Is This A New Tactic To Stifle The Second Amendment? | Absolute Rights

Is This A New Tactic To Stifle The Second Amendment? | Absolute Rights.

Tactical Firearms Politicians

By Keven Card

We’ve witnessed the IRS targeting of groups at odds politically with the big government agenda of this administration and their allies in Congress. We’ve seen the EPA target the coal industry for discriminatory regulations with the intent of pushing and entire industry out of business. We’ve watched as the U.S. attorney general’s office targeted an American guitar company for using wood they legally purchased. And we believe that in every one of these instances, the government bureaucracy acted for purely political purposes. We’ve even heard the president of the United States state plainly that he’s willing to act administratively to achieve his goals.

So when I heard the story of a Houston-area gun shop owner who suddenly had his loan called in by the bank I have to admit my ears perked. But in this case I remain cautious about jumping to any conclusions. My first thought was the business was mismanaged and the bank was simply foreclosing on a bad client, which turns out not to be true. That’s when the story got interesting.

The owner Jeremy Alcede has been known for irritating the left with the sign just outside his Katy gun shop with statements like “I like my guns like Obama likes his voters undocumented.” This certainly hasn’t won him any fans from the gun control crowd or for that matter, any of the left’s special interest groups.

Tactical Firearms Obama Undocumented

His new sign says “Obama and Icon Bank Trying To End Us On July 1st” because Alcede says, though he’s been in good standing with the bank and has never missed a payment on his loan, the board of directors decided not to renew the loan. On the Tactical Firearms website he claims the bank told them “government does not support loans to the gun, alcohol or hotel industries.”

In the Tactical Firearms case there is another possible explanation too. A member of the board, Mark Evans, is the owner of a new gun shop in Houston, creating a potential conflict of interest. This could explain the vote to call in his loan. But if that’s true, it doesn’t reflect well on Icon Bank, not if that’s how they treat customers in good standing anyway. For this case I’m in the wait for more facts and see what shakes out.

But this isn’t the first time a gun shop has made this claim. According to the Washington Times many gun shops and other business owners have complained about new financial and banking regulations that have unfairly labeled their businesses as high risk and had their loans denied or otherwise restricted.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, posted a report called The Legal Limit Report 4 which outlined 76 “lawless” actions of the Obama administration. Listed at number eight was “Operation Choke Point.” Cruz’s report explains:

Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as ‘ammunition sales.

As we’ve seen many times before with the Obama Administration, when they can’t get what they want through the political process, they seem to use administrative measures to accomplish the same goal.

This, then, raises a question: Is what’s happening with Tactical Firearms part of a nationwide effort aimed at enacting a version of gun control without congressional approval? Given the other exposed scandals that demonstrate this administration’s willingness to strong-arm political opponents and citizens, it seems highly likely that it could be true.

Tactical Firearms Icon Bank.jpg

By simple use of deductive reasoning we can reach some conclusions. The housing crisis was used to create the need for the federal government to step in and bail out many banks and financial institutions. This prompted a political response and Congress passed Dodd-Frank, the financial reform package, which the president hurriedly signed into law in 2010.

This law has led to more stringent regulations on an already burdened industry. Operation Choke Point demonstrates that federal government agencies have gained significant influence on these industries and their decisions, through Dodd-Frank. Given that they could easily encourage (by that I mean through use of force) certain behavior from that industry like restricting loans to unfavorable businesses.

How does that lead to gun control?

Indirect control of guns and ammunition sales, that’s how. By restricting loans to gun shops and ammunition resellers, you dry up their inventory. Without the banks loaning money to this industry they can’t buy bulk inventory; that will cause supply to fall well short of demand, dramatically increasing prices. That pushes the price point higher, and the higher the price, the less people can afford to buy. Through this method of gun control, only the companies that are debt-free will survive the crunch, which serves to further reduce the number of businesses that can operate.

Yes it’ll hurt the economy and put people out of work, but this president and his allies in Washington don’t seemed concerned about jobs as much as they are the fundamental transformation of America.

In a press briefing on June 10,2014, one of the Obama Administrations principle press secretaries, Josh Earnest said unequivocally, “The president’s goal is to look for opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority to try to make our communities safer.” In other words, he’ll use administrative actions to enact some level of gun control.

And he just may have a shot at it by hiding behind the robust regulatory environment in Washington to accomplish that goal. It’ll take an honest media and a boisterous populace to expose this Chicago style political thuggery, or a massive change of the guard in Washington, of which neither is highly probable. What is certain is the political machine in Washington has every intention of trying to thwart the Second Amendment more than they ever have before.

So for those of us who are strong advocates of the Second Amendment, hold on to your hats and stock up on your supplies because you don’t know when the next crisis that leads to another power grab, by this government, will happen. But, my guess is it’ll happen sooner rather than later.

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns? – Thomas Sowell 

availabilityThe gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

397024_4268935677955_1569853995_nThere are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm’s clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state‘s recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting — even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

disarmThese plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don’t know — and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don’t have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one — certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don’t want to be confused by the facts.

9lhvviMost factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither — especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to “make a statement” — but all at the cost of other people’s lives.

 

MILLER: The assault on weapons – Washington Times

MILLER: The assault on weapons – Washington Times.

Liberals pounce on opportunity to water down constitutional rights

By Emily Miller – The Washington Times

Gun grabbers wasted no time exploiting Friday’s shooting in Aurora, Colo., by calling for more restrictive firearm laws. Their liberal agenda is off target because, with U.S. gun ownership at its highest level ever, the public sees crime is way down. This blows a hole in the left’s argument, but it doesn’t stop it.

Despite the House being strongly pro-gun and the Senate marginally so, some Democratic senators want to seize the opportunity to peddle pet legislation. On Tuesday, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey kicked off an effort to reinstate the expired ban on high-capacity magazines. His bill would prohibit the manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds — modern handguns generally hold between 12 and 17. It’s not clear what exactly Mr. Lautenberg would accomplish, unless the government also recalls the 300 million firearms already owned by Americans.

New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg went off the deep end on Monday when he told CNN that police officers across the country should “stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re going to go on strike’” until states pass more gun laws, such as bans on certain kinds of bullets. The billionaire businessman also demanded that presidential candidates soften their stance on gun rights. President Obama is well aware of the political consequences of admitting his true feelings on guns in an election year. To avoid angering his liberal base, Mr. Obama let his spokesman respond on Sunday, off-camera on Air Force One on the way to Aurora. “The president is focused on doing the things that we can do that protect Second Amendment rights, which he thinks is important, but also to make it harder for individuals who should not, under existing law, have weapons to obtain them,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. Mitt Romney was not afraid to say it himself. “I still believe that the Second Amendment is the right course to preserve and defend and don’t believe that new laws are going to make a difference in this type of tragedy,” the Republican presidential candidate told Larry Kudlow on CNBC Monday.

The left also wants to outlaw the purchase of large quantities of ammunition over the Internet. Because James Holmes reportedly had thousands of rounds of ammo, they assume anyone with a similar “stockpile” must be up to no good. As any savvy shopper knows, buying in bulk online is convenient and saves money. Gun owners are no different.

What liberals are really after is not preventing the tragedies that can’t be stopped. Their goal is to create inconvenience so fewer law-abiding citizens turn to guns for protection. They want the public to look to government instead.

Sadly for the left, the unconstitutional speed bumps it has placed before the Second Amendment are being removed slowly. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg lifted a stay, which effectively will force Maryland to drop its policy of arbitrarily denying requests from upstanding citizens seeking concealed-carry permits. Respecting the right to keep and bear arms in this way is the right response.

Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.

LAPIERRE: Gun owners to count at the ballot box – Washington Times

LAPIERRE: Gun owners to count at the ballot box – Washington Times.

Millions will defend the Second Amendment on Election Day

By Wayne LaPierreThe Washington Times

The fight for 2012 is a fight for our country, our values and our freedom, and if the National Rifle Association (NRA) has anything to say about it, Barack Obama won’t get a second term. Mark these words – the NRA and America’s gun owners will have plenty to say about it. President Obama doesn’t want to hear that. He doesn’t want gun owners active in the next election. He doesn’t want to tangle with the NRA’s 4 million members, or with the 30 million people who identify themselves with the NRA, or with America’s 90 million gun owners.

Mr. Obama saw what happened in the 1990s. After the Clinton gun ban was shoved down the throats of Americans, gun owners turned out at the polls in record numbers and Democrats lost control of the House.

Mr. Obama watched the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore campaigned for national gun control. Gun owners made the critical difference in key battleground states, including Arkansas, West Virginia, Mr. Gore’s home state of Tennessee and yes, even Florida.

The Obama administration saw those historic battles and hatched a political conspiracy to deceive Americans and hide its true agenda to dismantle the Second Amendment and our freedom. By delaying its anti-gun legislative agenda, it’s tried to dupe gun owners into believing our fundamental freedom is safe.

The political calculation of the White House is clear: Deceive the voters and get re-elected at all costs and then, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling the Second Amendment and destroying American freedom forever.

I have bad news for President Obama and his advisers. Gun owners aren’t fools – and are not fooled.

NRA members and gun owners see through this Obama conspiracy and know the president has been setting the stage to gut the Second Amendment, quietly and behind the scenes.

“Operation Fast and Furious” was a secret operation no one was ever supposed to find out about. The administration wanted to bolster its claims that straw purchasers in the United States were the cause of Mexican drug cartel violence. So, the Justice Department conspired to allow, encourage and engage in illegal gun-smuggling, knowing full well that those thousands of guns were heading straight to the cartels. They ran a massive campaign out of the Department of Justice and the White House to manipulate the media and public opinion, when they knew the truth all along.

Even now, the administration is stonewalling two congressional investigations. In the midst of the most massive cover-up since Watergate, Mr Obama has ignored calls for a special prosecutor and has refused to order everyone in his administration to come clean and tell the whole truth.

Mr. Obama owns this corrupt operation and cover-up, just as he is responsible for his administration’s efforts to support a United Nations treaty that could severely restrict or effectively ban civilian ownership of firearms worldwide. Apparently, this president has greater regard for the “international community” than he does for one of America’s most fundamental rights.

This is the same president who flaunted and circumvented Congress by pushing the limits of executive order power to impose backdoor gun registration on lawful firearms purchases. More executive orders are no doubt at the ready, amounting to a full-scale regulatory war on the gun rights of every lawful American.

A second Obama term presents a clear and present danger to every gun owner and every American who cares about preserving our most basic freedoms.

For proof, look to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Obama has already appointed two justices. When given the chance, he jumped to put Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan on the bench. These two appointments prove the president’s outright disdain for the Second Amendment.

They are the two most rabidly anti-firearms freedom justices in history. In fact, Justice Sotomayor had to lie to get confirmed. That’s right – she lied under oath – to the United States Senate.

During her confirmation hearings, Justice Sotomayor was questioned about the court’s recent ruling that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental individual right of all law-abiding Americans. Rather than admit her true beliefs and intentions, she dodged the question, telling members of the Senate Judiciary Committee she considered the issue “settled law.”

But after getting on the bench, Justice Sotomayor wasted no time signing on to a freedom-threatening opinion, declaring, “I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental.”

So much for “settled law.”

Mr. Obama’s next appointment, Elena Kagan, used the same scripted “settled law” code during her confirmation hearings – despite her record of hostility to gun owners’ rights from her days in the Clinton administration.

The next president will likely appoint one and perhaps as many as three justices to the Supreme Court. A second Obama term will mark the end of the Second Amendment, as we know it. That is a fact.

Next year will be a fight for the core of our country, for everything that is good and decent about America.

Gun owners are fed up. Americans are sick and tired of the Obama lies, schemes, cover-ups and conspiracies. When our freedom and our values are at stake, we show up. We make a difference at the polls.

Mr. Obama may not hold much account for gun owners and our freedom. But, on Election Day, there will be plenty of our votes to count.

Wayne LaPierre is executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

A look into Obama’s gun grabbing agenda (via The Daley Gator)

Gun control has become a back burner issue. Liberals seldom harp on taking away our guns as they once did. But, despite their new silence, the Left still wants us disarmed. Maggie’s Notebook has a good piece that sheds some light on this Had you forgotten, or perhaps never knew that Barack Obama was director of the “non-profit charitable” Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002? Along with “education,” one of their focuses is gun control which they ch … Read More

via The Daley Gator