Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee:
I am Laurel Bellows, President of the American Bar Association (ABA). I am submitting this statement on behalf of the ABA for the Committee’s consideration for its January 30, 2013 hearing on “What Should America Do About Gun Violence?” The ABA, with nearly 400,000 members, commends the Committee for holding this hearing and its early scheduling. We also commend President Obama and Vice-President Biden for their leadership. They have acted responsibly in instituting and conducting the Administration’s recently concluded comprehensive review of recommendations to end gun violence in America, resulting in the issuing of the far-reaching report, “Now Is The Time: The President’s Plan to Protect Our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence.” . . .
America is paying attention. The unthinkable slaughter of 20 young children and six adult staff members of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut shortly before Christmas has shaken our nation’s confidence that we can protect our nation’s children and ourselves from senseless gun violence. It has also caused all of us to pause and take stock of how such horrors seem to occur with increasing frequency in our country. This mass killing event – following months after a mass killing at a movie opening in a theater in Aurora, Colorado, and the mass killings in Tucson, Arizona, that also resulted in severe injuries to former Representative Gabby Giffords – has led the nation to more fully recognize the dangers posed to the public when the common components of these shootings come together.
These incidents have in common military firearms, high-capacity clips and their use by mentally disturbed persons who easily amassed the firepower capable of quickly killing many innocent citizens involved in everyday activities and settings. As many have commented and is noted by= the President’s report, however, the shooting and killing of individuals on a daily basis takes place in America at a level far beyond that of other nations. We have become too inured and perhaps numb regarding this reality. We have begun to wake up to our responsibilities to confront and to end this violence.
The ABA has been concerned with the human toll and impact of gun violence upon our society and has advocated for stronger regulation of firearms for a long time. Shortly after the assassination of President Kennedy, we first called for more careful regulation of firearms sales in interstate commerce. Since then, through our the House of Delegates, a policy making body that includes representatives from state and local bar associations around the country, the ABA has approved more than a dozen policy resolutions directed toward reducing gun violence.
The ABA continues to believe that our nation’s laws can be significantly strengthened by taking reasonable, common-sense steps that do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), or that would unreasonably impinge on gun owner traditions and ordinary uses of firearms. We recognize, however, that there is no simple solution to gun violence. We know that steps are needed to address school violence, mental health services, and juvenile crime prevention, in addition to gun safety and greater enforcement of firearm violations.
A synopsis of these policy recommendations is at: americanbar.org
In the wake of Newtown and the focus on proposed legislative action, the ABA wants to clearly state its strong support for the major recommendations of the President. We further believe there is now a remarkable consensus among the American public regarding the urgency for lawmakers to take responsible and prompt action to prevent future incidents as those we have recently witnessed. We urge the Committee to speed action to:
Strengthen Background Check Requirements and the National Instant Check System
The current operational status of the National Instant Check System for background checks of prospective purchasers of firearms is deeply flawed; it must be strengthened by Congress on an emergency basis. Since 1968 federal law has limited gun sales through licensed firearms dealers to legally qualified purchasers, and since 1993 the law has required a background check, prior to completion of the sale of a firearm, of federal and state records through the National Instant Check System (NICS). However, federal law continues to exempt an estimated 25-40 percent of all gun sales in the United States from this requirement. Unlicensed sellers are permitted by law to sell firearms with no background check whatsoever. Convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, persons who are dangerously mentally ill and potential terrorists can walk into any gun show or flea market, or click on their internet browser, and buy any weapon and unlimited supplies of ammunition with no background check and no questions asked.
Recent public polling suggests that for the first time there is broad recognition by the American public, including gun owners, that the background check system for gun sales is in reality two systems that allow easy, unchecked access to guns by criminals and the mentally ill. The public has reached a high level of consensus seen on few public issues, as evidenced in several recent polls showing that more than 90 percent of responders support a “universal background check.” Pollsters often note that most of the public assumes that the law already requires a background check for all sales of firearms, including sales at gun shows and for private sales. Regarding this question, there is remarkably little difference in support for this reform between gun owners, NRA members, non-gun owners, men and women, Republicans and Democrats: all agree in overwhelming majorities seldom seen on national policy issues that requiring a background check prior to all sales of firearms is a necessary step that Congress should take with great dispatch to better protect our children and all citizens from gun violence.
The ABA believes that Congress should quickly legislate on this issue. Gun shows can continue to flourish with a background check requirement, while ending their role as a too easy source of guns for dangerous persons who should not have them. A number of states have required background checks at gun shows without serious harm to sales or the trade. We believe that those who have concerns regarding the means of instituting background checks at gun shows and in protecting narrow exceptions for background checks for private sales should come to the table: these issues can be resolved responsibly and in short order with responsible cooperation.
Stronger laws and enforcement are needed to prevent gun trafficking
In 2004, the ABA called for stronger enforcement and prosecution of federal gun laws. Under this policy, the ABA supports provision of adequate federal investigative and prosecutorial resources targeted not only to prosecuting crimes committed with guns, but also to prosecuting illegal gun trafficking, illegal sales by firearms dealers, stolen firearms offenses, and false statements by prospective buyers.
We support legislation that is expected to move forward shortly on a strongly bipartisan basis to address “straw purchases” of firearms. Straw purchases of firearms are one of the most common ways criminals obtain guns. Straw purchases occur whenever persons who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wish to do so anonymously, have a companion or colleague buy it on their behalf. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has identified straw purchases as the single most significant factor in illegal gun trafficking, accounting for nearly a third of all firearms involved in federal trafficking investigations.
In many places, criminals are more likely to obtain their weapons through straw purchases than at gun shows. Such straw purchases are regularly used by criminals, criminal gangs and persons disqualified by age, such as the individuals involved in the mass killings at Columbine High School. Numerous investigations of illegal gun trafficking, including undercover investigations conducted by federal, state and local officials, have found that the current prohibition on false statements regarding the purchase of a gun for the purpose of transfer to an ineligible buyer is widely disregarded by dealers and the persons involved in straw purchases.
These criminal violations are also not regularly prosecuted, as the current law is ambiguous, often difficult to prove in court, and accompanied by modest criminal penalties that result in these violations’ being deferred to prosecution of other crimes. We believe thoughtful legislation can close this gap in current law and help prevent the current widespread evasion of background checks through straw purchasing.
The availability of assault weapons and high-capacity clips should be limited to the U.S. military, the National Guard and law enforcement
The firearms used in these recent massacres are weapons of war. They are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people in the shortest period of time. While we appreciate that there may be some recreational use of these firearms, and many of them are owned and handled safely and responsibly, we support legislation introduced by Senator Feinstein that would not take away or make the guns presently owned illegal, but would limit the future sale and transfer of assault weapons and ammunition devices that hold more than 10 bullets.
We urge the Committee to act swiftly to approve S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The proposed act makes revisions to the 1994 Act that strengthens it in a number of important respects. The proposed act protects the rights of existing gun owners by carefully defining the characteristics of assault weapons to distinguish them from the more than 2,200 specifically named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes. It grandfathers into legal status assault weapons currently owned rather than rendering them illegal, but requires more careful regulation of their transfer and sale by bringing them and large capacity ammunition devices under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, subject to the existing registration requirements long in effect for fully automatic firearms. We also strongly support the proposed act’s ban on future transfer of grandfathered ammunition clips, as well as the proposed voluntary buyback of these clips, as we believe the public safety of everyone in our country will be best served by eventually eliminating these devices from civilian circulation. The purpose of the proposed act and its 1994-enacted predecessor is to narrow the availability of these weapons and dry up the supply over time.
The expired 1994 federal assault weapons ban clearly reduced the incidence of assault weapons used in crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the ban, assault weapons constituted 4.82 percent of the crime gun traces that ATF conducted nationwide. When the ban was in effect, these assault weapons made up only 1.61 percent of the guns ATF traced to crime– a drop of 66 percent from the pre-ban rate. ATF data showed a year-by-year decline in the percentage of assault weapons, evidence that the longer the statute was in effect, the less available these weapons became for criminal misuse. A report by the Department of Justice documented these findings along with a decline in the absolute number of assault weapons traced to crime during this period. Every major law enforcement organization in the country has long supported a strong assault weapons ban.
The Police Executive Research Forum found that 37 percent of police departments reported seeing a noticeable increase in criminals’ use of assault weapons since the ban expired. A study by the Violence Policy Center found that, between 1998 and 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. Virtually every major law national enforcement organization supports limiting the availability of assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips. While some maintain that the Second Amendment should apply to prevent any regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, the ABA believes that the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits, just as does the First Amendment and every individual right under our Constitution. As it is often noted regarding the right to free speech that there is no right to falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater, likewise there are limits to Second Amendment rights, They must be balanced against other rights in serving the common welfare, including protecting the safety of children and all citizens from especially dangerous weapons. It is on this basis that fully automatic “machine guns” have been carefully regulated since the 1930s. As Justice Scalia stated in his majority opinion in the Heller case:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The muskets of the 18th Century and other single-shot weapons have little in common with the military-style assault weapons today and the100-round ammunition drum that was used at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. These are unusually dangerous weapons, which the government may regulate under the Second Amendment and the Heller decision. We believe the government has a duty to do so to protect the common good – specifically, the safety of American citizens.
Strengthen and fully implement the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
As we have noted, Congress must act to close the current significant gaps in the requirement for a background check prior to all purchase of firearms. Congress should also act to strengthen the system that is set up to insure that background checks will be thorough and complete. Federal support, authorized under current law to assist states, territories, and Tribal governments in establishing or upgrading technology used for determining firearm purchaser eligibility, must be adequately funded and supplemented even in a difficult budget environment to achieve a more complete check system. Federal grant support is needed to improve the automation and transmittal to federal and state record repositories of felony criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments.
Only a portion of state mental health records are presently provided and integrated into the NICS system. Although the number of mental health records available to the system has increased significantly in recent years, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that 17 states still have made fewer than 10 percent of their mental health records available. Other record categories are provided to the NICS at a higher rate than mental health records, but state records for felony convictions and domestic violence offenses are still incomplete and should be improved to make sure dangerous people are stopped by the NICS background check.
We applaud the President’s action to issue a Presidential Memorandum requiring federal agencies to fully cooperate and share relevant records with the background check system. Congress should act as well and address how to provide incentives to states to examine and overcome barriers to provision of mental health records, in particular. We also urge the Committee to reexamine the provisions of current federal law to better assure that its provisions regarding disqualification of purchasers on the basis of mental health status adequately protect the public against dangerous persons. The ABA also supports amending the law to expand disqualification for gun purchase of persons convicted not only of domestic violence misdemeanor offenses, but also for other misdemeanor violence offenses against a person.
Further, the ABA called for the enactment of legislation to require retention of gun sales background-check records for 90 days and to authorize sharing federal data regarding the point of sale of guns traced to crime with state and other law enforcement entities.
Strengthen regulation of gun sales and transfers
In addition to our support for the President’s recommendations for these key proposals, the ABA has called for a number of amendments to federal law necessary to strengthen regulation of gun sales and transfers in order to better protect public safety. These amendments would:
• Prohibit sales, transfers, and possession of firearms by persons convicted of violent misdemeanors, including persons convicted of domestic violence and child abuse offenses or subject to a protective order.
• Prohibit interstate sales by unlicensed persons of ammunition and firearm components.
• Upgrade standards of eligibility for licensing of dealers; require stringent background checks of dealer applicants and employees, and make issuance of dealer licenses discretionary rather than mandatory.
• Require dealers, manufacturers, transporters, and importers of firearms and ammunition to provide adequate and secure storage facilities to reduce theft, and require dealer cooperation with criminal investigations and reporting of all gun thefts to ATF and local police.
• Provide ATF sufficient resources and authority to conduct periodic audits of all firearms dealers.
• Require licensed dealers to comply with state and local laws and maintain adequate business insurance.
I appreciate the opportunity to share the views of the American Bar Association on this pressing subject. We look forward to working with the Committee in support of its expeditious action on legislation to prevent and reduce gun violence in America.
* * * * *
For additional information on these issues, or to tap into our membership expertise on these subjects, please contact Thomas Susman (202-626-3920; [email protected]), Director of the ABA’s Governmental Affairs Office, or Bruce Nicholson (202-662-1769)
Disneyland hires (or pays for) several Anaheim officers during their open hours. NBC studios always has an (on duty) Burbank Police Officer during the taping of the Tonight Show, several other conglomerates do the same in Calif. I don’t see this as being much different. The officer at FB would be most concerned with trespassers, protesters and related property crimes. Maybe a Dom. Violence between an employee or something, but I don’t see much opportunity to abuse or select which enforcement can be taken by a cop in the lobby of FB headquarters. . .
TL;DR
As if I needed another reason to dislike lawyers
In my dream world, every firearm manufacturer tells them to FOAD…
…except Uberti.
That $800k ain’t jack squat to what a manufacturer stands to lose from the shooting community if they play ball which these chucklehead politicians.
I’d love to see Minneapolis PD decked out with Hi-Points and lead bullets reloads thanks to their elected loudmouths.
This thread on Calguns discusses a solution that would provide exactly that.
I’m interested to see how this plays out. My guess is after the grandstanding is over, it will quietly go away within a few days, never to be heard from again.
I would welcome a boycott. As an LEO, I know that we get decent deals on guns and ammo. We burn about 1,000 rounds of ammo per officer per year. Due to liability reasons, reloading is essentially non-existent in the LEO community. If Remington, Winchester, or Federal told us to pound sand due to an anti-2A message, it would start making things pretty simple. Being a gun guy, I’ve purchased the exact same ammo our department uses, as well as stuff that I believe is better.
Manufacturers don’t make tons of cash from police agencies, it’s more of an image and marketing deal. A lot of citizens would be ecstatic to purchase 5.56 at .75 a round. Citizens and off-duty LEOs are a huge market. Let the mayors and politicians blabber, and see how well that goes.
A81, do you guys get to use the same ammo for duty carry and range time, or do you switch between JHPs and FMJs with equivalent bullet weights?
I might be looking at job in MN, moving from WI. I hope to hell none of this goes through.
I think they should first reject the offer, and then only offer contracts for “police grade” ammunition, which will happen to be 3x the $$
Quote: “The availability of assault weapons and high-capacity clips….”
Anyone else chuckling about this?
Didn’t know attorneys made up words, i.e; “assault weapons”…
Surprised he or she didn’t say “scary black rifle”!
And I have yet to see a “high-capacity clip”!!!
Sheesh…
When The People’s Republic of Kalifornia decided that subjects…I mean citizens, could not be trusted with a Barrett .50 rifle, Barrett ceased doing business with any PRK law enforcement agency. Last I saw Barrett is still in business.
Yeah, Ronnie Barrett is awesome (and a true patriot). Now if only the rest of the firearms manufacturing enterprises were the same.
“*seem* to occur with increasing frequency in our country”
“military firearms”
“weapons of war”
-see what they did there?…
A cabbie in Eastern Europe told me: “Never trust lawyers, priests and weathermen”.
Except these lawyers are like a parade of dancing monkeys on a string….
You think they speak for all 400,000 members?
They sure want to make it seem that way…
This, if enforceable by State and Federal Pro Gun politicians could nullify all the gun bans the gov is pushing so hard for!!
Re- Posted Juy 24, 2012
The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.
The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.
The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.
The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.
Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, “the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.”
The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.
During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.
The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.
Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: “The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.” In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, “that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.”
“This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.”
The Honorable William Gordon
Congressional Record, House, Page 640 – 1917
You’d think lawyers would e one of the best demographics with a thorough understanding of the constitution.
You would think.
Also, you would think that a long standing member, like myself, would have run across that ABA page cited above. F’ing scary. They can FOAD.
You would think so, however Constitutional law is all about what the Supreme Court says, and not about what the Constitution actually says……Oh wait the Supreme Court has ruled on the 2nd Amendment never mind. In ConLaw courses the Constitution is not really used or cited, only the applicable SOCUS case. Other then to group cases under certain sections or amendments.
I called the second number and voiced my opposition. I request that other TTAGers follow suit.
No offense to Ralph, who I think is alright, but I really don’t like most lawyers. One of the last ones I met essentially wanted to blackmail me because I didn’t want to reduce a speeding ticket I wrote for 110 in a 65. That stop was also recorded and had audio, by the way.
Come to think of it, I could tell a lot of stories about evil things lawyers have done, and have attempted.
Since lawyers tend to be relatively wealthy and operate in courthouses protected by armed security, I doubt most of them are knowledgeable about self defense on the mean streets. Therefore, this opinion does not surprise me in the slightest. I’m alarmed, but not surprised.
And why do you think that Lott is taking shots at Hememway?
Could it be these statements by Hemenway in his 2006 book “Private Guns Public Health”?
(Lotts’) “gun ownership study data came from exit polls conducted in 1988 and 1996. These data on gun ownership levels are unreliable: Read page 65 of “Private Guns Public Health” to know why Hemenway disparaged Lott’s work.
One study by John Lott (1998) has frequently been cited in the national gun debate. The initial results seemed to show that permissive gun-carrying laws reduced murder, rape, and aggravated assault… In at least eitht published articles, more than a dozen academics have found enough serious flaws in Lott’s model to discount his findings. ..these studies fond that Lott did not sufficiently account for the cycilcal nature of crime…the general consensus is that any reliance upon Lott’s model for public policy would be inappropriate..
Read: Hemenway, page 168
“John Lott claims, [” In the U.S. the states with the hoghest gun ownership rates also have by far the lowest crime rates.” He ( Lott) provides no evidence, no citations, and no discussion for this assertion.”] And why do you think that Lott is taking shots at Hememway?
Could it be these statement by Hemenway in his 2006 😕
(Lotts’) “gun ownership study data came from exit polls conducted in 1988 and 1996. These data on gun ownership levels are unreliable: Read page 65 of “Private Guns Public Health” to know why Hemenway disparaged Lott’s work.
One study by John Lott (1998) has frequently been cited in the national gun debate. The initial results seemed to show that permissive gun-carrying laws reduced murder, rape, and aggravated assault… In at least eitht published articles, more than a dozen academics have found enough serious flaws in Lott’s model to discount his findings. ..these studies fond that Lott did not sufficiently account for the cycilcal nature of crime…the general consensus is that any reliance upon Lott’s model for public policy would be inappropriate..
Read: Hemenway, Page 101
Lott’s conclusion (2003) that concealed-carry laws have reduced multiple-victim public shootings also appears to be incorrect.
Read: Hemenway, page 102
“supposedly sophisticated econometric studies that combine the cross-sectional and time series approaches can suggest that middle-aged and elderly black females are the source of much criminal activity.” (criticizing Lott’s 2003 study)
Read: Hemenway, page 184
“A good scientist needs to use reliable data and appropriate models and to present findings fairly and accurately. All scientists make mistakes, but one widely cited gun proposnent, John Lott., Jr., all too often presents inaccurate infornmation, uses inappropriate data and models. And obtains questionable results. He then publicizes them extensively.
Read Heminway, page 281
Hemenway called Lott a crooked scientist ready to fabricate any study to support the lobby.
Excellent and telling statistics, but as we all know AWBs have nothing to do with saving lives or “the children”. If they were truly interested in saving lives they’d 1) ban any and all tobacco products, 2) ban any and all processed foods that are high in fats, carbs and empty calories, 3) ban the automobile, 4) ban stair usage for the those under 5 and over 60, 5) ban alcohol, whoops tried that… 6) outlaw war, whoops tried that too…
Here in Progressive Utopia (TM) we had a pretty spectacular killing on Lake Shore Drive this morning.
If only the automobile was banned, this would have never happened.
heyjackass.com
Stop giving them ideas!
1
Technically, if we want an apples-to-apples comparison with the AWB, it isn’t really a question of street-legal – possession of an ‘assault car’ should be illegal even if you just drive it around on private property.
Not only that, but Ferraris that are capable of going 200 MPH all have wings, scoops, big wheels and paddle-operated transmissions. Your chances of surviving a crash at 200 MPH are almost zero. Therefore, we must ban wings, scoops, big wheels and paddle-operated transmissions from all vehicles to make them less deadly.
“But if it only saves ONE life!!!”
Attorneys always favor adding another cause of action to potential litigation. It suits them.
“American Bar Association Names Illinois Lawyer Laurel Bellows ”
This explans it all, Bellows is from Illinois! We in SW Michigan would refer to her and other Illinois (Chicago mainly) residents, as FIPs’ – F%&#ing Illinois Pricks!!!
Speaking of lawyers, did anyone else hear about the convicted murderer who was “accidentaly” set free? I heard it on the radio today. Apparently he was serving ten years for murder and weapons charges, was on trial recently for drug charges and somehow set free. Oh and by the way, of course this was in Chicago.
I know there are good lawyers out there and some of you are here and I mean y’all no offense but the ABA can STFU. Time to fix the real problems.
You wrote: “For those unfamiliar with bureaucratese, ‘school resource officers’ are otherwise known as armed security guards. Off duty cops. ”
INCORRECT.
They are not Security Guards. They are full fledged POLICE OFFICERS. and they are not “off Duty” but actively provided to the schools as a position with the local police department or Sheriff’s Office.
Many School Districts are starting their own Police Departments rather than rely upon the Local Law Enforcement Department to provide School Resource Officers. And these are full Police Departments, hiring in Veteran Officers, not wannabe’s.
Why don’t you look into the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District in Cypress Texas (Suburb of Houston) They just started up a Police Department (before Sandy Hook)
“People killed in cars traveling faster than 55mph: More than 1000”
I know this specifies >55mph but last year in Tennessee alone there were just over 1k roadway related deaths according to TDOT. That’s not broken down, I’m sure the numbers are online I’m pulling this one from the electronic traffic signs.
I heard an ad today that says automobiles are the number one killer of children in the USA. I kind of laughed because it was an ad for a service station but the irony of recent circumstances contributed also. And yes I know driving is a privillege not a right.
As a certified child safety seat technician, and former child safety seat event coordinator, I can tell you that traffic vehicle accident / collision deaths are the #1 cause of non-natural deaths in infants as of 2007. I just got a Graco SafeSeat to mitigate that, which will be clamped down tightly. I’ve also personally installed and inspected more than 400 child safety seats. Approximately 85% of those seats had a demonstrable safety issue including improper installation, defect, and / or recall.
Of course, the best way is to drive well, and not be involved in a collision in the first place. Current child safety seats, when properly installed, offer good protection in rear-end crashes. I could write an article on this, but it would be pretty challenging to tie it in to firearms.
Your logic is flawed. Driving over 65 MPH and smoking in bars/restaurants is already illegal (in most places). As for alcohol and water in bathtubs (I can’t believe I’m actually entertaining this example), those are things that serve some benefit, but when abused can be deadly. Assault rifles have only one purpose – to kill people wholesale. Simple math – take away the assault rifles, take away the mass killings- somethings that can characteristically not be done without assault rifles.
I rather hope the MAIG group goes through with this. Texas could use more manufacturing jobs, when these companies decide to move operations and HQ to a free state.
Pretty sure the Texas government would find that federal bans don’t apply one whit to guns and ammo manufactured within Texas, sold and distributed only within Texas, and used only in Texas. God knows we could use some ammo availability here in the Lone Star State.
What is an illegal gun!?
So what I heard the mayor say is, “hey gun manufacturers, are you actively lobbying for laws that would reduce the types of product you could sell as well as reduce the number of people who could buy your product? Don’t defend your answer with some sort of valid constitutionality argument, just answer the question!”
I say let them ban “high capacity clips” as long as i get to keep my normal capacity magazines…
Any gun or ammo manufacturer that succumbs to this bullying won’t get a dime from me or my family for the remainder of my lifetime. In return, I will boycott these cities whenever possible. I already cancelled a trip to Chicago.
I’ve been boycotting NYC and Chicago with no ill effects.
Where’s the broads giving real women a bad name?!
Time to get dinner mofos!
As a whole, I strongly oppose this resolution by the ABA, and like others, I question whether this is truly representative of their 400K members.
When taken in parts, and I know I risk being tarred and feathered for even suggesting that the ABA got anything right, it’s a mixed bag of ideas that I don’t find objectionable, and stuff that has to be stopped in its tracks.
Strengthen Background Check Requirements and the National Instant Check System
I have no problem with extending NICS to all sales, IF
* two private parties can execute a legal sale incorporating a NICS check, but without requiring the involvement of a third party (i.e. an FFL)
* NICS resources are increased to appropriate levels to permit real-time processing of requests when all transactions are required to include a NICS check
Stronger laws and enforcement are needed to prevent gun trafficking
I’ve got no problem with this.
The availability of assault weapons and high-capacity clips should be limited to the U.S. military, the National Guard and law enforcement
No. Just… no.
Also: Molon Labe. Yes, you, ABA. If you want to take them, send an ABA representative. Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Strengthen and fully implement the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
Didn’t anybody proofread this and realize that they needed to rename this section?
Anyway… Better mental-health data in NICS? Agreed.
Strengthen regulation of gun sales and transfers
Starts off OK (well, at least for the first bullet point) and then rapidly devolves into an oppressive regime of burdensome and largely pointless requirements.
To summarize:
Some good ideas, but the ABA’s clearly unconstitutional stance on many issues pretty much invalidates the remainder. I suggest that Thomas Susman print this out on nice crisp paper, fold it until it’s all sharp edges, and stuff it in his OBSCENITY DELETED and then REALLY DISGUSTING OBSCENITY DELETED along with everyone who agrees with him.
Here’s one lawyer who never joined the ABA precisely because of the organization’s hard left slant.
When the idiotic “musket argument” is invariably raised by a liberal, counter it with something along the lines of “Well, today does the first amendment apply to Television, radio, film, and the internet?”
It leaves every liberal lawyer I’ve discussed the issue with speechless because they know instantly that their “musket” argument is groundless. TV, radio and the internet are today’s equivalent to 1789’s printing press and quill pen.
And that’s why I fscking LOVE it when someone tries to come at me with the musket argument. Oh, how sweet it is when they make it so easy…
“Get off our lawn.”
We don’t NEED to wear skirts, we DON’T need emergency blue-light phones on campus, and YOU don’t need to take our rifles. But you’re welcome to try.
Ignorance is a disease, and these attorneys should concentrate of a class action suit on behalf of the victims of ignorance. The defendant would be anyone who thinks any law stops all future occurrences of crime. That would basically be most of the Democrats in Congress, The Administration, etc..
The plaintiffs would be the law abiding American people who just want to live and not have their rights trampled by the ignorance of the Government.
They would profit well from the suit, and it would keep them busy and away from writing worthless letters like this. I think they would have to also sue themselves, because it is a suit against ignorance..
I wonder if the NRA’s lawyers will respond?
We cannot give ONE inch. They will never stop. The power hungry will always seek control and attempt assure they cannot be challenged. Fucking Morons.
Ignorance is a disease, and these attorneys should concentrate of a class action suit on behalf of the victims of ignorance. The defendant would be anyone who thinks any law stops all future occurrences of crime. That would basically be most of the Democrats in Congress, The Administration, etc..
The plaintiffs would be the law abiding American people who just want to live and not have their rights trampled by the ignorance of the Government.
They would profit well from the suit, and it would keep them busy and away from writing worthless letters like this. I think they would have to also sue themselves, because it is a suit against ignorance..
I wonder if the NRA’s lawyers will respond?
We cannot give ONE inch. They will never stop. The power hungry will always seek control and attempt assure they cannot be challenged.
Members of the Girl Scout troop from Morristown, N.J. prepare for a visit from their U.S. Senator, Robert Menendez.
FTW!
What a bunch of misstatements and outright misrepresentations!
No wonder we hold lawyers, as a group, in such low regard. A shame.
every one was in sync aiming down range except for Barbara (this was pete’s last picture he ever took)
The entire letter is irritating but this part in particular really gets me angry.
The expired 1994 federal assault weapons ban clearly reduced the incidence of assault weapons used in crime. In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the ban, assault weapons constituted 4.82 percent of the crime gun traces that ATF conducted nationwide. When the ban was in effect, these assault weapons made up only 1.61 percent of the guns ATF traced to crime– a drop of 66 percent from the pre-ban rate.
The Commerce Clause is misused by the way.
Why Morman men do not stay out all night drinking.
#9. There are trails that restrict motor vehicle traffic.
#21. As Bostonians, there are a couple of driving gestures we make that could get a student suspended from school.
1. Falsely accusing Republicans of waging war on women backfires on Obama.
2. The local chapter of Daughters of Annie Oakley meets for practice.
3. The stuff they do with hardsteel blows my mind.
4. Not much diversity, but plenty of accuracy!
5. Yes, Mr. President, we did too build this.
6. Okay, Congress, forget about gun control & pass a budget . . . or else!
29- MSNBC does not edit video to make drivers look like criminals
Um, their parent, NBC, turned a pickup truck into an IED to prove a non-existent point. So yeah, the MFM lies about more than just firearms.
You’d think that being a member of the ABA and a lawyer, they would do a bit of research into things they are willing to commit all their members to uphold. Spreading falsehood like this gem here:
“Convicted felons, domestic violence abusers, persons who are dangerously mentally ill and potential terrorists can walk into any gun show or flea market, or click on their internet browser, and buy any weapon and unlimited supplies of ammunition with no background check and no questions asked.”
Yes, in some states you can legally purchase a firearm without a background check. Though those transactions are PPT, in case you don’t know what PPT means, it means Private Party Transfers. If you walk into a gun show and walk up to a retailer at the gun show, your transaction is required by LAW to have a background check. Flea markets? Um, sorry flea markets cannot sell firearms. Internet sales? Yah, those firearms have to be sent to your FFL, in case you need a refresher on what does FFL means, it is Federal Firearm License. You cannot have a firearm dropped ship via UPS to your house unless you have a C&R license which only allows firearms of a predetermined age to be shipped. Unlimited amount of ammo!! OMG RUN! Run for your life!
How do you know and how do you determine who is “dangerously mentally ill” and a “potential terrorist”? Please enlightened us. BTW, it’s already unlawful for a convicted felon and domestic violence abusers to own firearms. How come these laws aren’t stopping them from obtaining a firearm?
All I want is one goddamn anti-2ndA to research and state logical non-bias information regarding why we as citizens cannot have certain types of firearms. So far all I have heard and read are all emotionally biased OPINIONS with ZERO factual basis. If you want to draw me to the dark side, stop demonizing us law abiding firearm owners and maybe we might agree to some of your points. I will not tolerate being classified as a mass murder based on the act of one misguided soul.
ABA FOAD I hope your membership pummels.
I will jump on with her bill if they attach an amendment that every liberal for gun control must drink the blended contents of every abortion carried out with tax payer money each fiscal year – and the drinking must be done in public, you know, for the children. I’m pretty sure that would squash it all.
We civilized ladies prefer to keep six guns pointed at the politicians and two at the media.
I’m waiting for a kindergartener to be expelled for SAYING THE WORD ‘gun’. How long?
William, I think I saw something about that id di fi’s Modern Sporting Rifle ban.
That picture shows a bunch of constipated wimpy little people. The useless Mayor and Police Chief of Milwaukee to hizonner’s left. They would trample over anything constitutional to advance their own careers. Could not get a real job……
Senator Feinstein’s assault weapons bill contains exemptions for police, government officials and former President Bill Clinton’s newly formed Bangin’ Amazons Special Secret Service Detail.
Robert, you know as well as I that if I guy thought he had a chance with Shlomit Malka by asking her out in her native language, he’d learn in a hurry.
In a more serious vein, General Dozier was strongly urged to accept US military armed security 24/7 from the very best in the business when he arrived, but declined. Perhaps he wanted to enjoy Italy without minders. He was an extremely likely target for the Red Brigade, among others. It was, to that extent, his choice to spend 42 days in discomfort, assuming the protection would have sufficed. Many others at the time were listening to AC/DC by choice.
Welcome Sahm.
This WASP, Christian, republican is glad to have you standing with me….
Well then we wanted to see a great bullseye shot through that paper. I’ll settle for your nice smile though, Randy
It just figures: Chicago. Many decades of service to Chicago. And the city just got worse? After joining Bellows & Bellows out of law school, she married the boss and built a highly visible career: From an online blurb: “Laurel Bellows is currently President of the American Bar Association…. Her many accolades include: Crain’s Chicago Business annual list of Power Players, one of 28 Power Lawyers in the city by Chicago Magazine, one of Chicago’s 100 Women of Influence in 1996 by Crain’s Chicago Business, ….. served on the Illinois Supreme Court Special Commission on the Administration of Justice and on the United States Senate Judicial Nominations Commission for the State of Illinois,…Past Chair of The Chicago Network…. .Bellows is highly regarded for her many contributions to the Chicago and National community. ” And in case you wondered, “Bellows has even taken her work for women to Capitol Hill. In 2009, she was instrumental in the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a federal bill that promotes equal pay for women. This year, Bellows is supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act, working with the Commission on Women to write legislation and lobby in Congress.”
I have to admit that in the past I’ve kinda derided folks that home school their kids but I can tell you right now if I had a kid that little sob would never set foot in a public school. This shit has gone far beyond ridiculous and I have to say the news gal on the right side of the screen was spot on.
As for Ms. Malka – she definitely needs to rock the no-makeup look. Every now and again there’s a gal that needs zero makeup to look her best and she is definitely one of them.
And, you know, armed self-defense is a right and driving is not.
First it was automatic (military), now they want to ban SEMIautomatic (civilian and police). I will not be reduced beyond the average cop (semiauto AR, regular mag in handgun, shotgun). F them.
Great to be here with you all. Thanks for the interest in my bio. I try to stay as balanced as I can. I am a black belt in judo and a brown belt in brazilian jiu-jitsu. i’ve been in martial arts for 30 years. i use to fight mma a long time ago. i work for a Big 10 university in the midwest and run my bjj academy as my second “job” at night.
my research is about normal and abnormal kidney development at the molecular and genetic level. i also am a gene hunter for a renal birth defect called “bilateral renal agenesis”which is where the kidneys of the baby never formed/developed and this is a lethal condition. you can find my research publications on PubMed.
Bitch is old and not long for this world. Would like to see AWB and mag limit die with her……SOON.
hottie news wife, hottie news sister in law…..otherwise a liberal troll, probably gets extra from the DNP just to be on fox
Look, it’s a loosing proposition for Obama to claim that he’s an avid shooter and it’s a loosing proposition for us to claim that he’s nothing more than a liar.
He’s a formidable opponent here and we don’t do ourselves any favors by simply dismissing him as a clown.
Oooooooooooooooooo……………… [drooling]
Sarah Lee is anti gun? I cc into a Sarah Lee bakery outlet all the time. They should have posted signs like other antis so that I could spend my money elsewhere.
FYI, their website has a contact feature. I went ahead and contacted them, politely, about their misinformation. I think an overwhelming influx of emails telling them, in a respectful manner, how wrong they are might at least be annoying to someone. Makes me feel better at any rate. http://www.marchforchange.org/page10/contact-form/index.php
Poor guy. Dying of AIDs!
Guy22
“Chubbs” FTW!
This is just so wrong
RIP
Comments at KHOU website under the story are really disturbing me tonight. Conspiracy nuts should stfu and let this hero RIP – the CIA didn’t assassinate him.
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Famed-Navy-SEAL-Chris-Kyle-shot-killed-in-N-Texas-189539281.html
I bought my 10/22 Takedown last year and have had many hours of range fun. The bag has 2 BX-25 mags, a brick of ammo and room for my MK III. I’m running mine with a Leupold Mark AR 1.5X4 optic. More optic than necessary but I like how compact it is and I had it on another rifle. It is small enough and positioned just right for eye relief that I can leave it mounted on the receiver in the bag.
I hope to see additional stand alone barrels sooner than later. Preferably one with the threaded barrel. I’m currently waiting for my tax stamp for a .22 suppressor.
The NRA has steadfastly refuse to admit the forth use for firearms: Resistance in the face of government oppression. It’s been happy to leave this to GOA and CCRKBA.
It need to get beyond denial and make this a political argument, as we have plenty of evidence that validates it.
Why do I always read things from Midway in Larry Potterfield’s voice?
Now, if they could only get some ammo…