Posts Tagged ‘stuck on stupid’

Who would’a thunk..? 86 percent of the reader support was a proposal to repeal the handgun ban of 1997

June 13, 2013

Be a jolly good fellow, and pass the Beefeater!

When the British daily newspaper The Telegraph asked readers which of six suggested measures they would like to see introduced in the House of Commons, reader response was surprisingly tilted toward one significant proposal, but you probably won’t hear about it from the U.S. media.

Of the six suggestions that included setting a flat tax and placing a term limit on the office of Prime Minister, what drew more than 86 percent of the reader support was a proposal to repeal the handgun ban of 1997. Because this is an unscientific poll, the results will be doomed to a media black hole, but it should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists in the United States that their habitual use of the United Kingdom as an example of domestic tranquility where guns are concerned just took a direct hit in the credibility department.

At last check, more than 20,400 people had responded to the on-line poll. Support for ending the handgun ban was at 86.4 percent, leaving all other proposals in the political dust.

The next highest vote getter is a suggested measure on the “greening of public spaces” followed by a proposal to ban spitting. The flat tax comes in fourth on the priority scale with a scant 6.4 percent of the votes, and limiting the Prime Minister’s terms could not even muster two percent support among respondents.

Parliament adopted the handgun ban following the tragic 1997 Dunblane massacre of school children; an incident that created an aftermath of emotion not unlike our own Sandy Hook tragedy. Law-abiding British citizens were forced to surrender their handguns as some sort of panacea, but violent crime in the United Kingdom has actually gone up, and self-defense with a firearm has gotten people in considerable trouble.

Americans learned from the British mistake, save for the anti-gun lobbyists who are determined to destroy the Second Amendment. Now it appears the good citizens of that island nation have also realized that banning gun ownership by lawful people does nothing to discourage criminals or crazy people from committing heinous crimes. In this country, we have been able to derail efforts to ban entire classes of firearms, realizing that the unilateral disarmament of good people only makes bad ones bolder.

There could be a strong connection between the Telegraph reader response and the recent brutal murder of a British soldier in broad daylight by a couple of extremist knife-wielding Muslim nut jobs. That incident reminded people that one must be able to fight back, and to defend oneself against a knife attack, it’s best to have a gun. Millions of law-abiding Americans understand that principle and have obtained concealed carry licenses and permits, and soon the residents of Illinois will join fellow citizens in the other 49 states in that regard.

The right of self-defense is the oldest human right, and the British experiment at public disarmament failed as miserably as our own gun bans in Chicago and Washington, D.C. The ten year Clinton ban on so-called “assault weapons” was just as ineffective against crime.

While the poll results for the Telegraph are not scientific, they are a red flag to Parliament that many of their constituents have realized the gun ban was a terrible mistake. Getting their firearms rights restored is not likely to be easy for British citizens, and here on this side of the Atlantic, gun owners are determined to prevent Congress from doing the same thing.

Alan Gottlieb is chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.
 

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

By Alan Gottlieb

Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn: Stuck on Stupid

February 24, 2013

Insurance so that you can exercise a right? Read on about the nanny stater big government type Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn that is, quite simply. Stuck on stupid!

Gun owners would have to buy liability insurance to own a gun under a bill introduced recently by a New York City legislator, a proposal one gun owners group is calling an attempt to ban guns.

The bill has gotten little fanfare in light of the passage last month of the state’s Safe Act gun control legislation.

The bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, D-Brooklyn.

“This insurance policy will serve as an incentive for firearm owners to implement safety measures in order to conduct the activity as safely as possible and only when necessary,” the bill reads.

The proposal has been introduced in the state Assembly but was without a Senate sponsor as of mid-February. It would require all gun owners in New York to buy a minimum of $1 million in liability insurance, insurance that one expert said would be difficult if not impossible to get and would likely be very expensive if available.

Gun owners who don’t have insurance would see their firearms confiscated under the proposed law.

“Its another outright attempt to ban firearms,” said Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association. “Everybody’s talking about this one.”

In the past, gun owners could rely on the state Senate to defeat restrictive gun bills, but that is no longer the case, King said.

Stephen Aldstadt, director of Shooters Committee on Political Education-New York, said the bill was “definitely something to be concerned about.”

He said federal legislators had unsuccessfully attempted to enact a similar law in the past.

He said he doesn’t think the bill will make it into law, however.

“I don’t think it has a legitimate chance,” Aldstadt said.

King, who works in the insurance industry, said finding insurance written specifically for guns would be almost impossible.

Mike Grasso, an executive with Cool Insurance in Queensbury and a gun owner, said homeowner’s insurance policies would generally cover any accidents involving firearms. But any willful or illegal conduct with a gun would generally not be covered by any insurance policy, he said.

“A willful act would not allow an injured person to recover insurance monies, except for a child using the gun when it is determined there was no intent, it was just an accident,” Grasso said. “Currently, if you accidently shoot someone it is covered by your policy because you did not do it intentionally.”

Grasso called the bill “another registration scheme.”

The bill is A3908. It was referred to the Assembly’s Insurance Committee and no vote had been scheduled.

SOURCE

 

Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical: HEROS

February 24, 2013

Ever since the mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, the Left has rabidly pursued all manner of unconstitutional gun control legislation. Federal, state and local, the NeoComs stop at nothing to deprive us of our unalienable rights, endowed by our Creator. Yet all is not lost as long as we stand firm.

The National Institute of Justice, the research branch of the Justice Department, recently leaked a memo evaluating many of the White House’s preferred gun control measures. For example, the NIJ says that Dianne Feinstein‘s defensive weapons ban is “unlikely to have an impact on gun violence” because — wait for it — those firearms “are not a major contributor to gun crime.” Therefore, concludes the NIJ, in order for a ban to be effective, it would have to include no exemptions and be paired with a mandatory buyback program.

Notably, Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) just introduced legislation to impose a 10 percent tax on concealable firearms, aiming to fund a federal buyback with the revenue collected.

The NIJ reaches similar conclusions about magazine capacity limits, which would be ineffective while exempting currently owned magazines, and universal background checks, which won’t work without national gun registration because criminals use straw purchasers or steal weapons in order to avoid background checks.

The question is, will Obama and the NeoComs pursue NIJ’s recommended “fixes” to their obviously flawed plans?

While movement has temporarily slowed at the federal level, the states are busy enacting their own draconian gun restrictions. In Colorado, House Democrats passed four anti-gun bills including outlawing concealed carry on college campuses (more on that below), requiring universal background checks and limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds.

As we noted last week, Magpul, maker of the popular PMAG magazine for AR-15 platform weapons, plans to carry through with its threat to leave the state because of the mag cap limit. Democrats tried offering them an exemption to manufacture their magazines in-state as long as they didn’t sell them there, but Magpul wisely didn’t take the bait. “If we’re able to stay in Colorado and manufacture a product, but law-abiding citizens of the state were unable to purchase the product, customers around the state and the nation would boycott us for remaining here,” said Doug Smith, Magpul’s chief operating officer. The move would take $85 million and hundreds of jobs from Colorado.

In Washington, a bill is in the works with a requirement to “safely and securely store” any legally owned “assault weapons.” It would also provide sheriffs with the power to, “no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance,” upon penalty of up to one year in jail.

Maryland Democrats seek to ban “possessing, selling, offering to sell, transferring, purchasing, or receiving an assault weapon.” That goes beyond Feinstein’s federal ban proposal in that it also bans “possessing.” Furthermore, no one under the age of 21 may possess ammunition, meaning they also can’t hunt. Things aren’t going well in the Used-to-Be Free State.

New York, an early adopter of unconstitutional restrictions post-Newtown, isn’t done. Democrats introduced a bill to require that all gun owners in New York “obtain and continuously maintain a policy of liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars specifically covering any damages resulting from any negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person.” Failing this, a gun owner will face “immediate revocation of such owner’s registration, license and any other privilege to own” a firearm. Privilege? Our copy of the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms.

Speaking of New York, numerous gun manufacturers and sellers are refusing to sell to law enforcement officers or government agencies anything that can’t be legally bought by the average citizen. This move applies to any other state that bans weapons or magazines while making exceptions for law enforcement officers. So far, none of the big three law enforcement suppliers — Smith & Wesson, Glock and Sig Sauer — have joined the effort, but Barrett, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, York Arms, MidwayUSA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Spike’s Tactical and several others have announced the policy change.

We greatly respect and appreciate our nation’s law enforcement officers, but if a seven-round mag is good enough for a civilian, it’s good enough for a police officer. And if civilians can’t own modern muskets, police shouldn’t either. Civilians and law enforcement personnel are fellow citizens, not subjects.

State news isn’t all bad, however. Ten states have proposed legislation to preempt federal gun bans and protect lawful gun owners. Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Washington have all proposed legislation to protect firearms made and kept within their borders. Alaska, Arizona, Montana and Tennessee have already passed such laws.

Finally, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia thinks state guns bans will reach the Court. We agree, and we don’t doubt Scalia is itching to reiterate that the Court meant what it said in its Heller and McDonald rulings, and that the Second Amendment also means what it says.

During the debate in Colorado about concealed carry on campus, Democrat state Rep. Joe Salazar explained why women don’t need guns for self-defense against would-be rapists: “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”

Hot Air’s Mary Katherine Ham retorted, “Well, after all, you might not get raped. In Salazar’s world, not only are women incapable of defending themselves against a physical threat, but they are incapable of even identifying a physical threat, and should therefore be deprived of the ability to try. Empowerment!”

Never fear, the University of Colorado posted some safety tips for avoiding rape, including “kick off your shoes if you have time and can’t run in them.” Failing that, “Tell your attacker that you have a disease or are menstruating. Vomiting or urinating may also convince the attacker to leave you alone.” They conclude, “Only you can decide which action is most appropriate.” Well, unless you decide carrying a firearm is appropriate. Call boxes, whistles and vomiting are peachy ideas, but a handgun would be far better. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Another legislator, Democrat State Senator Jesse Ulaberri, contended that people don’t need guns for self-defense because that just leads to a “whole crossfire.” And besides, the people in Tucson “stood up to defend themselves … and they did it with ball point pens.”

These are the people who think they know what’s best for you.

The Patriot Post

Stuck on Stupid Defined: Piers Morgan CNN

December 21, 2012

There is a reason we rebelled against English rule. What is the reason that the English gave up The Rights of Englishmen?

So then, what’s all this “assault rifle” nonsense?

A Shopping list?

Stuck on Stupid: Another episode of Chicago Crackheads at work!

October 22, 2012

As noted so many times here some folks are just stuck on stupid. Authorities in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are always in the running for some sort of award for being the most outrageous.

CHICAGO (AP)– As Chicago struggles to quell gang violence that has contributed to a jump in homicides, a top elected official wants to tax the sale of every bullet and firearm – an effort even she acknowledges could spark a legal challenge.

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle will submit a budget proposal Thursday that calls for a tax of a nickel for each bullet and $25 for each firearm sold in the nation’s second-largest county, which encompasses Chicago.

SOURCE

Hat Tip

 

Violence Policy Center’s “research?” Stuck on Stupid!

October 14, 2011

Violence Policy Center Continues to Misfire on Concealed Carry Holders

This year, Wisconsin became the 49th state to recognize the right of its citizens to carry firearms.1  Now, only one state remains in the Dark Ages — that being the state of Illinois.

But as can be imagined, the anti-gun media is predicting that letting citizens carry firearms will result in carnage in the streets, shootouts in bars, and angry parents settling scores on the ball field with their firearms.

And to supposedly prove their point, they cite a bogus report of the Violence Policy Center (VPC), entitled “Concealed Carry Killers.”  The faux report says that “since May 2007 at least 300 people — including 11 law enforcement officers — have been killed by private citizens legally allowed to carry handguns in killings not ruled self-defense ….”2

An article at PajamasMedia.com has done a good analysis of the VPC “report,” showing that the anti-gun group:

  • Double counts victims to inflate their statistics;
  • Counts people who are still alive today, as though they had been murdered by concealed carry permit holders;
  • Includes deaths that were caused by rifles, beatings or strangulation — in other words, tabulating deaths that were clearly NOT caused by concealed handguns; and
  • In some cases, even counts “murderers” who were later cleared in court as having acted in self-defense.3

According to the Pajamas Media analysis, less than half of the deaths which were attributed to concealed carry holders by the VPC were actually “committed by a permit holder drawing and firing his or her concealed weapon.”4

Less than half?

Yes, less than half of the killings were actually committed by a handgun that was in the possession of a concealed carry permit holder.  That was the analysis as of December 21, 2009.  Sadly, VPC’s reporting has not gotten any better in the following two years.

VPC still embellishing its figures to demonize gun owners

With the Wisconsin law set to go into effect on November 1, 2011, VPC is excoriating the Badger State for ignoring the “bloody record of police deaths, mass shootings, and attempted political assassination” which have supposedly been perpetrated by concealed carry holders.

There are some in the media who are peddling this hype and using VPC’s bogus statistics to scare the public.5  But what goes unnoticed by a gullible media is that VPC is still inflating the number of “concealed killers,” even while they ignore the fact that the average citizen — yes, even the average cop — is much more likely to commit a crime with a gun than is a gun owner with a concealed carry permit.  (More on this below.)

As for inflating the statistics, the VPC:

  • Counts non-permit holders who, in some cases, were even prohibited by law from carrying a firearm;
  • Uses non gun deaths to inflate “concealed carry” killings; and
  • Adds accidental killings to its totals — even including a case where an errant shot was fired at a robber.

Okay, let’s take these up one-by-one.

Non-permit holders prohibited by law from carrying a firearm.  Over the past couple of years, the VPC has counted several non-permit holders in their “concealed carry killers” tally.  But a notable case that is still currently on their website is Jared Loughner, who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords — injuring her and killing six people.

The VPC claims that because of Arizona’s new law which allows law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without a permit, “Loughner was able to legally carry his pistol to the Giffords event in his assassination attempt.”

But what VPC misses is that this right applies ONLY to law-abiding citizens.  Arizona law clearly states that,

A person commits misconduct involving weapons by knowingly:  (1) Carrying a deadly weapon … concealed on his person or within his immediate control in or on a means of transportation in the furtherance of a serious offense … [or] (8) Using or possessing a deadly weapon during the commission of any felony offense.”6 (Emphasis Added.)

Thus, Arizona’s law specifically PROHIBITS and DISALLOWS the concealed carry of a handgun with the intent to commit a crime!  Jared Loughner was most certainly NOT able to legally carry his pistol to commit the crimes he perpetrated in January, 2011, as the VPC claims.

But this sloppy “scholarship” (if you can call it that) is just the tip of the iceberg.  Take this next category.

Non gun deaths used to inflate “concealed carry” killings.  VPC has the audacity to inflate its statistics by using murders that were not committed by handguns — and, in some cases, were not even committed by any type of firearm at all.

A classic case is that of Tony Villegas, a Florida man who strangled a woman in her own garage. Did you get that?  She was strangled by Villegas’ hands (presumably) and not his gun.

Commenting on this twisted logic by the VPC, Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman asks, “How can strangulation be blamed on a concealed weapon permit?  If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?”7

Using non gun deaths is not the only way that VPC inflates its statistics.  Consider how the organization slips non permit holders into its “concealed carry killers” totals.

Accidental killings — by non-permit holders.  Accidental shootings have been the long-time shibboleth of anti-gun legislators and media.  They like to demonize all gun owners because of the tragic accidents that occur with firearms.

But if we’re going to follow VPC’s logic, then we should also ban those items which accidentally kill far more people than guns do — things like cars, doctors, trans fats (which lead to heart disease), etc.  It’s strange that the anti-gunners never seem to much care about these other deadly killers, or about the fact that food and water kill more children than guns do.8

Nevertheless, anti-gunners focus on the gun — and the gun only.  To wit, VPC on several occasions lists examples where children have accidentally fired a gun, killing themselves or others.  While these cases are very tragic, one has to ask:  Why are these unintentional shootings being added to the list of “concealed carry killers”?

Well, the answer is probably obvious.  The VPC is desperately trying to inflate its statistics.  And that is why they have included examples where children grabbed a parent’s gun and unintentionally inflicted harm.

Again, these cases are very tragic, but let’s be clear.  One can peruse the newspapers and find examples where the children of POLICE OFFICERS have experienced the same type of tragedy.  So, to follow VPC’s logic, should police officers be disarmed?

Accidental killings — including errant shots fired at criminals.  Now, as mentioned above, some of the accidental killings listed in the VPC report don’t even directly involve the concealed carry holder.  But setting that aside, VPC includes the case of Edward Bell, who accidentally shot an innocent bystander while he was being robbed.

Mr. Bell is a 65-year old man who lives in a very dangerous area of Detroit.  He was working in his yard one day when a gunman held him up and stole his Chevrolet Suburban sport utility vehicle.9

Bell’s mistake, while understandable, is that he fired at the crook after he drove off.  It has long been established in the Common Law that self-defense ends when the attack is over.  While that’s the law, it’s understandable that Mr. Bell — with his adrenaline pumping and being upset that his vehicle was just stolen at gunpoint — wanted to get it back.  Bell fired at the thief, and one of the bullets entered a home and killed Geraldine Jackson, who was cooking dinner at the time.

Certainly, this does not excuse Mr. Bell’s miscalculation.10  But for VPC to include this story as evidence that concealed carry holders are perpetrating crimes is simply disingenuous.  And it ignores the fact that this same problem happens with police officers, as well.

Just last month, police injured two innocent bystanders in San Francisco by firing at a suspect who was running away from them.11  Of course, this sounds similar to Mr. Bell’s case.  Which makes one wonder:  had the bystanders in the Bay area died, would the VPC have included these two police shootings in their “concealed carry killers” totals?

Permit holders more law-abiding than average population — even more so than cops!

The VPC wants to focus on the few bad apples in the concealed carry community and suggest that citizens can’t be trusted to carry firearms.  But using their own logic, they should be arguing for cop disarmament, because they break the law far more often.

As compared to concealed carry permit holders, the average American is almost 8 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and over 40 times more likely to be convicted of burglary — and police officers are almost 800 times more likely to violate the law.12

There are an estimated six million citizens who possess a concealed carry permit.13  The number of legal concealed carriers is probably higher, considering the growing number of states that recognize the right of their citizens to carry without a permit.

Press reports indicate that concealed carry is at an ALL TIME HIGH, even while crime rates have been dropping in the U.S. over the past few years.  Yet, we’ve been hearing the Chicken Little cries of doom and gloom as far back as the mid-1980s, when Florida kicked off the modern concealed carry movement with the enactment of its “shall issue” law.

Prior to its passage in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature.  Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the “Gunshine State.”  It was a cute jingle, but their dire predictions never materialized.  Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.

Such was the case in Texas, as well.  One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who is president of the Dallas Police Association.  White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.

Senior Cpl. White admits, though, “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.”

It takes guts to look at the evidence and admit you were mistaken.  Kudos to Rep. Silver and Senior Cpl. White for being “man enough” to admit they were wrong.

Who knows, maybe the VPC will own up and admit they were also wrong about all the fear and paranoia they’ve peddled in their faux report.  But then again, don’t hold your breath.

 


1 – While there are 49 states which allow for concealed carry in some shape or form, there are various levels of restrictions in those states.  Wisconsin’s carry law goes into effect on November 1.  At that point, 40 states will have relatively liberal policies regarding concealed carry.  Most of them are known as “shall issue” states, where the officials must issue permits to those who apply — as long as the law does not disqualify the applicants from possessing firearms in some way.  Of these states, four (Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and 98% of Montana) also provide an option for citizens to peacefully carry their firearms without getting a permit or permission from the government.  This is similar to the law in Vermont, which does not require or issue permits at all.  Nine states are “may issue” states which means just that — officials “may” issue a permit to applicants (but they don’t have to do so) — even if the applicant is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.  Only Illinois completely bans concealed carry. 

2 – The “Concealed Carry Killers” report can be found at:  http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

4 – Ibid.

5 – Steven Elbow, “Open or concealed? Gun owners in Wisconsin will soon be able to choose mode of carry,” The Capital Times, June 22, 2011, at:  http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/crime_and_courts/blog/article_8729ec02-9c46-11e0-91ec-001cc4c002e0.html

6 – Arizona Statutes, Section 13-3102 at:  http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03102.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

7 – Steve Chapman, “False fears about concealed guns — Illinois should give licensed citizens the right to carry around weapons,” Chicago Tribune (March 31, 2011) at:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-31/news/ct-oped-0331-chapman-20110331_1_concealed-carry-permit-holders-brady-campaign

8 – See the Gun Owners of America Fact Sheet at:  http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

9 – At the moment the robbery was occurring, Mr. Bell had no way to know that the thief was actually using a fake gun.

10 – In July 2010, Mr. Bell received one year of probation for the events that occurred on May 12, 2010.  See “Edward Bell to get probation deal in shooting death of grandmother,” The Michigan Standard (July 9, 2010) at:  http://www.michiganstandard.com/edward-bell-to-get-probation-deal-in-shooting-death-of-grandmother

11 – “Two bystanders wounded in S.F. police shooting,” San Francisco Chronicle (Sept. 17, 2011) at:  http://blog.sfgate.com/crime/2011/09/17/bystanders-wounded-sf-police-shooting

12 – Crime statistics related to concealed carry permit holders are difficult to come by, as every state does not publish detailed figures relating to their permit holders.  Some (like Texas) do provide these statistics.  Interestingly, a study of concealed carry in Texas over a four year period (2002-2005), found that non concealed carry permit holders are 7.89 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than permit holders — and 40.58 times as likely to be convicted of burglary.  [See Tables 1 and 3 in Howard Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns: Danger or Asset to Texas?” at http://www.prattontexas.com/documents/Texas%20CHL%20Study.pdf.%5D  Moreover, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 4.72% of all officers (state and local) were found to have committed police abuse in 2002.  [Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Citizen Complaints about Police Use of Force [in 2002]” (published 2006) at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccpuf.pdf.%5D  Comparing the BJS figures to the Texas data — showing that just over six-thousandths of one percent (.0062%) of permit holders were convicted of crimes in 2002 — one can make some interesting correlations.  While somewhat different, it is interesting to note that police reviewing authorities found that officers had committed crimes at 761 times the rate that the Texas study found for convictions of concealed carry holders for the same criminal acts.  [Compare BJS, “Citizen Complaints” to Nemerov, “Concealed Handguns.”]

13 – Mike Stuckey, “Record numbers licensed to pack heat — Millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns,” MSNBC.com (June 24, 2010) at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat

14 – Clayton E. Cramer and David B. Kopel, “‘Shall Issue:’ The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws” (1994), p. 14.

15 – Scott Parks, “Charges Against Texans with Gun Permits Rise; Law’s supporters, foes disagree on figures’ meaning,” Dallas Morning News (December 23, 1997).

SOURCE

DREAM Act (Part II) reaches Jerry Brown

September 19, 2011

California Governor Jerry Brown has the chance to make some undocumented and illegal California residents’ dreams come true if he signs AB 131, the second part of the so-called California Dream Act. Passed through the State Assembly and Senate in the past weeks, it now sits on the Governor’s desk.

The California Dream Act, authored by Assemblyman Gilbert Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), comprises two bills known as AB 130 and 131. Brown signed AB 130 this July – a bill allowing undocumented residents and college students in the state to receive private funding and scholarships.

AB 131, if Brown signs it, will allow undocumented college students to receive public funding from the state as of January 1, 2013. Undocumented college students in California are currently ineligible for such state funding. But federal law currently allows a state to provide “any state or local public benefit” to eligible undocumented residents if state law “affirmatively provides for that eligibility.”

AB 131 passed the California State Senate on August 31 and the State Assembly on September 2. Should the bill become law, it would provide undocumented residents “with more education benefits than they have in any other state,” according to the New York Times.

The text in AB 131 would amend state education law to require the trustees, board of governors, or regents in charge of the various California public college systems to follow the new procedures. For undocumented students who qualify, universities would have “to establish procedures and forms that enable students to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs…to the full extent permitted by federal law.”

The bill would provide financial aid in the form of community college district fee waivers, institutional aid from CSU and UC schools, and access to Cal Grants (which students do not need to pay back) for eligible undocumented residents. A Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary estimates the fiscal impact for the 2013-14 school year to be $13 million in Cal Grants, $7.5 to $15 million in fee waivers, and $11.4 to $12.2 million in institutional aid.

AP Photo: Dream Act part 1 (AB 130) held by California Governor Jerry Brown in July.

This article was written by JOEY JACHOWSKI; full article at the STANFORD REVIEW

California: Stuck on stupid!

November 24, 2010

Thank God that I got out of there in 1978. It was bad enough back then…

“In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits. … This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests. In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Brown’s own extremism on climate change policy — backed by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuels — virtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.” –columnist Joel Kotkin

And then these words of wisdom;

“In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes — and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue — and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes. How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise. High tax rates, which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration. The New York Times reported in 2006: ‘An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.’ Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder — and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that. And spare us so-called ‘deficit reduction commissions.'” –columnist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

Village idiots: Stuck on Stupid

November 12, 2010

Some things never change; like being stuck on stupid!

Fighting for Pelosi: “Speaker Nancy Pelosi is one of the strongest, most progressive leaders in Washington. Her determination brought health care reform back to life last winter, when the Senate and the White House were ready to scale back. She fought harder than anyone for bigger, better job creation bills. And right now, she is the strongest voice in leadership for ending Bush’s millionaire tax bailout. But after Tuesday’s elections, some corporate Democrats are taking the wrong lesson — saying that Democrats should be less progressive and more like the Republicans. And they’re pushing Speaker Pelosi to step down. This would be a terrible loss for progressives, and for the country.” –MoveOn.org

Unbelievable: “The president himself has to reconnect with the people. Remember, President Clinton reconnected through [the Oklahoma City bombing], right? … And the president right now seems removed. And it wasn’t until that speech that he reclicked with the American public. Obama needs a similar — a similar kind of event.” –Democrat pollster Mark Penn (They “need” another terrorist attack?)

Advice: “Seriously, if we ran Tom Hanks, if we ran Oprah — there’s a whole column of people who are beloved people. Smart and good.” –Michael Moore suggesting a new slate of Democrat candidates

California dreaming: “We’re nothing but a mirror of our consistent thoughts. You tend to manifest what you focus on. If you look around for what’s wrong, you’ll find it. But as all we know up here in San Francisco, when you focus on what’s right, you see it all around you. … There is absolutely nothing wrong with California that can’t be fixed by what’s right with California. … If you’re from another state, you’d love to have the problems of California.” –California Lt. Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom

SOURCE

Stuck on stupid: A tale of two states…

November 3, 2010

This will be a short post, but to the point. And surly there will be follow up postings.

Colorado and California. That says it all…


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 181 other followers

%d bloggers like this: