I think I may buy a some of these for each of my neighbors who don’t want guns in “their” neighborhood.
Test the resolve of those who don’t support the 2nd Amendment by asking them to post one of these stickers on their front door. Let them know that research has shown that almost all violent crime offenders choose victims who are least likely to own a gun to defend themselves. Non-gun-owning households depend on gun-owning households for their protection because criminals don’t know the difference — unless they put one of these on the door.
*Disclaimer: For novelty purposes only — please do not actually post this on a household door as the occupants may be subject to visits by all manner of criminal molesters and miscreants.
Related posts
About (0)
I did not think I would live long enough to see the day… (0)
Amicus brief from Congress McDonald v. City of Chicago (0)
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments McDonald v. City of Chicago (0)
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Reading the McDonald v. City of Chicago transcript I ran across the classic liberal debate technique of using false logic. I was wondering as I read, if Justice Breyer was going to bring up the fact that Chicago has all the gun bans to protect the children…and everyone wants to protect children. After all, anyone who believes different (such as gun owners), must be horrible and should be stopped. [see Amicus Brief section below]
JUSTICE BREYER: You are saying they can have — no matter what, that the city just can’t have guns even if they are saving hundreds of lives, they cannot ban them?
MR. GURA: The city cannot ban guns that are within the common use as protected by the right to arms.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can’t be used. We don’t — we don’t resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?
MR. GURA: That’s correct, Justice Scalia, and as your opinion -
JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States. If you want to have, you know — I think we mentioned in Heller concealed carry laws. I mean, those are — those are matter that we didn’t decide in Heller. And you may have a great deal of divergence from State to State, and on that I suppose you would do statistics, wouldn’t you? Or the legislature would.
MR. GURA: Well, Your Honor, we do agree that statistics are not important to determine whether or not a right -
JUSTICE SCALIA: For the judges. For the judges.
MR. GURA: That’s right.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But they would be for the legislatures.
SCOTUS Transcript McDonald v. City of Chicago (application/pdf Object).
Amicus Brief (McCarthy / Quigley)
Simply put, local governments need the latitude to address the unique problems that threaten the public safety of their communities,” said Congressman Quigley. “The conditions in Chicago, where 500 school children have been involved in gun-related incidents in the past two years, fortunately don’t exist in rural or even other urban areas across the country. We are by no means saying that a gun ban is necessary everywhere, nor are we trying to encumber the lifestyles or rights of enthusiasts, collectors, or hunters. But the children of Chicago and their families have a right to live without fear of gun violence as well, and the city must be allowed to continue protecting that right with sensible regulations.
Remember when you go vote in November to thank these people by voting them out of office. The following Members of Congress have signed the amicus brief mentioned above:
- Representative Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04)
- Representative Mike Quigley (IL-05)
- Representative Gary L. Ackerman (NY-05)
- Representative Timothy H. Bishop (NY-01)
- Representative Robert A. Brady (PA-01)
- Representative Lois Capps (CA-23)
- Representative Michael E. Capuano (MA-08)
- Representative Yvette D. Clarke (NY-11)
- Representative Wm. Lacy Clay (MO-01)
- Representative Gerald E. Connolly (VA-11)
- Representative Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
- Representative Joseph Crowley (NY-07)
- Representative Danny K. Davis (IL-07)
- Representative Diana DeGette (CO-01)
- Representative Eliot L. Engel (NY-17)
- Representative Sam Farr (CA-17)
- Representative Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
- Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
- Representative Mazie K. Hirano (HI-02)
- Representative Michael M. Honda (CA-15)
- Representative Steve Israel (NY-01)
- Representative Jesse L. Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
- Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
- Representative Henry C. Johnson, Jr. (GA-04)
- Representative Patrick J. Kennedy (RI-01)
- Representative Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (MI-13)
- Representative James R. Langevin (RI-02)
- Representative John B. Larson (CT-01)
- Representative Nita M. Lowey (NY-18)
- Representative John Lewis (GA-05)
- Representative James P. McGovern (MA-03)
- Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (NY-14)
- Representative Doris O. Matsui (CA-05)
- Representative Gregory Meeks (NY-06)
- Representative George Miller (CA-07)
- Representative Gwen Moore (WI-04)
- Representative James P. Moran (VA-08)
- Representative Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
- Representative Grace F. Napolitano (CA-38)
- Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. (NJ-08)
- Representative Donald M. Payne (NJ-10)
- Representative David E. Price (NC-04)
- Representative Charles B. Rangel (NY-15)
- Representative Steven R. Rothman (NJ-09)
- Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
- Representative Bobby L. Rush (IL-01)
- Representative Linda T. Sánchez (CA-39)
- Representative Janice D. Schakowsky (IL-09)
- Representative José E. Serrano (NY-16)
- Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter (NY-28)
- Representative Fortney Pete Stark (CA-13)
- Representative Edolphus Towns (NY-10)
- Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-20)
- Representative Anthony D. Weiner (NY-09)
- Representative Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06)
Related posts
Assault Weapons Ban Confusion (0)
Another one Bites the Dust (0)
Amicus brief from Congress McDonald v. City of Chicago (0)
About (0)
9th Circuit Incorporates 2nd Amendment as part of the 14th Amendment » Right Pundits (0)
The big questions:
- Is Congress beating its drum (in the Amacus brief) because it cares about the 2nd Amendment or because it cares about the political correctness of Civil Rights?
- How would the 103rd U.S. Congress answer this question?
- Have we come full circle and now Gun Rights are more important than Gun Bans, according to Congress?
Congress has a long history of protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was Congress, after all, that proposed the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, to the States in 1789. Congress likewise proposed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, following and to further Congress’ attempts in the Freedmen’s Bureau Act and the Civil Rights Act to restore to freed slaves their right to keep and bear arms. In addition, Congress has enacted statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that protect and enforce the Second Amendment against state action and other statutes that explicitly declare its understanding of the Second Amendment as guaranteeing fundamental, individual rights.
Related posts
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments McDonald v. City of Chicago (0)
About (0)
This Day in History – December 15, 1791 (0)
The Patriot Shop — Gun Free Household sticker (0)
Op-Ed Contributor – What Happened to the Ban on Assault Weapons? (0)
According to the folks over at Deseret News, Utah is considering a bill which would allow the brandishing of firearms in emergency situations.
SALT LAKE CITY — More guns may be making appearances in confrontations across Utah, adding intensity, for better or worse. Newly proposed legislation would be a green light for concealed-gun owners to openly carry firearms and, if threatened, draw or exhibit their weapons and verbally threaten deadly force. Depending on whom you ask, that gun-induced intensity could defuse confrontations more quickly, or it could lead to more deadly violence. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, said HB78 clarifies existing law with “affirmative language” that would provide gun owners another option to defend themselves or others around them. “This allows a gun owner to not have to go all the way and actually fire his gun,” Sandstrom said. “This would still be the very last resort, however. It doesn’t give you the right to just flash a gun at anyone who makes you mad.”
More at: Legislation addresses brandishing of guns
Related posts
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
Heller yeah… (0)
Department of Interior Announces Final Firearms Policy Update (0)
CHL / CCW and Law Enforcement (0)
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: is whining again. This time it is about the people legally “open carrying” weapons in Starbucks stores. Oh my what shall we do now… legal citizens, carrying legal weapons in a business. I think everyone should buy 2 coffees a day from Starbucks (one for you and one for your gun), to show your support for their refusal to ban guns in the stores. Brady Campaign whining:
But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores, despite protests from loyal customers. Because of Starbucks’ refusal, the Brady Campaign has teamed up with CREDO Action to tell Starbucks to keep guns out of its coffee shops. The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped. It’s everyone’s right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried. Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances. We need to tell Starbucks to bar guns in its stores. These individuals who have been carrying guns into Starbucks have all the firepower of a SWAT team, and none of the law enforcement training.
More here: Tell Starbucks: Offer Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots.
Related posts
The 5th Amendment rights vs. police investigations (0)
Positive Gun Story… (0)
Man arrested carrying weapons at hotel where Speaker Pelosi was staying. (0)
CHL / CCW and Law Enforcement (0)
California attempts to create another felon (0)
