The New York Post has an article calling for a more common sense approach to New York's gun laws when tourists are involved. The article, entitled Common Sense on Guns makes a point that when so many states now have shall issue concealed carry laws, people who have no criminal intent (mens rea) are likely to show up carrying guns for self defense from time to time. That being the case, perhaps New Yorkers should stop panicking and throwing the book at them, as they appear to be doing to Tennessee medical school student Meredith Graves. Graves visited the 9/11 memorial over the holidays, noticed the gun free zone sign at the entrance, and asked a security officer where she could check her gun. Graves is a permit holder in Tennessee. The security guard promptly called police who arrested her.
I feel sympathy for Ms. Graves, I really do. New York City gun laws are irredeemably unjust, and as these fine criminal defense attorneys explain, they don't even obey Federal law that protects travelers merely transiting through their airports. New Yorkers seem to take their gun control very seriously, and ignorance of their laws does not let you off the hook.
Fortunately, there are ways to find out about the laws of any state you may be traveling through. Your first stop should be Handgun Laws US. The keeping of this information is done by volunteers, but the information for my state, North Carolina, seems up to date. Looking at NYC, we see that New York City does not honor any other state permit, including New York State without a NYC endorsement. Then, there are the Attorney Generals of the various states. I have to admit that the New York State Attorney General's web site doesn't seem to mention guns anywhere, but that might just be a clue.
New York's gun control law is called the the Sullivan Act, named after a notorious Irish mobster, New York State Senator, and influence peddler in the corrupt Democrat machine known as Tammany Hall. Around the time of its passage, in 1911, the Italian mafiosi were taking over from the Jewish and Irish mobs. The Italians would shoot first, and ask questions later, if at all. So, to disarm them, Sullivan got his law passed. It didn't work, of course. The criminal element, the Irish and Jewish mobs and the mafiosi, ignored the law. The people who were disarmed were the peaceable citizens. The sordid history of laws like the Sullivan Act, or of laws that sought the disarmament of the black community in the South should cause considerable soul searching for anyone advocating for more of these laws. Gun control laws don't end violence, they merely embolden the criminals among us. And they catch people like Meredith Graves, who wasn't going to shoot anybody.
Update: National Review Online had an opinion piece by Robert VerBruggen. VerBruggans opinion is that Graves should rot in prison. NRO is a New York City publication. What fascinated me, though, were the comments, many of them well argued. Jeff Knox even makes an appearance. Go and take a look.
Showing posts with label Political Prisoners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Prisoners. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Bruce Montague-Profile in Courage
With a tip of the hat to David Hardy of the blog Of Arms and the Law comes the story of Bruce Montague, a brave Canadian who has been challenging their Firearms Act, and is now in danger of forfeiting his house. Go read the website.
I would note that the Ontario Attorney General is showing all the "compassion" we have come to expect from the gun grabbers. Putting Bruce in jail for flouting the law is, if not justified, at least expected. But to take his house, put his wife on the street, and endanger his children's education is the sort of thing one expects of a Mexican drug cartel, not a Western liberal democracy. Can it truly be that mere possession of inanimate objects by someone who has no intention of using them to commit an actual crime justifies such harsh punishment of not only the man, but innocent bystanders as well?
A person who fears, say, screw drivers, and who constantly rails that these dangerous objects need to be controlled, their owners licensed, and that anyone who wants one needs to be treated like a criminal would be considered slightly daft. If the screwdriver-phobe suggested that the police waste their time by registering all the screwdrivers as a crime fighting measure, most people would conclude that he was, to use a technical term, nuts. Never mind that it is true that screw drivers are used to murder people, and so our screwdriver-phobe does have a point. But screwdrivers also have benefits to society, enabling the fastening of objects together in such a way that they can subsequently be easily taken apart. Rational people recognize that the correct use of screwdrivers is vastly more useful to society than their misuse is harmful. People also recognize that most of their fellow men will use screwdrivers correctly.
So, why then do people take notice of hoplophobes who rail that guns should be controlled? True, guns can be used to kill, but the presence of guns possessed by people who become targets of criminal attack save vastly more lives. Read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Two neighbors might work on a project together, with screwdrivers, hammers, and wrenches within reach of either of them, and nobody thinks for even a second that one of the neighbors might kill the other. But suddenly when we are talking about a gun, visions of the gun taking over and making one of our neighbors homicidal come to mind. Why? Keep in mind too, that the greater power of a gun compared to a screwdriver only means that more precautions should be used when handling them, just as a table saw requires greater awareness and precaution. Such awareness and precaution are easily within the power of the ordinary man or woman.
What I suspect it is, is that professional politicians are, at best, busy body nannies who view themselves as more knowledgeable about how you should live your life than you. Of course, they can't control criminals, but they won't take responsibility for what happens to you if you are legally disarmed either. So why not give free reign to their natural proclivities? Add to this mix a media that seeks to sensationalize rather than inform, to give vent to the extremes rather than present the normal, and you have the makings of of a witches brew for the average citizen. If, on the other hand, politicians were truly responsible for their actions, unjust laws like Canada's Firearms Act would never be passed in the first place.
I would note that the Ontario Attorney General is showing all the "compassion" we have come to expect from the gun grabbers. Putting Bruce in jail for flouting the law is, if not justified, at least expected. But to take his house, put his wife on the street, and endanger his children's education is the sort of thing one expects of a Mexican drug cartel, not a Western liberal democracy. Can it truly be that mere possession of inanimate objects by someone who has no intention of using them to commit an actual crime justifies such harsh punishment of not only the man, but innocent bystanders as well?
A person who fears, say, screw drivers, and who constantly rails that these dangerous objects need to be controlled, their owners licensed, and that anyone who wants one needs to be treated like a criminal would be considered slightly daft. If the screwdriver-phobe suggested that the police waste their time by registering all the screwdrivers as a crime fighting measure, most people would conclude that he was, to use a technical term, nuts. Never mind that it is true that screw drivers are used to murder people, and so our screwdriver-phobe does have a point. But screwdrivers also have benefits to society, enabling the fastening of objects together in such a way that they can subsequently be easily taken apart. Rational people recognize that the correct use of screwdrivers is vastly more useful to society than their misuse is harmful. People also recognize that most of their fellow men will use screwdrivers correctly.
So, why then do people take notice of hoplophobes who rail that guns should be controlled? True, guns can be used to kill, but the presence of guns possessed by people who become targets of criminal attack save vastly more lives. Read John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime. Two neighbors might work on a project together, with screwdrivers, hammers, and wrenches within reach of either of them, and nobody thinks for even a second that one of the neighbors might kill the other. But suddenly when we are talking about a gun, visions of the gun taking over and making one of our neighbors homicidal come to mind. Why? Keep in mind too, that the greater power of a gun compared to a screwdriver only means that more precautions should be used when handling them, just as a table saw requires greater awareness and precaution. Such awareness and precaution are easily within the power of the ordinary man or woman.
What I suspect it is, is that professional politicians are, at best, busy body nannies who view themselves as more knowledgeable about how you should live your life than you. Of course, they can't control criminals, but they won't take responsibility for what happens to you if you are legally disarmed either. So why not give free reign to their natural proclivities? Add to this mix a media that seeks to sensationalize rather than inform, to give vent to the extremes rather than present the normal, and you have the makings of of a witches brew for the average citizen. If, on the other hand, politicians were truly responsible for their actions, unjust laws like Canada's Firearms Act would never be passed in the first place.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
More on 16 Year Old Ashton Lundeby
Paul Valone, Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner and President of Grass Roots North Carolina has more on the Ashton Lundeby case.
Some interesting facts:
-The boy and has family were at church, with witnesses, at the time the bomb threats were supposedly made by him.
-There is a previous history of some other teens hacking into his Skype account.
-The boy was denied his rights to an attorney of his choice, and forced to take a court appointed attorney. That attorney has not been extremely energetic in the boys defense as far as the mother can see.
Now, I do not know whether 16 year old Ashton Lundeby is innocent or not. But that is not the point. At the moment this home schooled, all American boy is being railroaded, and made an example for whatever reason. In the process, he is not receiving the benefits of his due process rights under the Constitution. He is being held incommunicado, without an attorney.
As Paul Valone writes:
Senator Richard Burr http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
202) 224-3154
Senator Kay Hagan http://hagan.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
(202) 224-6342
Remember, we were promised when this Act was passed that this would not be used against United States citizens, and especially not on U.S. soil. Maybe it's time to sunset the Patriot Act.
Some interesting facts:
-The boy and has family were at church, with witnesses, at the time the bomb threats were supposedly made by him.
-There is a previous history of some other teens hacking into his Skype account.
-The boy was denied his rights to an attorney of his choice, and forced to take a court appointed attorney. That attorney has not been extremely energetic in the boys defense as far as the mother can see.
Now, I do not know whether 16 year old Ashton Lundeby is innocent or not. But that is not the point. At the moment this home schooled, all American boy is being railroaded, and made an example for whatever reason. In the process, he is not receiving the benefits of his due process rights under the Constitution. He is being held incommunicado, without an attorney.
As Paul Valone writes:
Given governmental stonewalling, political pressure must be applied to the Department of Justice. Mrs. Lundeby has contact her Congressman – Brad Miller – and found him to be, at best, unresponsive. Not just North Carolinians, but anyone and everyone should contact members of the North Carolina delegation to Congress and demand an immediate investigation as to why a teenager without apparent connections to terrorism is being held under a law which gives the government sweeping powers of arrest and detention.
This is not an issue of conservatism or liberalism; it is a matter of fundamental human rights. Citizens should form a united front and immediately contact these United States Senators:
Senator Richard Burr http://burr.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
202) 224-3154
Senator Kay Hagan http://hagan.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm
(202) 224-6342
Remember, we were promised when this Act was passed that this would not be used against United States citizens, and especially not on U.S. soil. Maybe it's time to sunset the Patriot Act.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
The War on Guns: 'Broken Gun' Conviction Upheld by Court
The War on Guns: 'Broken Gun' Conviction Upheld by Court
David is right, of course. I, and others have failed Mr. Olofson in his case. Well, no more.
Olofson was railroaded. He was made an example by the BATFE in order to scare others into silence...and it worked. This is the same as the British hanging pirates and leaving the corpses to rot, hanging there. This is political terrorism, and Mr. Olofson is a political prisoner. David Olofson in fact is a family man, a weapons trainer for the National Guard, and an all around good guy. He is much like you and me. He did not skirt the law, or try to push the envelope. This was a pretty clear cut case of an innocent man being railroaded because that they could. It was an arrogant abuse of power by an arrogant and Unconstitutional agency.
But don't take my word for it. You can read the back story for yourself
here and here and here. There's more on David Codrea's War On Guns blog spot. Then, to make it even easier, David Codrea has a convenient list of sites related the case at the bottom of his Gun Rights Examiner article here. Please be sure to check out the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to see just how abusive the ATF is.
I am reminded of what is said in the confession of sins in Church "we have sinned against you... both by what we have done, and what we have left undone."
David is right, of course. I, and others have failed Mr. Olofson in his case. Well, no more.
Olofson was railroaded. He was made an example by the BATFE in order to scare others into silence...and it worked. This is the same as the British hanging pirates and leaving the corpses to rot, hanging there. This is political terrorism, and Mr. Olofson is a political prisoner. David Olofson in fact is a family man, a weapons trainer for the National Guard, and an all around good guy. He is much like you and me. He did not skirt the law, or try to push the envelope. This was a pretty clear cut case of an innocent man being railroaded because that they could. It was an arrogant abuse of power by an arrogant and Unconstitutional agency.
But don't take my word for it. You can read the back story for yourself
here and here and here. There's more on David Codrea's War On Guns blog spot. Then, to make it even easier, David Codrea has a convenient list of sites related the case at the bottom of his Gun Rights Examiner article here. Please be sure to check out the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership to see just how abusive the ATF is.
I am reminded of what is said in the confession of sins in Church "we have sinned against you... both by what we have done, and what we have left undone."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)