of what happened in Louisiana in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, where police arbitrarily began seizing private firearms. “That was the most outrageous and blatant abuse of power that I’ve witnessed in my 15 years in this business," Cox stated. “Our opponents have been telling us that ‘the NRA guys are crazy,’ that ‘nobody is ever going to take your guns away’ Well, they did. We’re going through every emergency statute in all 50 states and pursuing federal legislation to make sure this never happens again." Gun Show ‘Loophole’ Natalie Reber, executive director of Washington CeaseFire, one of several state-level organizations of its type, said her group’s main thrust this year will be passage of legislation in the Evergreen State to close the so-called gun show loophole. A bill introduced in the 2005 legislature is still alive, and with Washington’s legislature firmly in the hands of Democrats, it stands a chance of passing. The various state CeaseFire groups are loosely knit, she said, and essentially their common link is that all work cooperatively with the Brady Campaign and “Million" Mom March." Ironically, a high-profile shooting that occurred at the Tacoma Mall in November did not involve a firearm purchased at a gun show. The suspect in that case obtained a semi-automatic rifle in a private transaction through a classified advertisement, and allegedly bought his other gun from a street source. Gottlieb noted that gun control groups historically seize on such shootings and “dance in the blood of the victims" to push their agenda. “You can kiss gun shows goodbye," said GOA’s Pratt. “Registration and licensing is the next thing on their agenda, and that’s what the Brady folks have wanted for years. These guys have an agenda, unlike the Republicans. Democrats, their religion is the power to tell us what to do with our lives." NRA’s Cox concurred, noting, “They (Congressional anti-gunners) are biding their time, hoping that gunowners get complacent and political winds shift. We all know that’s what they’re waiting for." Pratt suggested that Republicans could have real troubles in the November congressional elections “if they don’t clean up their act." “It’s entirely possible," Pratt said. Gun shows are a big concern of CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron. He’s also president of the Washington Arms Collectors, which conducts the biggest gun shows in Washington state. “Gun shows are always going to be under attack," he said. He expects anti-gunners to go after them at the state level, same as they will pursue bans on semi-autos. DC Gun Ban One big issue for both Cox and Gottlieb is ending the gun ban in Washington, DC. The ban is being challenged in court, and Congress could act on the issue as well. “The DC gun ban is another thing we’re continuing to pursue," Cox confirmed. “It’s about self-defense (and) the Second Amendment that the overwhelming majority of people in this country support. People believe lawful people have a right to own a firearm for self-defense." Gottlieb wants Congress to vote on ending the District’s 30-year-old prohibition because it would put every member of the House of Representatives on record as supporting or opposing a gun ban during an election year. Bans at the state level are a concern to Cox, particularly because he knows that’s where anti-gunners plan to take their fight this year. “They will use tragedies to push their agenda," he said. “They have taken a beating but their agenda has not changed. Their talking points have changed." In Washington state, another subject that CeaseFire has broached in recent weeks, and is indicative of a quiet effort that is going on in other states, is a push to have newspapers voluntarily stop accepting classified advertising for firearms, especially handguns. That effort actually began with a gun control group based in Iowa. Waldron has suggested repeatedly to Gun Week that the reason they do not want to push for a mandatory ban through legislation is because of the potential media backlash. Newspapers, he noted, have long been sympathetic to the anti-gun cause, but they might become less so if some group pushed for legislation against their right to accept advertising. Elections 2006 No doubt there will be plenty of posturing in preparation for the election cycle. All 435 House members must stand for re-election, and there are 36 Senate races, 33 state governors are up for re-election and there will be elections in state legislatures. Gun rights groups are hoping that lawmakers at all levels remain convinced that, at least in most regions, gun control is a losing political proposition. Rarely during an election year do politicians push gun control measures, especially after the 1994 Congressional elections in which gunowners, infuriated by passage of the Brady Law in 1993 and semi-auto ban in September 1994 played the pivotal role in shifting control on Capitol Hill. This year’s election could provide Hillary Clinton with a launching pad for an anticipated 2008 run for the White House. Cox believes she would be a formidable candidate, and also “the most dangerous politician when it comes to our Second Amendment freedoms in this country." “It will probably be the fight of our life," he said. “There is so much at stake. It’s not just being able to speak from the bully pulpit of the presidency, but the tens of thousands of government jobs, the (potential) UN treaties and international negotiations, regulatory changes they can make. This is high stakes and we are already preparing for the fight." But long before that happens, there are legislatures in session, or convening soon. Gun rights and gun control activists will be probing, sparring and flexing whatever political muscle they have. And, remembering that political winds have a way of shifting almost in a heartbeat; all it might take is one highly-publicized incident, one significant turn of events and one side or the other could find itself swimming against a riptide. |
New Orleans Dismisses 60 Officers, Suspends 25 Othersby Nancy :) New Orleans Dismisses 60 Officers, Suspends 25 Others Date: Jan 2, 2006 6:33 PM The New GUN WEEK, January 1, 2006 Page 2 New Orleans Dismisses 60 Officers, Suspends 25 Others by Dave Workman Senior Editor Sixty police officers have been fired by the New Orleans Police Department and 25 others were reportedly suspended as fallout continues over police conduct in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. According to Associated Press (AP), 51 of the fired officers were dumped before disciplinary hearings on their conduct even began in December. The report said that a total of 228 officers have been involved in disciplinary hearings, apparently for having left the city without permission in the days following the hurricane and dike failure, which led to flooding of large segments of the Crescent City. Police Chief Warren Riley said that even though officers have returned to the city, the fact that they left at all is “not acceptable." This all happened as the city still faces a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and National Rifle Association (NRA) over widespread confiscation of firearms from private citizens in the city following the hurricane. Those confiscations were apparently conducted on orders from the police administration, but without the authority of state or federal law, or even emergency statute. In many cases, citizens were disarmed at gunpoint by police and National Guard troopers, and there are reports that many of the seized guns have not been returned, or even accounted for. Attorneys for SAF and NRA obtained a temporary restraining order from a federal judge almost immediately, and they are now pursuing a permanent injunction against the seizures. New Orleans officials have reportedly insisted that they did not confiscate guns despite citizen complaints to the contrary. In the wake of the Aug. 29 hurricane and subsequent flooding, reports circulated that some police officers even participated in looting. At least two female officers were caught on film removing items from a store. Just days after SAF and NRA won their restraining order, former Police Chief Eddie Compass resigned. His was not the only resignation. AP reported that at least one police captain resigned under investigation, while other officers were terminated. In the chaos that followed the hurricane, police from other jurisdictions were brought to the city as reinforcements to help restore order. There was widespread looting, reports that several people were shot, and that other crimes were being committed at a time when officers were unable to handle the situation, yet were given a priority to disarm citizens who could not evacuate from the city. Adding insult to injury, a news crew captured on video the beating of a retired school teacher, and an assault on a news reporter by several police officers in the French Quarter. Starting this month, according to AP, the FBI and federal drug enforcement agents will assist in training New Orleans officers in leadership and behavior skills. |
CCRKBA Alerts GUN BANS DON'T WORK, AND MARION BARRY IS LIVING PROOF, SAYS CCRKBAby Nancy :)CCRKBA Alerts Date: Jan 3, 2006 4:15 PM NEWS RELEASE GUN BANS DON'T WORK, AND MARION BARRY IS LIVING PROOF, SAYS CCRKBA BELLEVUE, WA – The armed robbery Monday of Washington, D.C. Councilman, and former Mayor, Marion Barry should not have happened to him, nor should any citizen in the District face such a crime, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said today. "Unfortunately," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "Barry and his anti-gun colleagues on the city council have steadfastly opposed repeal of the gun ban in the District. It is mind boggling that in the capitol of the Free World, where the original Constitution of the United States resides, that the citizens of that city may not exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. "This may not mean much to Mr. Barry," Gottlieb observed, "because his crack cocaine conviction in 1991 disqualifies him from legally owning a firearm. But it would mean a great deal to law-abiding citizens without criminal records who desperately need the means to defend themselves against criminals who currently enjoy a risk-free working environment." According to the Associated Press, Barry was robbed at gunpoint by some youths who had helped him carry his groceries to his apartment. They took his wallet containing cash and credit cards. "What happened to Marion Barry is a symptom of a larger problem," Gottlieb said. "Over the years, since passage of the notorious handgun ban, there have been anecdotal incidents of VIPs being mugged and hard evidence that disarming law-abiding citizens has done nothing to stop armed criminals from committing violent crimes. Barry, of course, could easily discuss this phenomenon, since he is walking proof that laws against smoking crack cocaine don't stop people from doing that, either. "It's time," Gottlieb continued, "to tell anti-gun city leaders like Barry that ‘we've tried it your way, and it was a disaster; now let's try it a different way.' It is time for citizens in Washington, D.C. to once again be secure in their homes and businesses, and the only way to accomplish that is to make it possible for them to fight back. "If the gun ban had worked," he said, "Marion Barry would still have his wallet." -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > |
happy new yearbyi want to wish you all a happy new year, and continue to support our troops, if in utah, tune into kirkwood on ktlk look for my articles challenging the leftist indymedia sites |
Happy 2006 !by WAGC |
Trigger locks killby NancyTrigger locks kill Date: Dec 31, 2005 6:29 PM The funds used for Government issued trigger locks are wasted. These funds could have been used for law enforcement actions directed at the small core of violent criminals who commit a highly disproportion percentage of violent crime. These funds could have better used to keep convicted violent criminals incarcerated, and fund more effective probation and parole of those criminals who are released. Trigger locks kill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: November 18, 2005 By Joseph Farah © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com I just read an interesting report. It's the latest report by the National Safety Council on accidental deaths and injuries in the workplace, home and community. [Below] It covers the year 2003. Here are the leading causes of accidental deaths that year: Motor vehicles – 44,800 Falls – 16,200 Poisonings – 13,900 Chokings – 4,300 Drownings – 2,900 Fires, flames and smoke – 2,600 Suffocations – 1,200 I looked through pages and pages of this document to find out about the horror of accidental shooting deaths. I also looked in supplemental material associated with the report. I could find nothing. One has to assume that they are so few and far between that they are statistically irrelevant. Yet this is not what we are led to believe by the gun-control fanatics who continue to promote trigger locks as a "safety" measure. Just last month, for instance, the U.S. Congress approved a bill that would require licensed gun dealers to supply a trigger-lock device with every handgun sold in America. I had imagined that an act of Congress of this kind would have been precipitated by thousands of accidental shooting deaths in any given year. This does not appear to be the case. In fact, if the latest detailed report of the National Safety Council is any indication, there are virtually no accidental shooting deaths taking place. There is no mention of them in the report. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. That's great news. You would think it would be cause for celebration. So why the continuing, unrelenting pressure to promote trigger locks – which will certainly result in the deaths of many innocent people who are unable to defend themselves because of a trigger lock? Why are those who buy firearms for protection now paying extra for trigger locks that could, if used, counteract the very purpose for which the weapon was obtained? About 1 million Americans use a firearm to defend themselves from criminals every year. They don't necessarily discharge the gun. But they at least brandish one to fend off attack. Hundreds of thousands of times a year, law-abiding citizens fire guns at bad guys in the defense of their lives and property. Trigger locks deter the kind of quick response needed to use those firearms effectively in such situations. You won't catch me using one. But, slowly, inevitably, national, state and local policies are pushing us closer to mandatory trigger locks. Imagine the day we actually have a universal trigger lock law in place. Let's assume just 1 percent of the 1 million people who use firearms every year to defend themselves are unable to deactivate the lock in time and die as a result. That's 10,000 deaths. Let's assume the number of accidental gun deaths right now is somewhere between 100 on the low side and 1,000 on the very high side. Why would we want to trade 100 or 1,000 lives for 10,000? It seems to me that's what the trigger-lock fanatics want. In fact, it could be a lot worse. I would dare say that the more widespread trigger-lock use becomes, the higher the death toll of innocent people. Trigger locks don't save lives. They take them. That's why we should not be encouraging their use. We should be discouraging them – except in rare circumstances. There are appropriate uses for them – particularly with firearms not maintained for use in self-defense. But since the overwhelming number of handguns are purchased for precisely this reason, trigger locks make no sense. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Report on Injuries in America, 2003 Deaths and injuries in the workplace, home and community, and on roads and highways. (Data from Injury Facts®, 2004 Edition) The Problem Overall Unintentional Injury Deaths: 2003 Number of deaths: 101,500. (The highest death total was 116,385 in 1969 and the lowest recent death total was 86,777 in 1992—the lowest since 1924.) There were about 27 million visits to hospital emergency departments for injuries. About 20.7 million injuries resulted in temporary or permanent disability. A fatal injury occurs every 5 minutes and a disabling injury occurs every 1.6 seconds. Wage losses, medical expenses, property damage, employer costs, fire losses and other expenses related to fatal and nonfatal unintentional injuries cost Americans an estimated $607.7 billion in 2003. That's equal to about $5,700 for each household on average. The Problem Viewed by Cause of Death Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths United States, 2003 Motor Vehicle 44,800 Falls 16,200 Poisoning 13,900 Choking 4,300 Drowning 2,900 Fires, flames, and smoke 2,600 Suffocation 1,200 Falls are the leading causes of nonfatal unintentional injuries treated in hospital emergency departments (7.0 million visits) followed by motor-vehicle crashes (4.6 million visits). Falls are the leading cause of non-fatal injury for all age groups except males age 15-24 (for whom ‘struck by or against an object or person’ was the leading cause of injury). Males have a higher rate of injury-related ER visits than females. Males between the ages of 15-24 had the highest rate of injury-related ER visits for males. Women over age 75 had the highest rate of injury-related ER visits for females. Where Injuries Occur In the Workplace There were 4,500 workplace fatalities due to unintentional injuries. There were 3.2 deaths per 100,000 workers. On the job, 3.4 million American workers suffered disabling injuries. Motor vehicle crashes accounted for 2,000 of the 4,500 workplace fatalities. The agriculture industry accounted for 710 deaths and 110,000 disabling injuries. Agriculture workers had the second highest death rate among the industry divisions. Work injuries cost Americans $156.2 billion. That amounts to $1,120 per worker. Nearly 9 out of 10 deaths and about two thirds of the disabling injuries suffered by American workers occurred off-the-job. Recommendations for Reducing Workplace Deaths and Injuries Greater educational effort by American companies with their work forces is needed to help reduce the rate of off-the-job deaths and injuries. The Council recommends increased efforts for construction zone safety on both sides of the barricades. Every company or organization should have a strict safety belt policy that requires all employees to buckle up while on the job. All workplaces should operate with a comprehensive safety and health plan and address security issues that can prevent workplace violence. In the Home and Community 54,400 fatalities occurred in the home and community or 54% of all injury-related deaths. There were 15 million disabling injuries. About 1 out of 19 people experience an unintentional injury in their home or community each year. About 35% of deaths and disabling injuries involve workers off the job. In the home there is a fatal injury every 16 minutes and a disabling injury every 4 seconds. The four leading causes of fatal injury in the home and community are falls; poisoning; choking; drowning; and fires, flames and smoke. The leading cause of death in the home, poisoning, took the lives of 11,200 people. This number includes deaths from drugs, medicines, other solid and liquid substances, and gases and vapors. The 25 to 44 age group had the highest death rate. Total deaths from falls for those 65 and older was 12,900. Of those, 7,500 occurred in the home and 2,500 in a residential setting. Of those who survive a fall, 20-30 percent will suffer debilitating injuries that affect them the rest of their lives. Smoke inhalation accounts for a majority of deaths in home fires. 21,300 injury-related fatalities occurred in public places or places used in a public way (not including motor vehicles). Most sports, recreation and transportation deaths are included. This number excludes work-related deaths. There is a public fatal injury every 25 minutes and a disabling injury every 4 seconds. The four leading fatal causes of death in public places are falls, poisoning, drowning, and choking (suffocation by ingestion or inhalation of food or object). People 65 and over suffer more than half of the fatalities in public injuries. The death rate from public falls among those 75 and older is 10 times greater than any other age group. Recommendations to Reduce Deaths and Injuries in the Home and Community Take steps to reduce the risk of falls in homes, especially in homes where older people live or visit. Check prescriptions regularly to guard against unintentional overdose. Check smoke detector batteries regularly and develop and practice a fire escape plan. Conduct test to detect the presence of lead, radon or carbon monoxide, and take steps to eliminate those health and safety risks. Communities should provide access to safe walking areas including safe walking routes to school. Communities should increase awareness recreational safety. Injuries while boating, biking, inline skating or other recreational sports can be reduced with increased consumer education. Finally, the Council recommends that all adults learn CPR and first aid techniques to give assistance if any injury does occur. On Roads and Highways A death caused by a motor vehicle crash occurs every 12 minutes; a disabling injury occurs every 13 seconds. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people ages 6 to 33. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers. The age groups most affected by motor vehicle crashes are 15-24 and 75+. There were an estimated 5,600 pedestrian deaths and 80,000 injuries. There is an alcohol-related traffic death every 30 minutes and a nonfatal injury every 2 minutes. Bicycling resulted in about 700 deaths in collisions with motor vehicles. Recommendations for Reducing Motor-Vehicle Deaths and Injuries Enact primary seat belt laws nationwide. Enact state graduated licensing laws. Graduated licensing laws allow novice drivers to gain critical experience behind the wheel in lower risk settings before driving in more difficult environments. Make certain children are properly buckled in age-appropriate safety seats. Child safety seats reduce fatal injury by 71% for infants less than 1 year old and by 54% for children 1 - 4 years old. http://www.nsc.org/library/report_injury_usa.htm |
Canadian Poll results: federal banby Nancy :)A number of people were shot at a major retail site in Toronto on Boxing Day. Is a federal ban on handguns an appropriate approach to curbing such crimes? Yes 5863 votes (24 %) No 18149 votes (76 %) Total Votes: 24012 |
Armed citizens SAVE LIVES - Having Guns SAVE Livesby Nancy :)(TX) Dallas store clerk shoots robbery suspect Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:36 PM http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122805dnmetshooting.1c6a24a8.html WI) Police treating shooting at club as self-defense Date: Dec 28, 2005 9:14 PM http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/dec05/380887.asp Second story on the page (ID) Idaho smoke shop clerk shoots robbery suspect dead Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:16 PM http://www.klewtv.com/x51835.xml?URL=http://10.56.1.26/APWIREFEED/d8eouuq09.xml&NewsSection=StateHeadlines (IN) State trooper kills burglary suspect Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:17 PM http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/NEWS01/512190437 (CO) Suspected Burglar Falls Twice While Running From Homeowner Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:20 PM http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/5691711/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news Georgia drive shoots in self defense Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:27 PM http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/120405/met_5880031.shtml (TN) Police say homeowner shot one, others scattered Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:29 PM http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=4262173 (VA) August fatal-shooting case closed Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:29 PM http://www.suffolknewsherald.com/articles/2005/12/21/news/news1.txt (NC) Two men wounded in home invasion Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:30 PM http://www.herald-sun.com/orange/10-681282.html (AR) Dramatic shoot-out injures 2 policeman, intruder killed Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:35 PM http://www.thecabin.net/stories/121705/loc_1217050005.shtml (CA) Would-Be Robber Shot And Killed In Paramount Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:31 PM http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_354150019.html KY) Citizens Help Catch Bank Robber Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:32 PM http://www.wkyt.com/Global/story.asp?S=4275388 TX) Dallas store clerk shoots robbery suspect Date: Dec 28, 2005 8:36 PM http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/122805dnmetshooting.1c6a24a8.html |
Armed citizens SAVE LIVES - Having Guns SAVE Livesby Nancy(TX) Man shoots burglar at residence Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:28 PM http://www.cedarcreekpilot.com/articles/2005/12/29/news/news1.txt (OH) Crack of pistol sends would-be thief on the run Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:29 PM http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051229/NEWS08/512290397 NC) Would-Be Robbery Victim Fights Back Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:30 PM http://www.nbc17.com/news/5705018/detail.html (KS) Woman's Death Ruled 'Justifiable Homicide' Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:31 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/12/29/AR2005122900156.html (FL) Homeowner Shoots Suspect in Home Invasion Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:32 PM http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/news-article.aspx?storyid=49393 (AL) Gas station clerk shoots, kills robbery suspect Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:33 PM http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1135886056311830.xml&storylist=alabamanews (AL) Collinsville man kills brother in apparent self-defense Date: Dec 29, 2005 10:34 PM http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/local/13502894.htm |
CCRKBA Alerts :CCRKBA TELLS CANADIAN PM 'DON'T BLAME U.S. FOR YOUR CRIMES AND CRIMINALS'by Nancy :)CCRKBA Alerts Date: Dec 29, 2005 3:40 PM NEWS RELEASE CCRKBA TELLS CANADIAN PM 'DON'T BLAME U.S. FOR YOUR CRIMES AND CRIMINALS' BELLEVUE, WA – Reacting to the accusation from Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin that the United States is "exporting violence," the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said Martin is trying to scapegoat an entire nation for his own failed leadership, and for crimes committed by his own citizens. "On the same day that Prime Minister Martin was blaming the United States for his country's crime problem," noted CCRKBA Executive Director Joe Waldron, "CNN reported on a border arrest of two Canadian residents who were detained for trying to re-enter the country with handguns and ammunition concealed on their bodies. "Ali Dirie and Yasin Mohamed are not Irish Americans from Boston, but residents of Toronto," Waldron said, "apparently trying to import guns illegally. And now that Mr. Martin has announced his plan to ban handguns in Canada, black market gun running is liable to take off just the same as illegal export of Canadian liquor into the United States during Prohibition, and with just as much success for the criminal underground in both countries. "Canadian handgun sales have already climbed in anticipation of this ban, according to wire service reports," Waldron continued. "What Martin and other Liberals in Canada don't seem to grasp, or maybe they just don't care, is that a ban is only going to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Criminals will still get guns, and Martin will continue blaming the United States for his administration's monumental failure to address a growing crime problem. "Isn't it curious that crime has been climbing in Canada at the same time the Liberal government under Martin and his predecessor has been squandering billions of dollars on the gun registration fiasco," Waldron observed. "Martin and his Liberal cronies may not want to admit it, but gun rights activists down here in the states predicted this would happen from the outset. Canadian gun owners forecast the same thing, insisting that registering their guns would not prevent violent crime. Turns out gun owners were right, and all Martin can think of is taking further sanctions against his law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to actually reduce crime. "It's all flash, and no substance," Waldron concluded. "The Prime Minister has no real solution to crime, so he blames honest gun owners and his good neighbor to the south for his government's failures." -END- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- < Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family > Copyright © 2005 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, All Rights Reserved. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms James Madison Building 12500 N.E. Tenth Place Bellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-4911 Toll Free: 800-426-4302 FAX: 425-451-3959 email: InformationRequest@ccrkba.org To stop receiving these alerts, send an email to cc_alerts@liberty.seanet.com with remove in the subject line. This email was sent to sw357mag@mindspring.com. To ensure removal, please include this address in your reply. |
Murder rate Boston75 (10 year high) Vermont 7 (11 year low) - 2 storiesby graygal Murder rate Boston75 (10 year high) Vermont 7 (11 year low) - 2 stories Date: Dec 29, 2005 7:13 AM Attachments: dingbat_story_end_icon.gif file000.gif Vermont and Boston have similar populations. Boston has strict gun control; Vermont focus on prosecuting violent criminal acts. Stories below show the result. Yet, Boston's Mayor Menino says lax gun laws in Vermont (NH & ME) are responsible for violent crimes in Boston. Mayor Menino bet the farm on gun control and his city is losing. http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2005/12/27/vermont_homicides_down_in_2005/ Vermont homicides down in 2005 December 27, 2005 BURLINGTON, Vt. --The number of murders committed in Vermont in 2005 sunk to its lowest point in 11 years, statistics show. Seven people were killed in six incidents, according to calculations done by the Burlington Free Press. The figure is the lowest since 1994 when five people were killed. The 2005 murders included a random killing in Burlington that frightened residents, an unsolved sniper-style shooting in Sheldon, and a double homicide in Montgomery. The highest number of homicides in the last decade came in 1999 when 17 people were murdered. The yearly figures mean little in Vermont, which has such a small number of homicides, said Max Schlueter, director of the Vermont Criminal Information Center in Waterbury. "It's very difficult to suggest a pattern," Schlueter said last week. The VCIC figures includes two men killed in hunting accidents, which are considered manslaughter, not murder, and the case of a woman missing since 1983 whose remains were discovered in November. Schlueter said the center's 2005 data would not be finalized until next year. The random killing in March of Burlington resident Laura Winterbottom, 31, shocked the city. She was abducted from a Burlington street, sexually assaulted, beaten and strangled, according to court papers. A 33-year-old Burlington man, Gerald Montgomery, has pleaded innocent. No arrests have been made in the July sniper-shooting death of farmhand Kenneth Jerome, 33, in Sheldon. Investigators searched several properties in Sheldon during the days after the shooting, but no suspects have been named and no one has been charged. In October Tom Patras, 47, and Valerie Papillo, 36, were shot to death Patras' home on Vermont 242 in Montgomery. Two Connecticut residents are in custody in that case. Also killed in 2005 were: Thomas Oxton Jr., 19, in March in Readsboro; Harold Wood, 37, in August in Rutland; and Douglas Bartlett, 50, in September in Whitingham. The suspect in Wood's killing, 18-year-old Aaron Sears of Rutland, pleaded guilty Wednesday to a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter. ------ http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/28/four_people_shot_in_boston/ Four people shot in Boston December 28, 2005 BOSTON --Four people were shot, one fatally, on a street in Boston's South End on Wednesday evening, raising the number of murders in the city this year to 75, police said. Boston police responded to a call on Lenox Street, near Shawmut Avenue, just after 6 p.m. No arrests have been made. Three people were found on Lenox Street suffering from gun shot wounds and a fourth person was found on Shawmut Avenue. One person was pronounced dead at a local hospital. Injuries to the others are not life threatening, police said. No identifications or ages were immediately available. No motive has been determined, police said. The corner of Shawmut and Lenox is near an athletic field and playground that includes a basketball court where 23-year-old William "Biggie" Gaines was shot to death in July 2004 as he coached a youth basketball game. Boston's murder rate is at a 10-year high. On Dec. 13, four men were fatally shot in the basement apartment of a home in the Dorchester section of the city. There have been no arrests in that case. Information from: The Burlington Free Press, http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com |
Gun-Toting Santa Featured on Christmas Card -- 12/22/2005by WAGChttp://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\200512\CUL20051222a.html the xard:  MEREY CHRISTMAS ALL ! HAPPY AND SAFE NEW YEAR !!!!! |
Why Boston has a violent crime problemby NancyWhy Boston has a violent crime problem Date: Dec 22, 2005 10:28 PM Boston has a violent crime problem because they are following a "catch and release" with their violent criminals. Yet, the Mayor of Boston believes the solution his crime problem is for Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to enact gun laws that more severe gun laws for its honest citizens. Boston, deal with your thugs. http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=117685&format=&page=1 ‘Strict’ Mass. gun laws misfire By Michele McPhee/ The Beat Monday, December 19, 2005 - Updated: 10:17 AM EST Last week state police busted a trio of alleged drug dealers from Dorchester. Victor M. Alvarado, 21, John Davis, 35, and Reggie Bragg, 35, were allegedly carrying two kilograms of cocaine and $29,000 in green stuffed into a red Christmas gift bag. Lucky for the cops, and for the community, the men were allegedly carrying enough drugs to send them to jail for a long, long time. Lucky because the AK-47 machine gun Alvarado allegedly stashed under his bed at 44 Allegheny St. in Roxbury would not guarantee him much jail time, despite the two loaded clips tucked neatly beside the machine gun. Nor would the loaded .22-caliber Beretta cops say was hidden next to the assault rifle. Because the guns were in Alvarado’s home, rather than on his person, the state’s mandatory one year for gun possession does not apply and the charge is a misdemeanor for not having a firearms identification card. The state’s dirty secret behind what is touted as the nation’s toughest gun laws falls under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 269: Section 10H. It essentially states that if someone secrets a gun in their home, rather than stuff it in the back of his pants, the penalty is imprisonment for not more than two years, or by a fine of not more than $500. Not so bad, if the two-year bid were enforced. But more often than not, prosecutors don’t indict gun-toting thugs if weapons are recovered in their home rather than on their person. Translation: Because of 269:10H, Alvarado could escape unscathed from charges that he secreted a small arsenal under the mattress in his Roxbury home. Perhaps the gang bangers are catching on to that loophole if you consider that community guns — weapons that are hidden in mailboxes and abandoned buildings — are being used with greater frequency. The loophole has allowed dangerous felons to escape gun charges. Consider these cases: Joseph Valentine Vasquez was locked up in August allegedly with a .9 mm Beretta and a silver .357 both fully loaded. The weapons were found under a mattress at his Dorchester home, next to a Latin Kings manual and some vials of crack cocaine, according to police. However, Vasquez, 21, was not charged with illegal gun possession. Gregory King was busted at his father’s Roxbury home with a .9 mm Jennings handgun, loaded with 12 rounds, along with crack cocaine, a drug scale and some marijuana, say cops. The 23-year-old was out on bail on another gun case when he was busted in February. He would make bail again, only to allegedly sell drugs to an undercover cop. But perhaps the most egregious example happened in October when an armed alleged drug dealer, Kevin L. Sanchez, 20, brandished a weapon at a Boston cop, according to police. However, the gun charge was a misdemeanor because Sanchez did not cross the threshold of his Dorchester home when he allegedly pointed the .38 caliber at the officer. Will it take a dead cop for these gun laws to be taken seriously, and for judges to set bails that are appropriate for the crimes in which suspects are charged?The NYPD has buried two of its finest this year. Luckily for Boston, our city has not had that sad duty. And with the number of firearms arrests BPD officers have made this year — a startling 732 suspects have been charged with gun crimes — cops are certainly at risk. Think about that the next time you are driving along the Mass Pike and take note of the Stop Handgun Violence billboard that states: “You are more likely to live here.” That fact was not true for the 49 people shot dead in the city this year. |
| Create your own forum at Network54 |
| Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement |