“(The bomber,) as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list, so we know a gun check would stop him, if there was a background check,” she said. “As it stands now, (the bomber) … or the next terrorist can go to any gun show and buy a hundred round magazine, they can buy all of the assault weapons they want, no questions asked.” (as per our policy of not advertising the names of terrorists and mass murders here at ROH, we have substituted “the bomber” for the person’s name
The problem is that Maloney is wrong. She doesn’t know what she is talking about.
“The mere fact you are on a terrorist watch list alone would not prevent you from purchasing firearm,” said Dale Roberts, local lawyer who teaches firearms law for the Missouri Bar.
The 2nd Amendment right can only be denied for certain reasons such as being convicted of a crime or having a mental health record. “So if you are on the terrorist watch list and you have one of those disqualifications, certainly that would stop you,” said Roberts.
According to NPR, 90 percent of the people on the list between 2004-2010 were able to buy guns and explosives. Currently the federal government doesn’t share the watch list with the gun application list. Should the process be changed?
“I have mixed feelings about it. If you have been investigated and you are on the watch list for good reason, then I kind of think they should scrutinize that. But, there’s the possibility you are on the watch list accidentally or incorrectly,” said Roberts.
Being on the terroist “watchlist” doesn’t mean you have been convicted of a crime. In fact, there are people on the list that do not deserve to be on the list because the name has been added in error. One such person was the late Senator Ted Kennedy: (more…)
May 2, 2013
Posted by AAfterwit on May 2, 2013 | Comments Off
After the Obama administration’s defeat of gun control in the Senate last week, the President has decided to take on the role of emperor and proclaim through executive order what he cannot accomplish via legal, Constitutional means.
In play is the U.S. Munitions Import List which controls the importing and exporting of items that can be used for defense. Ideally, the list is used to control items that have a direct military purpose such as jets, tanks, etc, but the Obama administration seems to be setting up a scenario where they can label bullets and guns from being exported or imported. This restraint of trade would effectively put many gun manufacturers out of business even though the products they produce, such as the AR-15, has no military use.
The second thing the administration is looking to bypass is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPPA.)
Among other things, HIPPA requires that communications and records between a doctor and a patient remain confidential unless the patient agrees to have the doctor release the records. The Department of Health and Human Services is looking to circumvent that law by requiring mental health records be given to the federal government as part of the National Instant Crime Background Check (NICS) System.
In other words, the law be damned.
The troubling thing about the new HHS regulation is “what exactly are they planning on doing with the information?”
It is easy to say that the rule would prevent people with mental health issues from getting a weapon and that sounds like a great idea. But does it work in real life? (more…)
Matt Reed is an editor of the Florida Today newspaper who has written an opinion piece in the form of a letter “thanking” Marco Rubio for voting against the gun control legislation in the House.
Thank you, Marco Rubio, for defending my gun freedom in so many awesome ways.
First, thank you for voting against more and better background checks.
Okay stop. Let’s stop right there.
The bill was about so much more than just “more and better background checks” and as someone whose job it is to follow politics, Reed should have known this. For example,….
……consider a woman who buys a rifle when she is 25 years old. She keeps the rifle her entire life. Yet over her lifetime, she — like most gun owners — engages in dozens of firearms “transfers.” She brings the unloaded rifle to a friend’s house, for instance, because the friend is thinking of buying a gun and wants to learn more about guns. The friend handles the rifle for a few minutes before handing it back. Another time, the woman lends the gun to her niece, who takes it on a camping trip for the weekend.
While the woman is out of town on a business trip for two weeks, she gives the gun to her husband or her sister. If the woman lives on a farm, she allows all her relatives to take the rifle into the fields for pest and predator control — and sometimes, when friends are visiting, she takes them to a safe place on the farm where they spend an hour or two target shooting, passing her gun back and forth. At other times, she and her friends go target shooting in open spaces of land owned by the National Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management.
Or perhaps the woman is in a same-sex civil union, and she allows her partner to take her gun to a target range one afternoon. Another time, she allows her cousin to borrow the gun for an afternoon of target shooting. If the woman is in the Army Reserve and she is called up for an overseas deployment, she gives the gun to her sister for temporary safekeeping.
One time, she learns that her neighbor is being threatened by an abusive ex-boyfriend, and she lets this woman borrow a gun for several days until she can buy her own gun. And if the woman becomes a firearms-safety instructor, she regularly teaches classes at office parks, in school buildings at nights and on weekends, at gun stores, and so on. Following the standard curriculum of gun-safety classes (such as NRA safety courses), the woman will bring some unloaded guns to the classroom, and under her supervision, students will learn the first steps in how to handle the guns, including how to load and unload them (using dummy ammunition). During the class, the firearms will be “transferred” dozens of times, since students must practice how to hand a gun to someone else safely. As a Boy Scout den mother or 4-H leader, the woman may also transfer her gun to young people dozens of times while instructing them in gun safety.
The bill Rubio voted upon would have made felons out of the people in the above example.
To the left is a picture of two leaders of a country. One was a great statesman.
The other is US President Barack Obama.
Former England Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher passed away last week. It is hard to overstate the effect Thatcher had on politics not only in her own country, but around the world. Thatcher was the first woman to lead a Western democracy adding not only the voice of women to politics, but showing that women could be effective, strong leaders.
Just as importantly to Americans, Thatcher stood shoulder to shoulder with President Ronald Reagan against Communism and together, it can be said the two helped toppled the Berlin Wall.
During her term of office she reshaped almost every aspect of British politics, reviving the economy, reforming outdated institutions, and reinvigorating the nation’s foreign policy. She challenged and did much to overturn the psychology of decline which had become rooted in Britain since the Second World War, pursuing national recovery with striking energy and determination.
In the process, Margaret Thatcher became one of the founders, with Ronald Reagan, of a school of conservative conviction politics, which has had a powerful and enduring impact on politics in Britain and the United States and earned her a higher international profile than any British politician since Winston Churchill.
By successfully shifting British economic and foreign policy to the right, her governments helped to encourage wider international trends which broadened and deepened during the 1980s and 1990s, as the end of the Cold War, the spread of democracy, and the growth of free markets strengthened political and economic freedom in every continent.
Margaret Thatcher became one of the world’s most influential and respected political leaders, as well as one of the most controversial, dynamic, and plain-spoken, a reference point for friends and enemies alike.
Two of our neighbors here in Satellite Beach wrote to the Florida Today in support of President Obama as well as making statements against Mitt Romney.
Not only do we not agree with the letters, we feel such letters cannot go unchallenged as they display such ignorance of the issues and facts that it is mind boggling.
We hope to not only correct some of the misconceptions in the two letters, but ask other fundamental questions about the campaigns.
First is a letter from Maxine Wasserman of Satellite Beach who wrote this:
Obama deserves your vote for supporting key issues
Please consider these issues when voting:
Medicare and Social Security, affordable insurance for pre-existing conditions and dependents up to age 26, education, police and fire departments maintained at high standards, libraries, streets, highways and bridges in good repair, equal pay for equal work, and jobs to remain in the U.S.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have supported all of these issues. We need safe roads and good schools. Medicare is alive and well and has been extended through the president’s efforts. For people who couldn’t get insurance coverage, we now have The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).
President Obama saved our country from another Great Depression by acting swiftly and wisely. Unemployment is on the decline on the national level. Jobs numbers are steadily growing. Home prices have risen and new homes are going up in Brevard.
If integrity and honesty are important to you, please note Obama stands for the same things today as he did yesterday, last week and four years ago. He is steady and consistent; he thinks things through before acting or deciding.
If you are an Obama supporter, do not be disheartened by seeing so few of his signs. Be assured there are Democratic thinkers throughout Brevard. Your vote counts. Please vote and let your voice be heard.
Obama “supported” Medicare so much that he is taking half a trillion dollars from Medicare to throw into ObamaCare. Why? Because without that money, ObamaCare is even worse financially than anyone predicted. The recent CBO estimate on the so called “Affordable Health Care Act” is the Act will cost the country trillions of dollars more than originally thought. (more…)