Daily news sites

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

Reuters - The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.

Nancy Lanza was her son's first victim in the December 14 attack. He shot her in their family home before driving to Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, where he gunned down 20 young children and six adults before shooting himself dead.

The weapons Adam Lanza, 20, used in the attack were all legally purchased and registered.

(Reporting by Scott Malone; Editing by Dale Hudson

Hm, revocation of firearm license without cause? If there was sufficient and proper cause for this revocation why isn't the government stating the reason for the revocation? Are such revocations going to become commonplace given the mood of the country and the Administration's position on 2'nd amendment rights of the citizenry to keep and bear arms?

Reasonable people are on board with rational firearm control regulations, including firearm advocates and sportsman. Extensive background checks, extended waiting periods to allow time to accomplish thorough back ground checks, waiting periods when a firearm is purchased at gun shows, regulation of high cap magazines and extended clips are all reasonable. But revoking a businesses federal firearm license without issue a statement as to the reasoning behind such revocation? That's enough to start eyebrows to raise. Even for those who support reasonable regulation while at the same time supporting the 2'nd amendment right to keep and bear arms.

We are on a slippery slope and it seems it will only get slipperier given this report.

Via: Memeorandum


Update, from CNN

Responding to criticism from the National Rifle Association over Connecticut's new gun laws, Gov. Dan Malloy argued the pro-gun group's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre, is simply blowing smoke.

"Wayne reminds me of the clowns at the circus - they get the most attention. That's what he's paid to do," Malloy said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

The Democratic governor on Thursday signed into law some of the nation's strictest gun regulations, following the state's devastating school shooting in December in Newtown, which left 20 children and six adults dead.

The new Connecticut laws include the addition of more than 100 weapons to the state’s list of banned assault weapons - including the semiautomatic Bushmaster rifle, one of the firearms used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. The law also bans the sale of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, as well as armor-piercing bullets. Buyers will need a certificate to buy ammunition.

It also requires background checks for all gun purchases.

LaPierre said this week that the only people who will follow the new regulations are law-abiding gun owners, not criminals.

"I think the problem with what Connecticut did is the criminals, the drug dealers, the people that are going to do horror and terror, they aren't going to cooperate," LaPierre said on Fox News. "I mean, all you're doing is making the lawbooks bigger for the law-abiding people."

Asked who will be most affected by the new laws, Malloy said they'll be "probably a little tougher on everybody."

"This guy is so out of whack, it's unbelievable," Malloy told CNN's chief political correspondent, Candy Crowley, referring to LaPierre.

Connecticut became the third state to pass tough measures since the December rampage in Newtown. New York and Colorado passed gun control legislation limiting magazine capacity, among other provisions.

Malloy pointed to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the idea of more background checks, a proposal found in legislation currently sitting before the U.S. Senate. The NRA, however, opposes that bill. {Continue Reading}

I agree, LaPierre can certainly be the clown.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

A proper government can accomplish positive things for the society it governs. In fact the founding fathers realized this and recognized that government indeed has a role in establishing and enforcing the rule of law. Law determined to be desirable by the majority of the citizens governed by said government.

Finding a proper balance between the government's authority to impose it's will on the people is the rightful domain of the governed to determine. With respect to firearm control and the President's determination to impose increased federal restrictions the nation finds itself in the middle of this debate.

In as much as our government bears the responsibility to insure the general welfare and safety of it's citizens it must also guarantee it preserves the freedoms and liberties protected in the Constitution.

Freedom and liberty carries with it a great and awesome responsibility.

Listen to, and read the following with the above in mind.

In response.

POLITICO - Sen. Rand Paul is pledging to undo some of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns that the Kentucky Republican believes overreach. “In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation,” Rand said Wednesday on Fox’s “Hannity,” referencing his legislation that is slated to be introduced in Congress next week. “And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen. Rand’s comments came several hours after Obama unveiled his plan to curb gun violence, an initiative that included 23 executive actions he promised to take to address the matter. Unilateral actions from the president include pushing for research into the causes of gun violence, improving the federal background check system and calling on federal law enforcement to trace guns that are collected during criminal investigations. “I’m afraid that President Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen,” Paul said, adding that the Founding Fathers specified that Congress should make law. {Read More}

There exists reasonable measures to accomplish what the President and much of the nation wants to accomplish. At least in part. What must be avoided is knee jerk reaction to what is a very emotional issue. Some of the Presidents proposals make ultimate sense. Some are questionable. At the end of the day Rand Paul is correct. Final determination of law must rest with the people. Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

As President Obama moves to decisive action on increased firearm control he is aware, I'm sure, of certain limitations on his authority. If not things could get very interesting,

>TPM - Former Reagan Attorney General Edwin Meese, now a prominent emeritus official at the Heritage Foundation, became the latest conservative to warn that President Obama could risk impeachment if he takes executive action on reducing gun violence in an interview Monday night.

Speaking with Newsmax, Meese said Congress may have to consider impeaching Obama if he were “to try to override the Second Amendment in any way” with an executive order. He did allow that there are some executive actions related to guns that Obama could take wouldn’t be impeachable.

“It would be up to the Congress to take action, such as looking in to it to see if, in fact, he has really tried to override the Constitution itself,” Meese told Newsmax. “In which case, it would be up to them to determine what action they should take — and perhaps even to the point of impeachment.”

He said that there are certain executive actions the White House can take without fear of impeachment.

“An executive order without specific congressional authority can only apply to those portions of the government that are under his control — in their words, the executive branch,” Meese said. “Now there are some things he can probably do in regard to the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or some other governmental agency in its operations.”

“But to impose burdens or regulations that affect society generally, he would have to have Congressional authorization,” he said. {Read More}

As we are a nation governed by the rule of law, rather than by the dictates of a single man or a mob, I'm confident any attempt by this President to act outside the bounds of law, or act unconstitutionally will be met with sound rebuke by both the right and left.

Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

As one of many many millions who support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms I just can't imagine how the dude in the video, or others like him is helping the efforts of firearm advocates and preservation of the 2'nd amendment.

Reasonable restrictions on firearms (semi automatic assault weapons) high capacity (extended) magazines, more extensive back ground checks hardly seems unreasonable.

I could very well be wrong, but as far as I have been able to determine no one person or group has been advocating a total ban or elimination of 2'nd amendment rights. At least no one with any credibility or authority. If anyone can point me to information to the contrary I would love the link(s).





 Stability of the dude? A bit questionable...

I'm looking forward to Mr. Biden's final recommendations. One can only hope the debate following will remain civil and rational.

 Via: Memeorandum

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

In sorting it all out as the nation continues the debate on firearms, high capacity magazines and the rest, I thought the following information very pertinent and germain to the discussion.

It seems that while firearm sales have significantly increased in California (2002 - 2011) the number of gun related injuries has declined 25% during the same period.

The Sacramento Bee - Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime.

The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.

These charts show gun injuries, deaths and sales trends over the last ten years. {Continue Reading, Charts Follow}

In any reasonable discussion of firearms control these stats need to be recognized and discussed. As much as the advocates of stricter and tightened gun control laws may not wish to acknowledge these facts they are relevant and therefore need to be included in the discussion. Which is not to say we should do nothing. By the same token the nation should not over react.

Via: Memeorandum