NRA FREEDOM: JOIN IT!

THE BILL OF RIGHTS: IT’S YOUR BIRTHRIGHT! THE NRA PRESERVES IT! THE ANTIGUN CROWD WOULD STRIP YOU OF IT! WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITHOUT IT?If you were to ask the average American what the NRA is, you would likely receive, in reply, any one or more of several short descriptive phrases depending on the person’s political bent. Among them might include: defender of the Second Amendment; gun lobby; gun “nuts;” protectors of America’s liberties; shills for the gun manufacturers; cowboys; True American Patriots; Republican benefactors. As with any long-standing, financially powerful entity – whether a company, government agency, political organization, religious or educational institution, to name a few – will have its fair share of supporters and detractors. So it is with the NRA. And, as with any large, successful enterprise, myth and misunderstandings exist concerning it. It is our belief that many of the critics of NRA quite literally don’t know what they are talking about; for, when questioned, they appear generally to know nothing about the organization, its methods, or its goals.So, what is the truth about the NRA and what is myth? Let’s take a look. 

NRA AS ORGANIZATION

Among the true statements, we can start with these:  The National Rifle Association of America – NRA as it is typically known – is a citizen’s organization, a not-for-profit voluntary association that has been around for quite a while. It had its start in 1871, well over one hundred years ago. The NRA was created by two Union officers, Gen. George Wingate and Col. William C. Church. The officers formed the NRA to improve the marksmanship of American troops and to create a renewable pool of expert marksmen for the training of future citizen-troopers – certainly a worthy endeavor – that had been of observably low quality during the Civil War. Through the intervening years the NRA’s original purpose and goal – to improve marksmanship of union soldiers – expanded well beyond the intent of its framers, to embrace a host of worthy activities and functions, including: training and promoting shooting sports among the youth of America; certifying range and safety officers for police and military training; creating programs for the training of law enforcement and hunters; and instituting programs for the training of civilians in the safe and proper use of firearms.  Literally millions of citizens have received training in these programs – all this, apart from the NRA’s creation of specific programs for the training and certification of the police and military.  Moreover, the NRA remains a huge educational institution, delivering “Eddie Eagle” safety training to millions of school age children.

NRA AS DEFENDER OF CITIZENS’ RIGHTS

NRA also defends citizens’ rights. NRA, like the NAACP and similar voluntary citizens associations, provides legal defense funds’ services in crucial cases, to correct injustice and to battle overreaches of the law and overreaches by regulatory agencies. NRA has, in the past, teamed up with the NAACP and ACLU to fight discriminatory regulations that barred legally qualified and upstanding citizens from owning guns – regulations that barred gun ownership and possession by those legally qualified citizens who lived in public housing. NRA also conducts annual seminars for practicing attorneys to keep them up to date on firearms laws and to provide litigation techniques for those attorneys who litigate.

MYTHS ABOUT NRA

Myths abound about NRA as an organization, and they are especially prominent among academic and so-called “elite” journalists – those who are connected with large newspapers and with other major news outlets.  One salient myth revolves around the idea that NRA is THE “Gun Lobby.” This suggests NRA is a sinister, secretive organization that operates merely as an arm for gun manufacturers.  In truth, there is nothing sinister or secretive about it and it isn't an arm of the gun manufacturers. NRA is, rather, a voluntary citizens’ group focused on firearms rights. It is one of many citizens groups focused on firearms rights. How does it differ from other such groups? NRA is merely the oldest and largest among voluntary citizens’ groups focused on firearms rights. It has currently more than five million members who pay dues to belong to NRA. In contrast, academic experts estimate that all of the American antigun groups combined have no more than about 150,000 members total. Consider, too, NAACP, at its height – during the civil rights era of the 1960s – had no more than one million members. Today NAACP has substantially fewer members.  This places things in perspective.But, is NRA shrinking, retreating or otherwise suffering defeat? This is another myth perpetrated by mainstream media. In fact, during a period of time, from about 1968-1970, as American “elites” attempted to impose top-down severe, European-style gun control laws on the American public, NRA has grown from about one million members to its present status: five million dues paying members. This present growth in membership in NRA is occurring at a time when, curiously, membership in voluntary associations – and volunteerism, generally – has declined. Thus, the growth of NRA is indicative of an unprecedented mass mobilization of well-informed citizens, and yet, “elite” newspapers and other “elite” media sources cheer-lead NRA defeat. How can the disparity between fact and false reporting of fact be reconciled? Well, quantitative scientific content analysis of “elite” newspaper coverage of NRA shows that “elite” media were entirely unaware of this growth. Do these reporters live in a different world from that of the rest of us? They certainly seem to be more interested in reporting what they wish to be true than in reporting what is in fact true. Interestingly, the more negative coverage NRA has received the more its membership has grown, as confirmed by the dissertation study of one of the authors (NRA and the Media, Arktos, 2013, Brian Anse Patrick).  “Elite” media have been and continue to be out of touch with reality when it comes to NRA and American Gun Culture generally.  The “elite” media attempts, wrongly, to project a picture of the world it prefers to see rather than describing the world as it is. This is inconsistent with the ethics of journalism and suggests that “elite” media is utilizing propaganda to mold public opinion in a particular direction.  In so doing, “elite” media disparages the very concept of “freedom of the press,” as embraced by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It becomes, instead, a tool of control for those who seek to destroy our sacred Bill of Rights.A corollary to the major myth that NRA is merely an arm of gun manufacturers (the firearms industry) is that the NRA receives all its funding from the firearms industry and, too, that NRA is run by the firearms industry. This myth is fostered by and reinforced by – rather than dispelled by – the “elite” media.

NRA OPERATES TRANSPARENTLY

First, compared with the governance procedures established by other groups, NRA operates much more openly than other organizations and certainly more openly than the antigun groups that so vehemently attack it. And NRA utilizes a democratic process as opposed to an autocratic one. NRA’s numerous life members directly elect its 76-member board of directors. The Board then appoints its executives and functionaries. Contrariwise, antigun groups and some large member organizations, like the AARP, are actually run by small, relatively autocratic cabals. Antigun groups – ever railing against the NRA and insinuating that gun violence in this Country is due to the machinations of the NRA – as if the NRA is or rationally could be responsible for crime and for the criminals and lunatics that cause it – are duplicitous and hypocritical in the extreme. Where antigun groups irrationally call for more and more restrictive gun legislation, NRA calmly reiterates that we ought first to enforce the hundreds of laws we already have on the books. Where antigun groups rail that NRA outspends them, they fail to appreciate that the money NRA has in its coffers comes from the pockets of millions of hard working Americans – and not from secretive PACS or from the checkbooks of a few billionaires who, with the stroke of a pen, handily write checks for millions of dollars to keep these antigun groups afloat – gloating over the tens of millions of dollars they can spend, have spent, have available to spend and will continue to spend to push through ever more restrictive gun laws – until, by sheer weight of numbers – the Second Amendment topples of its own accord – and takes with it – the other nine Amendments as well. Where the NRA has the strength of its conviction – in the form of millions of active members who have a vested interest in preserving their sacred Rights under the Bill of Rights – the antigun groups have empty slogans, slick commercials, and highly paid image makers and media consultants, pressed into the service of Billionaire plutocrats whose real goal is control over the American public – not curbing gun violence. And where the NRA upholds the sanctity of the individual, the antigun groups argue the individual’s needs must ever be subservient to the greater good of the collective will.So, as the NRA derives its funds directly from membership dues and contributions, the complaints of antigun group executive officers’ complaints – as echoed by the “elite” media – of how unfair it is that NRA outspends the antigun groups – rings hollow. After all, NRA members outnumber members of these antigun groups on an order of more than 25 to 1. NRA has a true mass membership. Yet, all the while the public is fed the myth, through the “elite” media, that NRA’s membership is dwindling. And, this notion of a dwindling NRA membership is merely one more incoherent remark.Second, while the membership pool of NRA is deep and extensive, those of the antigun groups are shallow and illusory. Consider, for example, the antigun group, One Million Moms for Gun Control. The Group is essentially spectral – merely a website and media simulation, and those who run it are well hidden from public view.

NRA ISN’T A GUN LOBBY

But, is there any truth at all to the notion as bandied about by the antigun crowd and the “elite” media that NRA is a “Gun Lobby?” No. That’s a common misconception; nothing more than a fabrication of antigun groups that is trumpeted by the “elite” media. How is the term ‘Gun Lobby’ as applied to NRA a misconception? Let’s see. We must take a look at meaning of terms. Well, what is a ‘lobbyist?’ The term ‘lobbyist’ refers to someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.” Extrapolating from that definition, the term ‘lobby,’ is, then, a collection of lobbyists. The terms, ‘lobby’ and ‘lobbyist,’ are often used as words of disparagement. And, when used in that way – to disparage a person or group – the terminology does not define a group but dehumanizes a target population and makes that target population seem less deserving and sympathetic. So, instead of referring to NRA members as a “citizens association,” which is really what it is, the NRA becomes, instead, a non-human, cold, entity – a “lobby,” – which conveys, then, a host of negative connotations, all used to disparage the organization. Calling NRA a “Gun Lobby” – or “THE Gun Lobby” – is to disparage the NRA. This is a typical propaganda technique. The NRA is decidedly not a “lobby,” according to the conventional definition of the word.Yes, the NRA does engage in lobbying activities. But, then, so do other organizations, like the NAACP, AARP and, for that matter, the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” (formerly, “Handgun Control, Inc.”) and many other groups. But, NRA is not a lobby. Now, there are gun lobbies, but the NRA isn’t one of them, if as the antigun groups erroneously maintain, the NRA is a lobbying group for the firearms industry. But firearms manufacturers do organize as trade associations and those associations may operate in part as true “gun lobbies.” But those trade associations and their lobbying arms are not NRA. If one insists on referring to NRA as a lobby at all, then it would be fairer and decidedly more accurate to describe NRA as “the American citizen’s Bill of Rights lobby;” for, politically, NRA represents millions of American citizens in support of citizens’ Bill of Rights – and NRA does this often better than the Legislators who are elected to represent Americans. Even so, as we have shown, NRA does much more than lobby, even as such lobbying activities are for American citizens and even as such lobbying efforts are the most worthy of any lobbying an American organization might engage in – the preservation of our liberties, as embodied in the Bill of Rights.

NRA EXERCISES ITS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Now, here’s a secret the editors and bureau chiefs at mainstream news publishers like New York Times and similar news organizations have yet to learn: the main reason NRA is so powerful is because of NRA’s principled application of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to the defense of the Second.  NRA advances the case for the individual right, natural law meaning of the Second Amendment by the effective application of the social action schematic established by the First Amendment. Mainstream journalists who attack NRA – who see themselves as enshrined and elevated in the social hierarchy above those who write for weblogs – often using disparaging phrases like, “gossip mongers” and “tellers of tales” when referring to weblog writers – clearly see themselves as distinctly superior to other news writers, believing, apparently, that the word, ‘press,’ as it appears in the First Amendment, only applies to them. These mainstream news journalists don’t seem to note the irony in their remarks. For, it’s the weblogs that, all too often, provide real news; and it’s the mainstream media that fills the print medium and the airwaves with false news – mere propaganda – false news that aims to mold public thought and opinion rather than create a neutral platform upon which the American citizen might exercise his own critical faculties to discern the truth.And what are the First Amendment guarantees for Americans? The First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to voluntarily associate, free of any system of beliefs established by government; the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to discuss, promote and publish their ideas; the First Amendment guarantees to all Americans the fundamental right to peacefully petition government officials and representatives for needed change.  The Founders of our Republic did not intend for “the press” to function as a propaganda implement – an institution to be operated by a privileged few in order to gain control everyone else. But, this is what the “press” qua “mainstream media” has become – a mechanism of control.  This mechanism of control comprises a slew of mass media professionals, employed by plutocrats, who give these “professional journalists” one salient task: brainwash the American citizenry. And these “professional journalists” do so with impunity, in accordance with their masters’ dictates. That is most unfortunate. However, what is fortunate is that a person need not have a license to practice the craft of journalism. In that respect journalism is unlike the professions of law or medicine. And that truly is fortunate.Today, the twin freedoms: freedom of the press + freedom of speech give the People a voice – a voice that provides the People with a counterweight to the lies perpetrated by those that think “freedom of the press” applies only to an institution – an institution they control, an institution under the sway of a privileged few – a privileged few that seeks, through their control of the “press,” the means to amass ever more power and authority for themselves at the expense of the American citizenry. And, with that power, these privileged few seek to control the lives of the many.

NRA SAFEGUARDS OUR REPUBLIC

The role for voluntary associations such as NRA in the healthy democratic social order is therefore not only important, it is vital to the safeguarding of the Republic as envisioned by the Founders and as etched in stone in that Republic’s Bill of Rights. NRA is above all an informational node. It publishes magazines, hosts websites and webcasts news services that have millions of subscribers. It provides information to lawmakers and policymakers.  It dispenses educational information to students, citizens and firearm safety trainers. It targets information and makes it available where it will do the most good. It promotes meetings and democratic discussion, both in its national seminars, but also in it alliances and affiliations with numerous local and State associations. Without this sort of small and local group structure that allows immediate and small group discussion between equals – there is no effective democracy and our Republic falls. The historical roots of American Gun Culture and NRA go together seamlessly. They work so very well because they infuse the very power of democratic ideas, information, reasoned discussion and participation. The American citizenry is empowered to join in as true participants, not merely as passive observers of distant events, staged by “their betters” – the plutocrats in Washington.  This makes for a true democratic society. For, it is the American citizenry that sets the agenda – an agenda that serves the American citizenry’s interests. This paradigm is not only to be preferred, it is essential. For, if it is the plutocrats in Washington who set the agenda – then, the agenda envisioned will serve the interests of a few, and those interests do not extend to preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Those interests do not extend to preserving the Bill of Rights at all. Those interests do not extend to maintaining a democratic Republic. Rather, that agenda is focused on negating all rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights. When it comes to Informational Democracy, NRA not only better serves the citizenry – as it is the American citizenry that has an essential role in and takes an active part in the functioning of the NRA – the NRA’s interests coincide with and embrace the very preservation of and strengthening of the Second Amendment upon which the other Nine Amendments remain secure. Knowledge is Power. The NRA provides the public with the truth concerning the American citizen’s rights under the U.S. Constitution. So, it stands to reason that the forces that seek to crush the U.S. Constitution would seek to undermine the ability of NRA to proffer truth to the American public.

WHY IS NRA THE FOCUS OF ATTACK?

NRA is a threat to the plutocrats because NRA exposes the plutocrats’ lies and their disruptive goals to the American people. Now the plutocrats who seek to control the American citizenry cannot – at least at this time – directly attack the NRA because an attack against NRA’s principals is an attack against the Bill of Rights.  They cannot overtly take umbrage with NRA’s assertion that NRA wishes to protect a sacred cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. So, what do they do? They attack the NRA not-so-obliquely through caustic remarks such as: the NRA only wants to sell guns; the NRA is against sensible gun control laws; the NRA lobbies on behalf of gun manufacturers and not on behalf of Americans; and the NRA isn’t serious about reducing gun violence in America. Implicit in these remarks, and others like them, is the notion that the NRA’s primary purpose and function – its modern day raison d’etre, is political influence and legislative action. If so, why is that?Now, it’s certainly true the NRA operates in the political arena, albeit that isn’t its only reason for its existence in the 21^st Century. But the NRA’s political operation isn’t something its members or officers had originally sought to do or wished to do. Rather, the NRA was reluctantly compelled to enter the political arena by groups that are themselves politically motivated and, in fact, have no reason to exist other than to defeat the Second Amendment and by extension – to defeat the greatest protector of the Second Amendment – the NRA.

THE MYRIAD THREADS OF NRA COME TOGETHER

If there is a central theme running through the myriad marksmanship and training programs offered and sponsored by the NRA, that theme is reflected in this assertion, as presented prominently on the NRA website: “The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. We’re proud defenders of history’s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.”

WHENCE THE ANTIGUN GROUPS?

Curiously, the antigun lobbies and PACS, unlike the NRA, which is well over one century old, are of recent vintage. One of the oldest, “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence,” is only 40 years old, as it proudly trumpets its 40^th Anniversary on its website. Another, “The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence” is scarcely 14 years old. “The Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence” is but one and one-half years old – a baby. And, another group, “the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence” that started in 1973, is 40 years old. Perhaps the most famous – or infamous organization – is “the Brady Campaign to Prevent Handgun Violence.” It started in 1974 as the “National Committee to Control Handguns.”One begins to see a curious theme here. Most of these antigun groups had their start in the 1970s. Was this just happenstance, or was there another hand at work here, mapping out strategies to undermine and destroy the Second Amendment? Furthermore, while these groups all claim that the greater threat to civility in this Country is the “Gun Lobby,” code for the NRA – as that is how these groups prefer to call the NRA, as we’ve seen – one can see as well that it’s the antigun groups themselves that, truly, are nothing more than lobbying arms and politically motivated action committees for the plutocrats. And that’s all they are. These groups, as fronts for cabals of powerful forces both within the Country and outside it, realize that, in order to undercut the Second Amendment, it is necessary to defeat the NRA. So, the NRA, on behalf of millions of Americans, who wish nothing more than to secure their rights under the Bill of Rights – and that means securing all Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment – was compelled, reluctantly, to enter the political arena – to become a political force – a considerable political force – to be reckoned with in its own right.

MYTH AND TRUTH PLAY OUT

So, on balance, we see truth and myth played out. The NRA’s goals are straightforward and virtuous: to preserve and protect the integrity of the Second Amendment. Contrariwise, the myriad antigun groups, springing up virtually at the same time – during the 1970s – have had and, today, continue to have, one goal: the destruction of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. That is their salient aim. That is their reason for being. And, in that singular disingenuous pursuit, they have operated as and they continue to operate as top-down propaganda campaigns, financed by plutocrats and ideologues.The one force that can and has stopped them is the NRA. These groups know it, and American citizens know it. The question is: who or what is behind these antigun groups? It is obvious that the stated purpose of these political groups – to prevent gun violence – is nothing more than a blind. We already have hundreds of so-called commonsense gun laws: laws banning felons, the violent and the mentally ill from possessing or purchasing guns. We also have background checks. But, the plutocrats, through their antigun front groups, constantly scream for more. Obviously, it isn’t violent crimes with guns that motivate these plutocrats, even if the dupes who do their bidding buy into the lies propagated.  Many of the anti-gunners seem to believe in absolute centralized governmental power, and that all rights do spring from and are distributed by government. This idea is an anathema to the founders of the Republic and inconsistent with the principles of Liberty as set in stone in our sacred Bill of Rights. These people believe it anyway. These people obviously have no use for the idea of natural inalienable rights. And the puppet masters who pull their strings want to pull yours as well.  They wish to dictate behavior for all Americans. And in that process, they want to destroy your Rights.

WHAT, THEN, MUST WE DO TO CURB THE EROSION OF OUR RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

Most Americans understand the nature of this danger lurking in shadows, the nature of the danger hidden in the seemingly benign call for purported “commonsense gun laws” – laws that in their very mode of expression – in their very essence – do nothing but erode the citizen’s basic freedoms, independence, personal autonomy: erode the sanctity and inalienable right of each individual American to be individual.Americans must fight these false flag groups at every turn. There is power in information and in knowledge, and in a true civil society. The NRA is our best ally in that effort. The NRA is your best ally in that effort. Whether you have a gun in your possession or not is unimportant. And, it’s unimportant whether you care ever to purchase a gun. What is important – what is critical to the existence of our Democratic Republic – is the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights must be preserved – indeed strengthened – at every turn. The Bill of Rights consists of Ten Amendments. The NRA’s efforts preserve and protect all of them – not just the Second Amendment. And, your membership dollars is an investment in the preservation of the Bill of Rights – all ten of them. So, the next time you feel that one week’s worth of café lattes at Starbucks is more important to your personal well-being than the cost of an annual membership in the NRA, recall that thought as you wake up one morning and read in the newspaper that the Bill of Rights has been preempted by Federal Statute, International Pacts and Treaties, and Presidential Executive Orders and Signing Statements. Those café lattes will probably taste a tad bitter.Keep in mind, by giving NRA a few dollars you’re not doing NRA a favor. NRA is doing you a favor! America’s Bill of Rights is uniquely American. It’s your birthright. Don’t let anyone take your Birthright from you! Support the NRA! Join now![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Brian Anse Patrick, Ph.D., Professor, University of Toledo All Rights Reserved.

OF CHAINSAWS AND GUNS

Let’s start with four axioms.1)  Sensory data give rise to perceptions. 2) Perceptions form beliefs. 3) Beliefs create urges. 4) Urges compel action.Keep these four axioms in mind as you read through the following two thought experiments.

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT ONE

Let’s say you never heard of the word, ‘chainsaw.’ Still, the word comprises two separate words you’re familiar with: ‘chain’ and ‘saw.’ You have an understanding of chains and saws and conclude a “chainsaw” combines a “saw” and “chain” in some manner. But, you don’t know its purpose and want to know. You see a film. It’s about lumberjacking. You learn a chainsaw is a useful tool. You’d like to develop lumberjacking skills, and you sign up for a course. Among the skills taught, you learn how to properly use and store a chainsaw. You’re aware a chainsaw is dangerous if used improperly. You recognize its dangers and understand its utility. You assess risks and benefits and decide to buy one. You are willing to take responsibility for it. As an autonomous individual, living in a free society, no one forbids you from owning or possessing it.Soon, thereafter, the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a maniac has gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with it. Individuals form grassroots groups to combat this new evil -- the chainsaw.  The organizations mobilize. They contact legislators. The legislators contact the newspapers and TV outlets. No one can watch TV or read newspapers without coming across articles about the horror of chainsaws. Politicians call for a ban. They write bills. Bills become laws. To own a chainsaw you must first obtain a license. Only police departments can issue licenses. You must pay a fee for the license. Once issued, you can buy a chainsaw. Some chainsaws are outlawed. Chainsaws must have certain dimensions. Battery powered or electric powered chainsaws are legal. Gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. If you lawfully bought a gasoline powered chainsaw prior to the law banning them, you may keep it, but you must register it; and you have one year from the enactment date to do so, else you lose it. Disqualifications exist. Anyone convicted of a felony or a serious misdemeanor is disqualified. Anyone who’s under the care of a mental health worker is disqualified. Anyone who has ever taken antidepressants is disqualified. And anyone involved in a family dispute or disturbance is disqualified. If you own a chainsaw, the public looks at you oddly; you’re a potential threat to the “public order.”The politicians gauge public opinion. The public outcry for bans on chainsaws subsides. But, that’s not good. Politicians work with the mainstream media to keep the public focused on chainsaws. They enlist the aid of “experts” and think tanks to write on the evil of chainsaws. They silently, secretly hope another incident involving chainsaws occurs. And another incident involving chainsaws does occur. Newspapers write articles anew. News anchors comment. Legislators amend existing laws further restricting chainsaws. They incorporate new definitions for chainsaws. All chainsaws are equal -- equally bad. But, some chainsaws are worse than others. Under the old law -- the public recalls -- all gasoline powered chainsaws are illegal. Politicians realize they can’t ban all chainsaws outright. Many citizens own them. Millions exist, including gasoline powered chainsaws. Since politicians have already banned gasoline powered chainsaws, they write laws to ban a few more kinds of chainsaws. They come up with an expression to describe the worst sort of chainsaws. They categorize those chainsaws under the expression ‘assault saws.’ The mainstream news media begins to use the expression 'assault saws' when describing the worst chainsaws. The name, 'assault saws,' as predicted, catches on. “Assault saws” are illegal. The anti-chainsaw zealots create slogans and chants: "Get rid of 'assault saws;'" "commonsense chainsaw laws we can live with;" "chainsaw owners for commonsense laws;" "commonsense chainsaw laws save lives;" and, "a reasonable compromise on chainsaw control." As time passes, politicians include more chainsaws under the rubric, ‘assault saws.’The police keep a watchful eye on those persons who have bought ‘assault saws’ lawfully prior to the new laws. Now, you, of course, happen to own an ‘assault saw.’ You had purchased it lawfully before the ban took effect. Still you feel harassed by the laws. You’ve never felt depressed or anxious; suddenly you do. You decide to get rid of your ‘assault saw.’ You feel the fuss over chainsaws is unfounded. But, holding onto it is not worth the aggravation. You turn it into the local police department. The police department decides to keep it and uses it to build a new precinct. After all, why destroy a perfectly good chainsaw?

THOUGHT EXPERIMENT TWO

The fact pattern here is the same as in “Thought Experiment One” with a slight twist.You see a film. It’s not about lumberjacking. It’s a horror film, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” The film concerns a maniac who hacks innocent persons to pieces with a “chainsaw.” The film leaves you physically ill. Of course, that’s the film’s purpose. That’s the purpose of “slasher” films. Months later, you go to a home improvement store and happen across shelves of chainsaws. You feel unaccountably ill and, at first, you don’t know why. But, then, you dimly recall images of chainsaws and maniacs and bloodied bodies. You wonder why a person would want a chainsaw or need one other than to commit a horrific crime with it – and you give the matter no more thought until the word ‘chainsaw’ crops up in news reports. You learn a lunatic has actually gone on a rampage and murdered several persons with a chainsaw. You’d never buy a chainsaw and wish no one would have access to them. You surmise: if someone believes he needs a chainsaw, he can buy a hand saw. That’s sufficient. You wish that Congress or the States would outlaw chainsaw ownership altogether.

ARE CHAINSAWS EVIL?

The terms, ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ apply to persons, not things. Yet, the public tends to ascribe those terms to inanimate objects. The mainstream media, consisting of TV, radio, newspapers, and the like, create a perception in the mind of the viewer or reader; and that perception molds belief.Beliefs are true or false. According to one theory of truth, if beliefs correspond or cohere to facts, they’re true; if not they’re false. The mainstream media seeks to create, mold, and alter public perception. That media, working in concert with, and likely at the direction of politicians and secretive cabals, isn’t concerned about truth. It works in lockstep with those individuals, groups and cabals to engineer deception. The goal is control over the masses.

THE PURPOSE OF THE “THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS”

The thought experiments provide a glimpse into how perceptions are created and how perceptions are reinforced. We are talking about how sensory data serves to create impressions in one’s mind. And we are, of course, alluding to guns. The thought experiments describe how one’s experiences impact one’s views about guns and how the SAFE Act of 2013 came to be. We are also alluding to the mainstream media’s collusion with politicians and antigun groups to foment confusion over and erroneous beliefs about guns.The mainstream media isn’t interested in providing news about the world as it is but on relaying information to produce a false image about the world it wishes the public to see. That world view posits guns as dangerous entities, having no positive use or benefit to an individual. That world view posits guns as evil – an absurd notion. For, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are moral concepts, properly ascribed, as previously stated, to persons, not to things. That world view posits guns as difficult for the average person to master. That world view posits guns as inherently and irrefutably dangerous. That world view posits guns as serving no tangible, societally acceptable purpose. That world view posits guns as anachronistic. That world view posits guns as incompatible with notions of decency and respectability. These ideas are all false or meaningless. The mainstream media feeds them to the public anyway.What’s behind the feeding of false data to the public? What’s behind the deception? What’s behind the desire to create – in the mind of the public – a set of false beliefs about the world? At the moment, we can only speculate. But, that it’s occurring at all is abundantly clear.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.________________________

BLOOMBERG'S ON THE RECORD: CONFISCATION OF ALL HANDGUNS

NY Times writer, Jeremy W. Peters, followed up his April 15, 2014 Article, “Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A.,” with an Article on April 16, titled, “An Ex-Mayor, in His Own Words.” www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/opinion/Bloomberg discusses gun control.In the April 16 Article Michael Bloomberg lays bare the extent of his rage against the Second Amendment. He says, “You have to be careful if there’s two issues you care about . . . what do you do? And I think you’ve got to pick your issue. In our case, my case, it’s guns. I care very much about immigration. But guns are the No. 1 thing. So I’ve got a senator who’s running for re-election. He’s terrible on guns but good on immigration. I’m going after him. That’s it.” After three consecutive mayoral terms, Bloomberg’s new reason for being is this: destroy the Second Amendment. Other concerns are secondary.In the April 15 NY Times Article Bloomberg gives us his strategy. It belies his true intent. “The strategy will focus not on sweeping federal restrictions to ban certain weapons, but instead will seek to expand the background check system for gun buyers both at the state and national levels.” Bloomberg is evasive. The strategy is stopgap. Bloomberg’s fanatical aim remains unchanged. He seeks to remove civilian access to firearms. This becomes clear in the April 16 NY Times Article. In that Article Bloomberg adds, “you can have a ban on assault weapons. But assault weapons kill 400 people a year. They get a lot of press. But its 400 vs. 31,000 with handguns.” “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” These statements hint at Bloomberg’s real intent: further confiscation of firearms.Bloomberg doesn’t cite authority to support his claims. But the assertions are still doubtful. Let us assume Bloomberg’s statistics are true. If Bloomberg is referring to homicides, he shouldn’t target guns, but, rather, criminal use of guns. Bloomberg doesn’t do that. He conflates issues. All antigun zealots do. Bloomberg does so because his goal is not to see a fall in crime. It’s gun confiscation. If both an armed public and bold criminal statutes are the best solution to a fall in crime, Bloomberg, likely, would still prefer gun confiscation to an to an armed public and bold criminal statutes. If so, the issue of gun violence is simply a “blind” to distract the public from the true issue: gun confiscation.Second, Bloomberg gives us a straw man argument to knock down. The argument may go like this: No sane, responsible person wishes to see an innocent child harmed. Dangerous items in homes are threats to children. Responsible parents do not keep dangerous items in their homes. Guns are by nature dangerous items. Since a sane, responsible parent doesn’t want to see a child harmed by guns, no rational and responsible parent would keep a gun in the house.The straw man is Bloomberg’s claim that gun owners with children are irrational and irresponsible. The idea is absurd but it goes to the central belief of all antigun zealots: gun owners are irrational, erratic and irresponsible. Of course, Bloomberg begs the question: is a law-abiding, adult who wishes to defend home and family with a firearm, irresponsible and irrational for wishing to do so? Bloomberg says, “of course.” He takes this as a given – true beyond need for proof. But, many items are potentially dangerous. Take a look at contents of a medicine cabinet, cutlery in the kitchen, power tools in the garage.Clearly, the precautions one takes with dangerous items are what’s important, not the items themselves. Keep in mind, Bloomberg wished to ban firearms that New York law defines as “assault weapons.” After all, he signed the NY SAFE Act into law. The NY SAFE Act’s signature feature is a ban on “assault weapons.” Next, Bloomberg aims to ban all handguns. That’s implied in his statement, “I think having a gun at home when you have children is really dumb.” Had Bloomberg served a fourth Mayoral term, he likely would’ve banned handguns under NY SAFE. And he wouldn’t have stopped there. He aims to ban all guns. Will New York City’s current Mayor, Bill de Blasio extend NY SAFE? We’ll wait and see.Bloomberg’s handgun comment is odd and outrageous for a third reason. Bloomberg has the nerve to reassert the D.C. handgun ban the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Bloomberg condemns possession of handguns even for self-defense in one’s home. But, that assertion directly contradicts a key Supreme Court holding in Heller.The Supreme Court stated clearly: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Notably, the Supreme Court didn’t qualify those homeowners entitled to use firearms for self-defense: families with children versus families sans children. By arguing anew a ban on handguns Bloomberg is ignoring a principal holding of the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s denying the rule of law, holding himself as a king, and deciding destiny for our Country.In fact, Bloomberg’s antigun agenda is more ambitious than that designed by District of Columbia politicians. For Bloomberg has not suggested banning handguns only in New York. So, Bloomberg’s goal of gun confiscation goes well beyond the total handgun ban the District of Columbia passed for itself. Clearly, Bloomberg won’t rest until he sees a total ban on firearms. His goal is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.Systematic rejection of our sacred “Bill of Rights” is, it seems, the endgame of Billionaire internationalists. For them, the United States Constitution is too old. The internationalists want to draft a new Constitution for us, absent a “Bill of Rights” – a Constitution for the “21st Century.” They want one compatible with their geopolitical and economic policies and objectives. The notion of individual liberties as set forth in our “Bill of Rights” does not fit with those policies and objectives. So, the billionaire internationalists want a constitution belittling our unique heritage – a Constitution homogenous with those of other Western Nations. I’m sure Bloomberg has some interesting ideas for us.[separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"] Copyright © 2014 Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) and Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

NY SAFE: REGISTERING "ASSAULT WEAPONS"

“What The Law-Abiding New York Firearms’ Owner Must Know About Governor Andrew Cuomo’s NYSAFE Act”

SUMMARY

In my previous post I laid out the NYSAFE Act definitions of ‘assault weapon,’ and I showed how they work. I pointed out that you should think of “assault weapons” as categories, not gun types. NYSAFE mentions four major categories of “assault weapons” and not three: one for rifles, one for pistols and two for shotguns. I also pointed out two more categories that I call quasi-categories. The two quasi-categories are important. They are important to New York firearms owners who have firearms NYSAFE defines as “assault weapons.” Firearms owners who lawfully have firearms that NYSAFE calls “assault weapons” now have to register those weapons. I discuss the two quasi-categories of assault weapons in this post. I then discuss registration. Let’s begin.

THE TWO QUASI-CATEGORIES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS

Two categories of assault weapon appear in Section 37 of NYSAFE and aren't commonly discussed. But they are important. They are legitimate categories. They appear in Section 37 of NYSAFE. And they look like "assault weapon categories" but they seem redundant. So I call them quasi-categories. I’ll first give you the language of the Act. I’ll second, discuss these two quasi-categories.

SECTION 37(E) (QUASI-CATEGORY FIVE): RIFLES, PISTOLS AND SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in subparagraph (v) of paragraph (e) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265.00 of this Chapter as added by chapter one hundred eighty-nine of the laws of two thousand and otherwise lawfully possessed pursuant to such Chapter of the laws of two thousand prior to September fourteenth, nineteen hundred ninety-four.”

SECTION 37(F) (QUASI-CATEGORY SIX): RIFLES, PISTOLS AND SHOTGUNS THAT ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS

“‘Assault weapon’ means a semiautomatic rifle, a semiautomatic shotgun or a semiautomatic pistol or weapon defined in paragraph (A), (B) or (C) of this subdivision, possessed prior to the date of enactment of the Chapter of the laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph.”

WHAT DO THESE QUASI-CATEGORIES SAY?

They tell New York owners they have guns now banned under NYSAFE. Section 37(E) refers to firearms laws of 2000 that classified certain firearms as assault weapons – weapons that New Yorkers lawfully had before September 14, 1994. And Section 37(F) refers to NYSAFE. NYSAFE creates new definitions for assault weapons. Section 37(F) says those weapons New Yorkers lawfully had before 2013 are banned firearms. Other Sections of NYSAFE place checks on their continued use. Section 37 (H) of NYSAFE restricts the transfer of assault weapons. And Section 48 of NYSAFE, Subdivision 16, lays out the steps for keeping them.

WHAT DO THESE QUASI-CATEGORIES MEAN?

Sections 37 (E) and (F) of NYSAFE are “grandfather” or “exemption” sections. Since “assault weapons” are illegal, New York residents can no longer lawfully get them. New York residents who had them before the firearms laws of 2000 or before the firearms laws of 2013 -- NYSAFE -- are subject to constraints to keep or transfer them.I have discussed firearms transfers in an earlier post. I'll have more to say about transfers in a later post. But, for now, let’s look at Section 48 of NYSAFE. Section 48 talks, in part, about registration of “assault weapons.”

REGISTRATION OF “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

Section 48 Subdivisions 16-A and 16-B of NYSAFE are codified in Section 400 of the Penal Code of New York. These are the registration Subdivisions of Section 48 of NYSAFE you need to know. I first give you the express language of Subdivisions 16-A and 16-B. I then explain important parts.

SUBDIVISION 16-A HAS THREE SUBSECTIONS.

“Registration. (A) An owner of a weapon defined in paragraph (E) or (F) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265 of this Chapter, possessed before the date of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, must make an application to register such weapon with the superintendent of the State Police, in the manner provided by the Superintendent, or by amending a license issued pursuant to this Section within one year of the effective date of this subdivision except any weapon defined under subparagraph (VI) of paragraph (G) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265.00 of this Chapter transferred into the State may be registered at any time provided such weapons are registered within thirty days of their transfer into the State. Registration information shall include the registrant’s name, date of birth, gender, race, residential address, social security number and description of each weapon being registered. A registration of any weapon defined under subparagraph (VI) of paragraph (G) OF SUBDIVISION TWENTY-TWO OF Section 265.00 or a feeding device as defined under subdivision twenty-three of Section 265.00 of this Chapter shall be transferable, provided that the seller notifies the State Police within seventy-two hours of the transfer and the buyer provides the State Police with information sufficient to constitute a registration under this Section. Such registration shall not be valid if such registrant is prohibited or becomes prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to State or Federal Law. The Superintendent shall determine whether such registrant is prohibited from possessing a firearm under State or Federal Law. Such check shall be limited to determining whether the factors in 18 USC 922 (G) apply or whether a registrant has been convicted of a serious offense as defined in subdivision Sixteen-B of Section 265.00 of this Chapter, so as to prohibit such registrant from possessing a firearm and whether a report has been issued pursuant to Section 9.46 of the Mental Hygiene Law. All registrants shall recertify to the Division of State Police every five years thereafter. Failure to recertify shall result in a revocation of such registration.” “(B) The Superintendent of State Police shall create and maintain an internet website to educate the public as to which semiautomatic rifle, semiautomatic shotgun or semiautomatic pistol or weapon that are illegal as a result of the enactment of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand and thirteen which added this paragraph, as well as such assault weapons which are illegal pursuant to Article two hundred sixty five of this Chapter. Such website shall contain information to assist the public in recognizing the relevant features proscribed by such Article two hundred sixty-five, as well, as which make and model of weapons that require registration.” “(C) A person who knowingly fails to apply to register such weapon as required by this Section, within one year of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this Paragraph shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and such person who unknowingly fails to validly register such weapon within such one year period shall be given a warning by an appropriate law enforcement authority about such failure and given thirty days in which to apply to register such weapon or to surrender it. A failure to apply or surrender such weapon within such thirty day period shall result in such weapon being removed by an appropriate law enforcement authority and declared a nuisance.”

SUBDIVISION 16-B HAS NO SUBSECTIONS.

Subdivision 16-B says: “The Cost of the software, programming and interface required to transmit any record that must be electronically transmitted by the dealer or licensing officer to the Division of State Police pursuant to this Chapter shall be borne by the State.”

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS

Let’s examine the Law.To keep an “assault weapon” you must register it. But first decide if it’s an “assault weapon.” In my previous post, I gave you tests for examining your firearms. If you aren’t sure, err on the side of caution. Register it.I’ll assume here you’ve examined your firearms. If you don’t have “assault weapons,” you needn’t worry. Section 48, Subdivision 16 of NYSAFE applies only to “assault weapons.” Assuming you have “assault weapons,” Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (A) says in part: “An owner of a weapon defined in paragraph (E) or (F) of subdivision twenty-two of Section 265 of this Chapter, possessed before the date of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this paragraph, must make an application to register such weapon with the Superintendent of the State Police, in the manner provided by the Superintendent.”This Subdivision passed on April 15, 2013, so you have until April 15, 2014 to “make application to register such weapon.” Forms are available on line, or you can contact the Superintendent of State Police at: “New York State Police, Pistol Permit Bureau, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22, Albany, New York 12226-2252.” Keep in mind, the State Police alone handles this. Registration is the responsibility of the Superintendent of State Police because NYSAFE says so. Don’t go to any other New York Police Department to register your "assault weapons."

SUPPOSE YOU FAIL TO TIMELY REGISTER YOUR ASSAULT WEAPONS.

Subdivision 16 of NYSAFE applies only to “assault weapons.” Assuming you have “assault weapons,” Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (C) says: “A person who knowingly fails to apply to register such weapon as required by this Section, within one year of the effective date of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand thirteen which added this Paragraph shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor and such person who unknowingly fails to validly register such weapon within such one year period shall be given a warning by an appropriate law enforcement authority about such failure and given thirty days in which to apply to register such weapon or to surrender it. A failure to apply or surrender such weapon within such thirty day period shall result in such weapon being removed by an appropriate law enforcement authority and declared a nuisance.” If you “knowingly” fail to timely “register such weapon or surrender it,” “you shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.” NYSAFE says you’ll lose that weapon. But, you’ll likely lose more. You’ll lose your pistol license and long arm permit. That means you’ll lose all your firearms if you knowingly fail to register your assault weapons.

DO NOT IGNORE “ASSAULT WEAPON” REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS!

In N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n vs. Cuomo, 2013 WL 6909955 (W.D.N.Y. 2013) the Federal Court ruled essentially for Defendant Cuomo, for the validity of NYSAFE. The Court found “the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.” Unless the Plaintiff-Appellant can get a reversal of the District Court’s decision on appeal or the New York State Legislature repeals the Act, NYSAFE is valid law. Don’t ignore NYSAFE!

A QUESTION ABOUT SECTION 48 SUBDIVISION 16-A (B) OF NYSAFE

Section 48, Subdivision 16-A (B) of NYSAFE says in part: “The Superintendent of State Police shall create and maintain an internet website to educate the public as to which semiautomatic rifle, semiautomatic shotgun or semiautomatic pistol or weapon that are illegal as a result of the enactment of the Chapter of the Laws of two thousand and thirteen which added this paragraph, as well as such assault weapons which are illegal pursuant to Article two hundred sixty five of this Chapter.” As I have mentioned in an earlier post, Section 37(D) of NYSAFE says that revolving cylinder shotguns are “assault weapons.”  Revolving cylinder shotguns are not semiautomatics.  Section 37 of NYSAFE clearly calls some non-semiautomatic firearms “assault weapons.” If you have a revolving cylinder shotgun, it isn’t a semiautomatic. But, Section 37 of NYSAFE says it is an “assault weapon.” So, Subdivision 16-A (B) of Section 48 of NYSAFE isn’t consistent with Section 37 of NYSAFE because Subdivision 16-A (B) suggests that semiautomatics alone may be “assault weapons.” And that's wrong. Various parts of NYSAFE are vague, ambiguous and internally inconsistent. So be careful![separator type="medium" style="normal" align="left"margin-bottom="25" margin_top="5"]

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) All Rights Reserved.

“Brady” Antigun Group Tries Once Again to Dupe the American Public with New Campaign to Expand Background Checks

The antigun mob recognizes defeat even as it vows to “finish the job to expand effective Brady background checks.”This past Friday, February 28, 2014, Dan Gross, President of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” kicked off another disturbingly familiar and familiarly distasteful campaign to destroy the Second Amendment: this one, so Dan Gross states, marks the 20th Anniversary of the “Brady Bill.” Gross stood at the podium at the U.S. Capital Visitor Center, looking morally smug, cultivating a practiced air of quiet self-confidence. His hair was carefully coiffed, his suit finely tailored. A political action button was affixed to the lapel of his jacket. The button read: “Finish the Job.” The usual “props” stood behind Gross: police “brass” in full regalia, stone-faced and humorless. No doubt they were invited to the news gathering to lend critical weight to the entire inane proceeding. Civilians, pensive and shy, stood just off camera. House Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat, California, Chair of the “House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force” and cosponsor of HR 1565, the “Enhanced Background Check” Bill, appeared at the CSPAN newscast, seemingly magically, just moments before each was scheduled to speak – their presence, like that of the police “brass, a naked attempt to give weight to the entire ignoble show.After Gross delivered the opening salvo, the civilians marched to the podium one by one, struggling to maintain composure, hesitantly, plaintively talking through the microphone. Clutching photographs of deceased family members, they related personal tales of woe. Their intent was plain and unapologetically emotive: to spread their personal misery around for the Public at large to experience. Their message was clear and terse: lunatics and psychopathic criminals use guns to kill innocent people. No kidding! Lunatics and psychopaths also use knives and hatchets and anything else available to create mayhem, including their hands and feet. Dan Gross praised these people for having the “courage” to step forward. But, was it courage that motivated these people to step forward or was it a phone call or personal visit from “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?” These antigun groups are shameless. They see in these sad souls a useful political trick – “Appeal to Sympathy” – to motivate the American Public to their un-American cause.This new campaign, calling for enhanced background checks, was noticeably restrained, almost melancholic, unsure of itself: this time, no flamboyant rhetoric about getting rid of guns;” no boisterous, holier-than-thou outrage directed at the NRA; no overt attack on Americans who support the unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Is this a new approach of the antigun coalitions? A new tactic? Talk was deliberate and measured. The antigun groups remembered, apparently full well, suffering spectacularly stunning, truly abysmal defeats. Dianne Feinstein’s 2013 “Assault Weapons” Bill was political farce – a dismal, absurd failure. Also, in 2013, two Colorado State representatives, strong supporters of gun control in the State were unceremoniously tossed out of the State Legislature – “tarred and feathered” – victims of a successful recall drive. Is the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” demonstrating less ambition? Is the new focus of the antigun groups decidedly narrower? Does the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” seek merely to push through enhanced background checks and nothing more, as both it and their political allies in Congress claim? Is it also true that “enhanced background checks” would not negatively impact Americans’ right to keep and bear arms? Don’t believe any of it.Taking the podium, Representative Mike Thompson made the obligatory and, at once, deceptive remark that the "Enhanced Background Check Bill" protects Second Amendment rights because it does not take away a citizen’s guns. So, Congressman Thompson, let me ask you: “if an antigun Bill does not, on its face, take away a citizen’s guns, this means the Bill preserves the Second Amendment?” Clearly, the Congressman is being less than forthright with the American Public.Take a look at the formal title of the Bill (HR 1565): “the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2013.” Politicians love to “tag” their Bills with names that are the antithesis of the intention behind them. There is nothing about this antigun legislation that is remotely protective of the Second Amendment. Do politicians hire public relations firms to deliberately invent names for pieces of legislation that sound innocuous or palatable to the Public, in a fraudulent attempt to hide an illicit purpose? Apparently so. Look at what HR 1565 really does: namely, amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to reauthorize for three years, FY2014-FY2017, the grant program for improvements to the criminal history record system. The Bill paves the way for universal firearms registration. The Bill is inconsistent with the framers’ intent in drafting the Second Amendment. For, why would the framers draft language in the Constitution that serves at once to check the power of the Federal Government and its standing army if that very Government could use a universal registry to confiscate the weapons of its citizens, and, in so doing, neutralize the power its citizens might have over it? Would not such a Government with its vast powers eventually do just that to consolidate ultimate control over its citizens? If the Federal Government knows what guns a citizen has, the Federal Government could readily and easily confiscate those very guns. When seen in this light the true horror of HR 1565 is evident. Moreover, it not only infringes the Second Amendment, it infringes the Fourth Amendment as well. The Bill is inconsistent with the “Bill of Rights” and should be vigorously assailed. The “Brady Campaign” and similar antigun groups exhibit a false face to the public.Spokespersons for these groups talk frankly of their wish to protect citizens from gun violence. Yet, the underlying intent of the drafters of restrictive gun legislation is far from benign. An ominous cloud hangs over all such legislation. Overtly, Congressional proponents of antigun legislation and the antigun coalitions whom they tow behind them, talk only about a desire to curb crimes committed with guns. They talk only about the desire to curb gun violence. The true motive is not reflected in or revealed in the remarks of proponents of antigun measures. Their real goal, though, is to negate the power – the only real power – the American citizenry might hope to wield against an overbearing, overreaching Federal Government and its standing army. So, don’t be deceived.The antigun groups and their allies in Congress keep trying to dupe the American Public. It hasn’t worked before. It won’t work this time.________________________________

Copyright © 2014 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour) and Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.