CNN Reporters Come Out for Gun Control

CNN Reporters Come Out for Gun Control

NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

Fairfax, VA -- You know that a reporter supports gun control when he or she says that government officials who don’t stamp their feet for gun control lack “courage.”
It’s not just because some reporters flatter themselves by thinking that they occupy the moral and intellectual high ground on every issue under the sun. It’s also because ever since the Senate rejected President Obama’s gun control package in April 2013, gun control supporters have been trying to convince the public that there’s no possible reason for opposing something so “commonsense” as gun control, other than “cowardice.”
On Monday, CNN reporters Elizabeth Cohen and John Bonifield accused Dr. Tom Frieden, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), of lacking “courage,” because he isn’t demanding that Congress allow the CDC to use tax dollars to pay gun control activists to conduct slipshod research designed to promote gun control. The reporters asked, “Why is he Dr. Frieden silent about guns?”
Dr. Frieden declined to take Cohen’s and Bonifield’s bait. However, had he responded to them, he might have asked why they were “silent” about the CDC’s massive study of a variety of gun control restrictions, published in 2003. The study concluded that “evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws.” A similar conclusion was reached by the National Academy of Sciences the following year.
The CDC’s study evaluated mandatory background checks on firearm purchases, and concluded that failing a background check “does not always stop a person from acquiring firearms through other means.” It also evaluated bans on specific types of firearms and ammunition, waiting periods, firearm registration and licensing of owners, prohibiting guns at schools, and laws dictating how people should store firearms at home.
As if that study never took place, Cohen and Bonifield said that the CDC should pay anti-gun researchers to answer five questions. No such misuse of the taxpayers’ money is necessary, however. Here are the five questions and some of their obvious answers:
1. “Would a federal assault weapons ban save lives or cost lives?”
A ban would be more likely to cost lives for at least two reasons. First, today’s federal “assault weapon” legislation would ban any magazine holding more than 10 rounds, regardless of the firearm for which the magazine is designed. That would limit the ability of people to defend themselves. The ability to carry more rounds for protection goes a long way to explaining why semi-automatic pistols now account for 80-90 percent of new handguns sold annually. Second, the legislation would also ban AR-15s, Remington 1100s, and all other detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic shotguns regardless of their magazine sizes, which would limit the ability of people to use the most effective firearms for protection in their homes and many, if not most, of the most popular firearms used in recreation and hunting. There are more so-called “assault weapons” and “large” magazines than ever before, the number of the firearms rising by more than a million annually and the number of the magazines rising by an even greater margin, and the nation’s murder rate is at an all-time low, exactly the opposite of what gun control supporters have been predicting would happen all these years.
2. State laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons are supposed to deter crime, since attackers never know who’s carrying a gun. Have these laws worked out that way?
Allowing people to carry firearms is to enable people to defend against crime, and evidence suggests that it may also deter crime from happening in the first place. As examples, newspapers that aren’t biased against guns regularly report instances in which gun owners have successfully defended themselves against criminals, and a federal study of prison inmates found that 40 percent had not attempted crimes when they knew or suspected their prospective victims were armed.
However, the more appropriate question would have been whether allowing people to carry firearms for protection increases crime, as claimed by gun control supporters. The answer to that question is “no.” People who carry firearms under the laws in question have consistently proven themselves to be more law-abiding than the rest of the public.
3. If gun owners had to register their weapons with the government, would fewer people die from gun violence? Would more die?
Most states don’t require registration, and the nation’s murder rate is at an all-time low. Registration would likely have no effect on violence, because criminals don’t register guns and the Supreme Court has ruled that requiring felons to register guns would violate their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Furthermore, many criminals acquire guns by theft, on the black market, or through “straw purchasers,” negating any possible effect of gun registration as well as limiting that of background check requirements.
4. Are certain types of people more prone to gun violence than others? If the answer is yes, what’s the best way for authorities to reach out to these people?

Indeed, the answer is “yes” and improved policing programs and increased prison sentences for the most violent offenders since the mid-1990s are two of the reasons that violent crime has been cut in half over the last 20-plus years.
5. Do background checks help save lives?
Gun control supporters would certainly like the public to think so. But the CDC’s 2003 study concluded, as we mentioned above, that failing a background check does not always stop a person from acquiring firearms through other means. That’s because many criminals steal guns, get them on the black market, or get them through “straw purchasers”—surrogate purchasers who, by definition, defeat background checks on behalf of criminals.
Cohen and Bonifield didn’t waste their time entirely, however. They reminded readers why public opinion surveys show that only about a quarter of Americans have confidence in the news media. Meanwhile, 58 percent of Americans view NRA favorably, compared to only 35 percent who have the opposing view, 53 percent oppose banning “assault weapons,” while only 45 percent disagree, and a majority of American believe the problem of terrorist attacks would be better addressed by having more people carrying guns, than by imposing more gun control.
About the NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

LAR-300

No Charges Filed, But Legal Firearms Confiscated Anyway

Friday, December 11, 2015

More

We've raised concerns before about how proposed "gun violence restraining orders" and similar firearm surrender orders can be abused and issued in cases where the police lack sufficient evidence for an arrest and simply wish to deprive an individual of the right to bear arms, and on how difficult it can be to get property back after the government seizes it. These concerns are magnified when such seizure procedures originate not from judicially authorized orders, but from the considerably more opaque processes within law enforcement.

It’s perhaps no surprise that one such confiscation policy surfaces in Nassau County, New York.  As we reported on in September and October, this is the same jurisdiction where the Acting District Attorney implemented and then rescinded a personnel policy that banned Nassau County prosecutors from having handguns, even at home.  Evidently, Nassau County takes every opportunity to chill the freedoms of its citizens. 

The confiscation policy, Nassau County Police Department (NCPD) Department Procedure OPS 10023, Removal and Disposition of Weapons – Domestic Incidents/Threats to Public Safety, authorizes the confiscation of lawful firearms during “domestic incidents,” but goes further. It empowers law enforcement officers to confiscate legally possessed guns when these can be viewed as “creat[ing] a threat of violence” or any “threat to public safety” at all. Once confiscated, the firearm cannot be returned to its owner where the reviewing police officer finds the owner “has a relevant Nassau County arrest history” (whatever that may be), or where “other extenuating circumstances” exist which indicate the gun “should not be returned” (whatever these may be).

A recent court case serves as an illustration of the policy in action.

The plaintiff, Andrew Carroll, shared a home with his mother. She had a basement apartment and he lived upstairs. In September 2014, while he was at work, she removed his AR-15 rifle from his apartment “as collateral” for $50 that she claimed he owed her. After Carroll called the police, NCPD officers not only confiscated the rifle from the mother’s apartment, but also seized two other long guns and a magazine belonging to Carroll and found in the house. Officers taking his guns advised these would be returned by the end of the night if no criminal charges were filed. The guns were not returned and another officer later confirmed that the NCPD had decided to “keep the guns.” A NCPD receipt warned that confiscated firearms were liable to be destroyed one year from the date of seizure. Significantly, Carroll was the complainant who called the police, and appears to have been fully cooperative. At no time was he subject to an order of protection or in any other way disqualified from possessing or owning a firearm. No criminal charges – against his mother or Carroll – were filed. There are no indications that the incident involved the infliction or alleged infliction of physical injury, or the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon by Carroll or anyone else.

After weeks passed without the confiscated guns being returned (even after an in-person request), Carroll resorted to a federal lawsuit against the police and Nassau County, initiated six months after his guns were taken away. His lawsuit alleged violations of the Second Amendment and other constitutional rights, and sought an injunction to prevent the NCPD from further retaining (or destroying) his guns, and from continuing to enforce its firearm confiscation policy in cases that lacked criminal, domestic violence, or order of protection elements.

Nassau County responded, initially, by claiming that Carroll had failed to comply with additional documentation requirements, being a letter “detailing the incident” that led to the confiscation of his guns and why his guns should be returned to him, the signature of his mother and “anyone else residing” with Carroll, and “his plan to fully secure the guns.” Interestingly, as the court points out, no provision of the confiscation policy required Carroll to supply this “undocumented” documentation as a precondition to the NCPD returning his property, and there was no proof that this information had even been previously requested, or when.

The court, however, declined to grant the preliminary injunctive relief Carroll sought at this stage. The District Judge concluded that any injury suffered by Carroll would be compensable by money damages once the lawsuit was heard on the merits. As for preventing future enforcement violations arising from the policy, the judge concluded there was insufficient evidence to show that such violations were likely to occur. “[O]n the record before it, the Court is unable to conclude that the Department’s Confiscation Policy is being regularly applied in an unconstitutional manner, so as to require immediate cessation.” Pending further action in this lawsuit, the court declined to order the NCPD to return Carroll’s confiscated firearms or to take steps to prevent their destruction. The case is Carroll v. Krumpter, which can be found here.

Lubbock City Council Members Reject Proposals to Make Council Meetings "Gun-Free Zones"

Friday, December 18, 2015

More

On Thursday night, the Lubbock City Council voted 5-2 to defeat two resolutions that would have banned open and concealed carry by Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) at council meetings.  Thank you to NRA members who showed up to testify against these unnecessary restrictions on their right to self-defense. Also, thank you to Lubbock-area state Representatives Dustin Burrows and John Frullo for notifying NRA-ILA about these proposals and voicing their concerns about them (and pointing out that the Texas Legislature allows CHLs to carry their firearms into the Capitol and while attending public meetings in the building).
 Please thank the mayor and council members who stood up for your Second Amendment rights by voting against these resolutions:
Mayor Glen RobertsonCouncil Member Victor HernandezCouncil Member Jeff GriffithCouncil Member Jim GerltCouncil Member Karen Gibson
Unfortunately, the Council tabled a resolution sponsored by Mayor Glen Robertson that would have expanded personal protection rights for city employees by directing the City Manager to develop and enforce policies allowing any city employee who has a valid CHL to carry concealed while on-duty or while operating a city vehicle.  Employees will continue to be required to obtain authorization from the manager to do so.  However, Mayor Robertson is currently exploring other possibilities to expand the right to self-defense for city employees.

Obama Meets With Bloomberg as He Readies Gun Control Executive Order

On Wednesday, President Barack Obama met with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to talk about gun violence. Specifically, the pair talked about what can be done to end the threat that America's loose standards for access to them poses to public safety.

"The two discussed ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have access to them, and what more could be done at the state and local level to help address gun violence in America," the White House said of their meeting. 

The president's meeting, held with perhaps the most influential gun control advocate in the nation, was a good opportunity to discuss lobbying strategy in light of the rash of mass shootings in 2015 that have sparked a renewed push for ambitious gun control legislation among reformers.

It also serves as a reminder of the unique political path toward any realistic change on gun policy, when Congress has proven almost pathologically incapable of passing even modest gun reform after years of debate on the matter.

View photo

.

Source: Thibault Camus/AP

Bloomberg's clout: In 2014, Bloomberg pledged to spend $50 million on efforts to sway battles over gun policy on the state level, backing organizations committed to policies like expanding background checks. So far, the effort hasn't been hugely successful in achieving results, but he is of course fighting an uphill battle. The National Rifle Association boasts millions of members, spends tens of millions of dollars every election cycle and deftly channels the preferences of huge swaths of the population who are fiercely protective of America's gun culture and rights.

Obama, who has pleaded to the public and Congress to rally for meaningful gun control for years, has decided to take matters into his own hands. His administration is in the process of readying an executive order designed to close what's commonly called the "gun show loophole," a gap in current law that allows people to purchase guns from private vendors — most notably at gun shows — without being subject to a background check. CNN reported that the White House has struggled to develop the legal argument for the executive order so far, but Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama, says that it should be released in "short order."

Obama is waging a lonely battle. Despite the fact that in 2015 there have been more days with mass shootings than there have been days without them, he has no reason to be optimistic that Congress will act on calls for gun control reform. In 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre that rattled the nation, Congress failed to pass expanded background checks on gun sales, despite the support of nearly 90% of Americans.

Recent polling suggests that things may be worse now — one recent poll found support for an assault weapons ban to be at its lowest level in two decades. That doesn't bode well for legislation calling for just that, introduced by congressional Democrats on Wednesday. 

Terrorism is top of mind for the public, and there's a vibrant debate going on among policymakers and in the presidential race on how to manage the rise of ISIS. But figuring out a way to control the purchase and flow of guns, which are far more lethal for the country, shows little sign of gaining traction. It seems to be the American way.

New York Times Calls for Gun Confiscation

Posted on December 16, 2015 by Justin Stakes

New York Times

NRA – Institute for Legislative Action

- Never let it be said that the New York Times can’t recognize the important moments in American history, nor muster the courage to express its opinions on its front page when the situation demands.

In 1920, for example, feeling strongly about the upcoming presidential election, the newspaper published a front-page editorial criticizing the Republican Party for nominating Warren Harding. In that instance, it turned out that the Times was out of step with public opinion.

Harding won the general election with over 60 percent of the popular vote, the fourth highest margin in American history. Otherwise, however, the newspaper’s editors have repeatedly resisted the temptation to take front-page editorial stands on issues it had the foresight to know would ultimately be recognized as the inconsequential ebbs and flows that are typical to any complex society in the modern era. Indeed, for the Times to opine on its front page, the circumstances would have to be truly important, the stuff of which history is made.

Thus, the Times refrained from making front-page comments on a number of transient developments that have long since been forgotten. Just a few of those that relate to two subjects in the news recently, individual rights and/or crime and terrorism, include:

• FDR’s plan to pack the Supreme Court to advance his liberal agenda (1937)
• The detaining of loyal Japanese-American citizens in internment camps (1942)
• The Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision desegregating schools (1954)
• Rosa Parks’ arrest (1955)
• The Civil Rights Act and the related riots in American cities (1964-65)
• The assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968)
• The 26^th Amendment to the Constitution, extending voting rights to age 18 (1971)
• The Munich Massacre at the Summer Olympics (1972)
• The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973)
• The terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 (1988)
• The terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon (2001)
• The passage of the Patriot Act (2001)
• The terrorist attack upon Americans in Benghazi (2012)
• Edward Snowden’s revelation of the government’s collection of email and phone data (2013)
  and
• The Supreme Court’s decision favoring same-sex marriage (2015)

While none of these events warranted front page editorial coverage, last week the Times editors made the decision to take action.  For the first time in 95 years, it published its opinion on its front page, to say that AR-15s and similar firearms should be confiscated from the American people.

In End the Gun Epidemic in America, years, the Times said, “it is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. . . . It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. . . . Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

Once again, however, the Times is out of step with public opinion. Americans are buying firearms at an unprecedented rate, and many Americans who don’t own firearms support the right of others to do so. By “certain kinds of weapons,” the Times no doubt means the AR-15 and rifles of the same general type. But the AR-15 is the most popular rifle today, the most widely used rifle for home protection, defensive firearm training, and marksmanship competition, and it’s quickly becoming one of the most popular hunting rifles. In 2013, CNBC ran a special on the AR-15, aptly titling it “America’s Gun.” From roughly a half million 20 years ago, Americans now own over seven million AR-15s and likely an equal number of comparable rifles.
No one should be misled by the Times’ stipulation about “certain kinds of weapons,” however. Gun control supporters now propose “assault weapon” legislation that would ban the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic shotguns, all detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles, and other categories of firearms. Confiscating all of those guns, even if it were possible, would certainly “drastically” reduce the number of firearms in the United States.
On Monday, the newspaper explained why it advocated gun confiscation on its front page. Even though it admits that prior confiscation of tens of millions of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns “might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting,” the paper “wanted to shout our frustration and anger from our rooftop.”
Presumably, the Times’ editors felt better after venting, but probably not for long. The Washington Post faulted the newspaper for thinking that anyone outside New York City gives a hoot what it shouts about.

“Swing voters in Middle America aren’t its subscribers, and the swing voters in Congress don’t have to appeal to voters who care much about what the New York Times thinks,” the Post said. “In fact, you could make a pretty convincing case that this would have the opposite of the intended effect by overreaching on something most Americans simply don’t think will do much to prevent mass shootings.”

And, we would add, inspiring yet another surge in Americans’ purchases of the very firearms that the Times despises.
A more complete list of significant events the Times did not consider worthy of front-page editorial coverage includes:
The Great Depression (1929), President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s plan to pack the Supreme Court with as many as 15 justices to guarantee rulings favorable to his liberal agenda (1937), the Nazi invasion of France (1940), Pearl Harbor and America’s declaration of war against Japan and Germany (1941), the detaining of loyal Japanese-American citizens in internment camps (1942), the Allied invasion of Normandy (1944), the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan and the end of World War II (1945), and the founding of the United Nations (1945).
The beginning of the Korean War (1950), the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision desegregating schools (1954), the development of a vaccine against polio (1955), Rosa Parks’ arrest (1955), the Bay of Pigs affair (1961), the first American spaceship to orbit Earth (1962), the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), the beginning of the Beatles’ transformation of American popular music (1963), the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963), the Civil Rights Act (1964), the escalation of the Vietnam War via the Tonkin Resolution (1964), and the race-related riots in American cities (1964-65).
The beginning of Mao Tse-Tung’s “Cultural Revolution” in China (1966), the assassinations of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (1968), Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon (1969), the episode at Kent State University (1970), the release of the Pentagon Papers (1971), the ratification of the 26^th Amendment to the Constitution extending voting rights to age 18 (1971), the Munich Massacre at the Summer Olympics (1972), the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), the implication of President Richard Nixon in Watergate (1973), Nixon’s resignation (1974), the end of the Vietnam War (1975), the beginning of Cambodian communists’ mass genocide of political opponents (1975), the mass suicide in Guyana (1978), and the discovery of AIDS (1981).
President Ronald Reagan’s landslide reelection (1984), the terrorist attack on Pan Am Flight 103 (1988), the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989), the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), the popularization of the Internet (mid-1990s), the impeachment of President Bill Clinton (1998), the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore (2000); the terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon (2001), the passage of the Patriot Act (2001), the election of America’s first black president (2008), the passage of Obamacare (2010), the elimination of terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden (2011), the Supreme Court’s decision upholding Obamacare (2012), the terrorist attack upon an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi (2012), Edward Snowden’s revelation of the federal government’s massive collection of email and phone data (2013), and the Supreme Court’s decision favoring same-sex marriage (2015).
About the NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

NRA debuted first anti-gun control Snapchat filter to coincide with Republican debate

 

The NRA is deploying every weapon in its arsenal in its fight against an upcoming ballot initiative in Nevada involving background checks on gun transfers. As it turns out, it is also taking its campaign to Snapchat, with its first-ever filter debuting during the GOP debate on Tuesday.
The NRA announced its Snapchat channel last month and its first foray onto the ephemeral messaging app has former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg squarely in its sights.
Snapchat users in Nevada may notice the NRA filter (basically a set of text that can be placed over a Snapchat image) which reads: “Hey Bloomberg, don’t NYC my Nevada gun rights. Stand and fight with NRA.” The filter, which was available between 2 pm and 8 pm ET on the day of the debate, referenced Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety Organization.

Hey #Nevada – Your #NRA will be on @Snapchat tonight for the #GOPDebate… #2A pic.twitter.com/gmf29KZPne

— NRA (@NRA) December 15, 2015

The filter’s limited availability was aimed to coincide with the Republican debate, which took place at 8.30 pm ET in Las Vegas, Nevada. The NRA is hoping that the app’s mostly millennial user base will help spread its message as the political conversation heats up online.
“[We] won’t sit back and let the Bloomberg-funded gun control groups spread ‘common sense’ misinformation,” NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen told the Las Vegas Review Journal. “We are actively educating voters on how the Bloomberg initiative will criminalize the activities of law-abiding citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
Nevada is set to vote on a gun control initiative next November. As the most prominent gun lobbying group in the U.S., the NRA spends millions of dollars in its attempt to influence federal and state policy. In 2014, the organization spent almost $3.4 million to lobby gun-control bills taken up by Congress, reports the International Business Times.
On the other hand, Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety organization recently released a star-studded promotional video in its attempt to tighten gun control regulations in order to combat gun violence in the U.S.