This webpage looks terrible because you insist on using an old, unsecure, slow web browser. Do yourself a favor and download Firefox and enjoy a safer faster web experience.

CCW Holders can Carry in AZ

July 13th, 2009

Arizona’s governor had a moment of brilliance by signing a bill allowing individuals with Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit to carry handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol, assuming they are not consuming themselves. This is an excellent plan. Allowing law-abiding individuals to protect themselves is the only logical choice for any citizen. Opponents argued that gun toting individuals will endanger public safety. Its completely baseless. Its a poorly known fact that no CCW permit holder has ever been convicted of a felony, ever. What does that mean? It means that law abiding citizens are exactly that. Guns don’t turn John Q. Citizen into crazy murderers and rapists. Guns turn John Q. Citizen into a self (and others directly around him or her) defender. It provides protection to our communities, protection that police could never provide. Kudos Governor Brewer.

Gun Laws Benefit Criminals

March 27th, 2009

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.
Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled
whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are
moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your
bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber,
then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out
two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder
brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The
blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while
the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you
pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few
That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make
them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform
you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First
Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to
your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing.
“Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two
men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and
relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep
down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims”
have been arrested numerous times. But the next day’s headline says
it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.” The thieves have
been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type
pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national
media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving
burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll
probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been
burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical
of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the
suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you
would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to
allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been
reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take
the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.
Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It
doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England ,
killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was
convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once
great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable
law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that
handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The
Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns
but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any
weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all
shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after
the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally
disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets
shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were
dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun
control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all
privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a
rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a
semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a
public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally
unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with
which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after
week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a
total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,

Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took
Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to
armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities
refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened,
claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own
a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged
while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as
saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and
several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young
thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a
collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or
stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were
given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being
good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who
didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison
sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d
taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been
registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

An email I received…

Ammunition Accountability Act

February 6th, 2009

Believe it or not, the state governments, including AZ, want to control and track who buys ammunition. Its under the guise of criminal investigations, but its too Orwellian for my tastes. Armed citizens are the last line of defense to a fascist government, and when that same government knows to its enemies are, its easy to take them out first.

They are also wanting to tax ammunition, on the order of 5cents/round. Realize to be good at shooting, something our government should not discourage through taxes, you need to put 100-200 rounds down range per month. That is an additional $120 year. That tax is not about revenue any more than the original cannabis tax. Its the nanny state preparing for fascism.

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/48leg/2r/bills/hb2833p.pdf

Please contact your state congressman here, http://www.azhouse.gov.

Gun Control to go before US Supreme Court

June 25th, 2008

The BBC has an article regarding the gun control case to be presented to the US Supreme Court. The case is focused on a DC security agent that wants to carry a gun at home, with his argument that if its ok to carry at work, why not at home? The pro gun-control advocates (read crazies) think there is no reason to carry a gun in urban DC. The pro gun-rights advocates (read libertarians) know not only the true point of the 2nd amendment, but also the inverse relationship between gun rights and violent crimes.

The 2nd amendment exists only to prevent a repressive regime from using deadly force against its populace. If the population is equally armed as the Armed forces, then there is a 10:1 ratio between the general population and the repressive regime’s army.

Additionally, as gun rights are allowed (that sounds so ignorant), John Lott has shown us that violent crimes go down. Who (robs|murders|rapes) a person carrying a Beretta on their hip? Who enters a building to mass murder when the entire building is packing heat? That mass murder gets nowhere fast.