:: Brady Campaign President Lies About Gun Homicides

Which brings us back to the original “Brady Bunch”—that wholesome family that went out of their way to be truthful with each other. Telling one-quarter of the truth wasn’t acceptable back then, and would have resulted in at least a good shaming by Alice the housekeeper.

Apparently, however, one-quarter of the truth is plenty for Dan Gross and his Brady Bunch—which knows no shame.

“Another Big Lie From The Brady Bunch”America’s 1st Freedom, Mark Chesnut (September 13, 2016)

Brady Campaign (formerly known as “Handgun Control, Inc.” – seriously) president Dan Gross included suicides and unintentional and accidental shootings in “shot and killed” statistic to create a very misleading impression about “gun violence”.  That number will also include homicides attributable to gangbangers and drug trade as well.  So the overall narrative of statistics on gun homicides from this gun control group continues to be laced with dishonesty.

 

:: Americans Do NOT Want Universal Background Checks

89% Percentage of SC voters who support background check legislation!

GunSense SC website (visited 2/23/16)

Another misrepresentation by the “GunSense” propaganda site.  Consider:

Only four out of ten Americans support so-called “universal background checks” at gun shows after being informed that the vast majority of firearms sales at these shows are transacted by licensed retailers that already conduct such checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as required by federal law.

Americans Don’t Think ‘Universal Background Checks’ Extension for Gun Shows Are Needed

When respondents are informed of the “universal background check” plan, i.e., that every transfer of a firearm, including those between family and friends, would be subject to the law, they reject the idea of universal background checks.

“Universal” background checks are silly, expensive and ineffective. Since criminals do not participate, how could any background check policy be universal?  How naive.

 

:: “Gun Sense” SC Promotes 40% Unlicensed Gun Sales Myth

[A] large percentage of guns sold in America—believed to be 40% or more—are purchased at gun shows or via the Internet, with no background checks required. (U.S. DOJ, National Institute of Justice Research, 1997)”

Gun Sense SC website (visited 2/23/16)

This statement is unsupported by the cited document and judged “mostly false”  by PolitiFact when evaluating a similar assertion by Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

The finding has been cited widely by gun control advocates – including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D- Va. – in calling for a federal law mandating universal background checks. But as we and other fact checkers have noted previously, the research is old and limited. (emphasis supplied)

Problems include the following:

  • The 1994 study relied upon asked about gun acquisitions going back to 1991 – a period before the Brady background check law was on the books.
  • The research looked at all gun transactions – including when a gun was obtained as a gift or as an inheritance – not simply “sales”.
  • Gun shows include vendors who do not sell guns as well as those who do – but any dealer in firearms must have a federal firearms license regardless of place of sale.

One of the authors of the original study stated that:

“We’ve been following the give-and-take with some interest because our research is the original source of the 40-percent statistic . . . Our views may come as a surprise: First, we don’t know the current percentage – nor does anyone else.”

So if the authors don’t really know, how is it that Mayor Bloomberg, his mouthpiece organizations and the other gun control advocates do?  But more importantly, how shameful it is that a purported “mission” must rely on such dishonesty to recruit support.

:: Pending Firearms Legislation in the South Carolina General Assembly

One of the best bills, H. 3025, has passed the House and now rests in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Several bills purport to address the Charleston tragedy last year – but apparently their sponsors did not read the news accounts very carefully.  None of the proposals would increase agency sharing and reporting which the FBI report indicates as the sole issue.

Here is a quick rundown on what is pending.  The text of the bills can be read in detail by using the “quick search” feature on the legislative website. Continue reading

:: Bloomberg’s Everytown Nevada Study Debunked

Everytown would like to sell the idea in Nevada that allowing the state to insert itself into every gun “transfer” is going to somehow make citizens safer. Such an assertion is, however, a conclusion looking for evidence, not the other way around.

“Shameless Bloomberg’s Sham Studies” America’s First Freedom (February 5, 2016)

The Bloomberg shill organizations are floating a new propaganda study in hopes of confusing the voting public.  Their target this time – online gun sales.  To support new laws prohibiting these sales they offer a new study – which is deeply flawed.

America’s First Freedom breaks down the study in simple terms.

Here’s a sample of Everytown’s methodology: “A small number of sellers offered guns in higher volumes, which Everytown said might mean they were unlicensed dealers.” Hey, Ted, it also might mean they are licensed.

And we must always bear in mind that these studies are manipulated by the usual pack of slick operators:

Everytown for Gun Safety is a political advocacy organization, not an independent, unbiased research entity. The organization is wholly funded by gun-ban billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who also funds the similarly anti-gun Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. The group’s “findings” are not peer-reviewed, and appear in no scientific journals.

The flaws in a nutshell – Continue reading

:: The Law of Concealed “Deadly Weapons” in South Carolina

When it comes to “deadly weapons” the list in South Carolina is shorter than you think.

South Carolina law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed “deadly weapon” – these are weapons “usually used for the infliction of personal injury”.  But the law exempts many items.

For example, the law exempts:

  • rifles,
  • shotguns,
  • dirks,
  • slingshots,
  • metal knuckles,
  • knives, and
  • razors

unless they are used with the intent to commit a crime or in furtherance of a crime.

Note that handguns are not excepted.  More in a future post on this, but open and concealed carry of handguns is strictly regulated in South Carolina.  (Democrats that changed their label to “Republican” such as Senator Larry Martin from Pickens, South Carolina have seen to that.  Don’t like his politics?  Let him know @ http://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=M&C=1172727132)

Nonetheless, a person can carry a concealed weapon upon his own premises.  And a person can also carry under the terms of a handgun concealed weapons permit.

Source:  S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-460. Carrying concealed weapons; forfeiture of weapons.

Note:  Check back for more information when when you CAN carry a handgun in the anti-Second Amendment State of South Carolina.

 

:: Gun Wars – Federal Circuit Courts In Conflict

In April 2013, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act (“FSA”), which, among other things, bans law-abiding citizens, with the exception of retired law enforcement officers, from possessing the vast majority of semi-automatic rifles commonly kept by several million American citizens for defending their families and homes and other lawful purposes.

Plaintiffs raise a number of challenges to the FSA, contending that the “assault weapons” ban trenches upon the core Second Amendment right to keep firearms in defense of hearth and home, that the FSA’s ban of certain larger-capacity detachable magazines (“LCMs”) likewise violates the Second Amendment . . .

In our view, Maryland law implicates the core protection of the Second Amendment—”the right of law-abiding responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), and we are compelled by Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010), as well as our own precedent in the wake of these decisions, to conclude that the burden is substantial and strict scrutiny is the applicable standard of review for Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim. Thus, the panel vacates the district court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims and remands [8]  for the district court to apply strict scrutiny.

Kolbe v. Hogan, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1883, *6-8 (4th Cir. Md. Feb. 4, 2016)

Fresh air.  At last, holding their breath since Heller, Second Amendment advocates have some support in the federal judiciary.

 

Welcome as it is, this opinion is a small foothold.  Hopefully, the opinion will survive the request for, and perhaps granting of en banc review.  Hopefully, the district court will take the hint and applying strict scrutiny, strike Maryland’s law.  And hopefully, the Supreme Court will either decline to hear the likely petition for review – or if taking the case, decide in favor of the Second Amendment.

For now, the Kolbe opinion is a breath of fresh air.  But soon, we must hold our breath again.  Much remains to be decided.

 

:: Gun Control – A Favorite Tool of the Racist Elite

A few years ago someone familiar with statehouse politics said South Carolina will never have open carry because the politicians will never let young black men in Charleston have that right. The next time you talk with a gun control advocate caution them that their views fit well into the historical racist domination of minorities.

Throughout history, oppressors have used gun control to disadvantage minorities. Here is a revealing comment from a Florida Supreme Court opinion during the Jim Crow era:

“I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps.

[T]he Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security.

The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”

Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524 (Fla. 1941)

See also,The Dark Secret of Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control

Well meaning liberals and progressives actually perpetuate this injustice by supporting gun control measures.

Citizens with access to power and those enjoying social privilege will always obtain the necessary permissions to obtain firearms. Those of limited resources will bear the risks imposed by the inability to obtain the means to defend themselves. That is why gun control always works in favor of the elite.

:: Astro Turf Gun Control Group Arrives In South Carolina

Bloomberg’s money is already being spent in the Palmetto State.   Attempting to exploit the Charleston tragedy, true to form for the tasteless style Progressives adopt to effect “change”, they staged a propaganda event at the College of Charleston under the cover of another “public health” initiative.

A perfect combination for mischief here – special interests groups galore with money to burn and an effete collection of  intellectuals.  Paul Johnson said it best: “. . . beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice.”

Of course, all of this taps in heavily to the Charleston shooting by a maniacal disturbed young man, Dylann Roof.  Replicating countless other entities, such as Gun Sense Vermont, we now have a cousin organization which boorishly plays on the Charleston shooting in appeals on its website.

GSSC claims that “nine out of every ten South Carolinians who want background checks on all gun purchases”.  Really?  Ask yourself – if you inherit your father’s shotgun or if you give your son his first deer rifle, do you want a law that requires you to go to a Federal Firearms Licencee (“FFL”) or face fines and jail time?

You see, the polls that these characters cite really ask little more than whether people want to stop criminals from obtaining guns, not whether voters actually favor universal background checks.  Morever, the surveys are conducted by organizations paid by the gun control advocates – so the outcome is never in question.

What they don’t tell you is that the poll questions emphasize claimed benefits from background checks while leaving out the necessity of a gun registry, the fees imposed on gun transfers, and that such rules more often end up barring firearms transfers by law abiding citizens because of bureaucratic errors.

As Thomas Sowell notes “[n]ot since the days of the divine right of kings has there been such a presumption of a right to direct others and constrain their decisions, largely through expanded powers of government.”  Yet, people of common sense know better.  We are not so quick to abandon the Second Amendment, and for that matter, the Bill of Rights that the Progressives want to subvert.

A story from history. It was March 5, 1836.  Spring comes early in southern Texas and signs of new life were everywhere.  But this day found men at the Alamo, some of them quite young, facing the winter of their life.

Col. William Barrett Travis  called his men together.

His words were succinct.  “We must die – our business is not to make a fruitless effort to save our lives, but to choose the manner of our death.”

The story goes that Travis drew his sword and slowly marked a line in the dirt.  “I now want every man who is determined to stay here and die with me to come across this line.”

This is the quality of energy and courage needed to defend liberty in our great State.  Unlike the men at the Alamo, we do not face certain death at the hands of our enemy.  Instead, we fact the slow but sure degradation of our liberties until all that remains is a portion of shared misery.

Mark Twain reputedly said that a lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes. Many sensational lies are being circulated to take away your rights, both under the federal and our State constitution.

Join South Carolina Carry (www.sccarry.org) and work to protect your liberty and that of the generations to come.

 

:: NYT Biased Report On Friedman v. Highland Park

One of the things that the media is very apt to do is fail to research issues related to firearms, particularly in the case of polls and academic studies. The New York Times, frequently given to a spin on the facts if not outright fabrication, has once again engaged in editorial comment in its “news” section.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari in Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 7681 (U.S. Dec. 7, 2015). In layman’s terms, the Court declined to hear the case but without ruling on it one way or the other. In that case, the petitioners sought to have a ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.

The Court may decline to hear a case for many reasons. The reasons are set forth in the Court’s Rules (Rule 10 specifically). One of the most frequent reasons the Court accepts a case is that the case presents a conflict in the opinions of one or more of the 11 Courts of Appeal. In fact, the respondents argued that no conflict had been presented and so the Court should not hear the case and that argument took up all but a scant 2 pages of their brief.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law. Furthermore, the denial of a writ has no value as a legal precedent.

This does not stop the Times from speculation. The Times sees the denial as “part of a series of signals” that give “at least tacit approval” to “even quite strict gun control laws . . .” They then resort to the common journalistic legerdemain of supplying liberal academic opinion in lieu of facts. Professor Winkler opines that “one has to wonder” if the Court is having “second thoughts” about the Second Amendment.

Don’t be misled into thinking that the Court’s decision on the writ denial is anything more than the respondents argued in the first place – a decision based on the lack of conflicts in Circuit Court decisions – which may change when more cases on these laws are litigated.

In the meantime, no Supreme Court precedent has been created on the constitutionality of these bans. They should be robustly challenged in jurisdictions other than the Ninth Circuit (which included California) and the Seventh Circuit (which includes Illinois) which are the only two Circuits to have considered the issue. Furthermore, where State Constitutions permit, they should be challenged under state law as well.