The MSM’s war on gun owners
I’ve reported before on the newspaper campaign against gun owners with concealed carry licenses. The war continues. The Buckeye Firearms Association sends word of another news outlet, the Sandusky Register, which has published a list of concealed handgun permit owners in Erie, Huron, Ottawa, Sandusky and Seneca counties in Ohio.
BFA reports a citizen revolt and backlash against the paper’s actions:
The fallout from this action has barely begun, but it will no doubt be far-reaching. Already, subscribers are blogging on the Register’s website about canceling subscriptions, and at least one local business, Windjammer Restaurant in Marblehead, has forced the Register to remove their paper machines from the premises because of this violation of privacy.
Here’s the Sandusky Register’s list targeting law-abiding CHL owners.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry are also protesting:
Jeff Garvas, President of OFCC, is in contact with other gun rights organizations to enlist their support and assistance. The organized response will include a letter writing campaign and a directed effort to communicate with the ad sponsors of the Register in order to educate them about the despicable and dangerous practice of of “outing” people who have undergone training, passed a rigorous background check, been fingerprinted, and received a Concealed Handgun License from their county sheriff.
Mr. Garvas has released a statement saying,
“Sandusky Newspapers Inc. and The Sandusky Register should immediately demand the resignation of managing editor Matt Westerhold for his role in putting the lives, homes, and lawfully-owned firearms of countless citizens in Northwest Ohio at risk of violence or theft.”“When newspaper management chooses to put a juicy headline controversy with no journalistic news worthy content ahead of the safety of the public, the only acceptable answer is to terminate their employment post haste.”
“Ohioans For Concealed Carry and its supporters intend to send that message to the owners of the paper by targeting advertisers and encouraging them to pull advertising until this dangerous course of action is reversed and an apology is made to those citizens whose privacy has already been violated by the paper”.
Spread the word.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Paper Publishes List of Concealed Permit Holders : The American Pundit
- NoisyRoom.net » Blog Archive » Noisy News Around the Web - 6/26/07…
- Target Rich Environment » Blog Archive » More “Courageous” Journalism
- Michelle Malkin » Targeting law-abiding gun owners again
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yourish.com
» Tom Friedman urges Bush policy on IsraelNewsBusters.org
» Fox the Only Cable Newser to Air Pelosi's House Speech LiveBetsys Page
» The fall of the Berlin WallCommentary
» ConcernedCommentary
» Who Will Have the Nerve?
That restaraunt should have chunked those dang machines in the parking lot.
Yep, targeting the advertisers will get their attention. It worked here in VA; no reason why it won’t be just as effective in OH.
Politics of personal destruction v2.0
How typical of the hateful democrats.
… and if a gun owners’ home is broken into and the gun stolen, Sandusky Newspapers, Inc. will be completely responsible for the crime…
Personally my weapon of choice has always been a 105mm Howitzer with beehive rounds.
Kind of hard to conceal one of those.
Under certain circumstances – if, for example, there was a question of local officials showing favoritism in issuing concealed carry permits only to the wealthy or politically-connected – then publicizing the list of CHL holders might be justifiable.
That, however, doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance…especially as Ohio (I believe) is a “shall issue” state. This appears to be just another example of “journalists” comitting a reckless act of malice in pursuit of a political agenda, regardless of any consequences to the members of the public they claim to serve.
Not to mention that the
bad guysmisunderstood oppressed people can also make an educated guess about who is likely to be out and about and unarmed simply by confirming that a name is not on the list…Thanks to this birdcage liner.
You are lucky. Here in New Zealand if you use a firearm to defend yourself you, more than likely, will not be charged as self defence can be argued. However, the police will bankrupt you by charging you with possession of a firearm for an illegal purpose or some such charge because you are not allowed to have a loaded firearm unless shooting on a range or hunting. We have almost no right to defend ourselves.
Heard a good related story about a larger Wyoming town: seems the hippies were complaining to the police about getting robbed a lot; the crooks were coming in and taking the til from the bong sales.
The cops pointed out that it likely had something to do with the signs on all the hippie shops that said ‘no guns allowed on premises.’
True story; stupid people too stoned to realize they advertised their places as a free predator zone.
And they want us to register our firearms…
While I am generally not a fan of legislation, I do believe that legislation protecting these people’s privacy would be in order. Turn about would be publicizing the home information of all the news people associated with this story.
I can’t imagine how angry i would be if i one of the people listed. Concealed means no one else knows. That the list is even public information baffles me. Concealed handgun license holders are law abiding citizens, taking advantage of their legal right to self defense, a known catalyst of lower crime rates.
And yet, all those blood thirsty gun nuts haven’t shot anyone over these lists being published. Imagine that.
Could be worse as IIRC, in VA a newspaper published the name and home address of permit owners.
I would like to see the newspaper list the names and addresses of those opposed to the our 2nd amendment rights and who own no firearms under the headline of: The Following Persons Have No Firearms In Their Homes. Let’s make it easy on the criminals on all fronts.
In the legislative session that just ended, Texas passed a law making chl licenses confidential. Several other states have done so as well.
Media outlets, in their zeal to “out” lawful permit holders, have screwed themselves by inciting this backlash. IDIOTS.
I hope that newspaper goes out of business for their BS action.
nice – all the people that didn’t get their name published in the paper should be really happy that the THEY are now targets for criminals
I took a concealed carry class where we watched interviews with convicted felons and they said if they think someone has a gun at home they are going to the next house that doesn’t
And here the liberal media went nuts for months – or was it years – about the “outing” of Plame, a former agent who was already no longer covert. But no problem for the Sandusky Register to put absolutely and utterly innocent lives at risk in the most reckless of fashions.
But then again, with a name like The Sandusky Register, one can’t really expect a shining pinnicle of journalistic polish, either.
Will the newspaper now publish a list of wanted felons so the legal gun-owners know who to protect themselves from
I’d like to know if any of the companies advertising in the paper extend beyond the local region. I would hate to unknowingly provide any business to those involved in such anti-American behavior.
As a person who has a conceal carry permit, I could care less if they publish my name. I welcome it. Just proves to the world that people who believe in their right to defend themselves are everywhere, and I’m one of them!!
Stinking lefties outsmart themselves all the time.
Last night on Glen Beck, they had a guy on there from the Brady gun confiscation organization, Paul Helmke. Glen was pushing for more concealed carry for the people. Helmke said too many guns would lead to wholesale killing in the streets.
Some years ago here in Virginia, Governor Allen managed to get through the General Assembly a concealed carry on demand law. In other words, if you passed a background check, you could have a concealed carry permit. Our local newspaper, the Free Lance Star at the time had a mush headed liberal editor. He constantly preached that the streets of the cities of Virginia would be like Dodge City. He was quite hysterical. The paper also published a list of people granted concealed carry permits. Anyway, the concealed carry law passed. Crime has dropped here in Virginia, and the mush headed editor has been replaced by someone who is more conservative.
I have a concealed carry permit even though I don’t carry. My point is to have the option if I want it, and to PO the liberals. So far, it seems to be working.
The printing of concealed handgun permit holders in the newspaper is problematic and should be squelched, if for no other reason than the motive that drives them to do so.
What’s a bit more worrisome is the increased focus on the “mental” health issue that resulted from the VA Tech shootings.
While no one will disagree with closing loopholes that allow those who are a danger to themselves and others because of their mental state from obtaining a firearm legally, the problem is when liberals use that new “legislation” beyond it’s intended purpose. That is to allow not only psychiatrists but medical doctor’s an unfettered ability with the stroke of a pen to place a person in the database that prevents them from obtaining a firearm.
Like the Walgreen’s add, if this were a perfect world, there would be no problem with this. But we all know that even doctor’s aren’t apolitical. There are enough out there who would use their ability to push their personal beliefs against firearms of any kind for any reason.
I believe the liberals see this as an opportunity to increase gun control in a subtle way.
They allow islamic extremists to set up military compounds throughout our country under the guise of religion . Example islamberg in NY.
They want to give amnesty to 12 million + criminals.
Then they want to take away our right to bear arms.
I don’t think so . I do not recognize this government’s authority to take away any of my rights. Especially the right to defend myself.
/
I’m having trouble logging in.
The prompter is saying that I have the wrong password, but that can’t be.
I very carefully retyped my password one letter at a time.
If a crime, especially a violent one, is committed against a CHL holder and it is traced back to the suspect utilizing these lists, then the paper and the people that wrote it and gave the green light should be held legally liable for spotlighting people in this manner.
I think I also remember back with the VA one where there was a female CHL who said she had to move because a psycho ex-boyfriend she had now know where she currently lives because of the list published there. Great public service, I tell ya…
An society that is unarmed is a ‘ruled’ society
Ya know, we are all publishers, right here, right now.
It might interest someone in that newspaper’s circulation area to publish the home addresses of everyone on the masthead, along with a note that these people are opposed to self defense.
Fair play, eh?
On June 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm, Brian Smaller said:
Huh. Welcome to Canada.
Eating cake and having it too. If youre going to take our 2nd amendment away, the 1st goes with it.
I’m glad I live in a state that protects CHL holders from this invasion. TEXAS
I know the cat’s out of the bag, but does it really help to post the CHL list here too?
Read the Register’s story and you can post a reply.
INSANE! Do they not understand that criminals break into homes just to steal guns? They need to be brought up on criminal charges for infringing on those people’s constitutional rights. Where is the ACLU at on this one?? I’d like to Glock them upside the head!
Don’t forget to email the editor, who stakes claim to approving the list. I wish there was someway to add his name to one of those lists!
Publishing the names isn’t helping anyone and for that the newspaper needs to explain itself. Pronto.
OTOH, do gun owners need a AK-47 to go hunting? (this is in reference to the assault weapons ban that recently expired)
As some posters have said, having a permit doesn’t mean they have a gun. I think the problem here is those that do NOT have a permit will be deemed easier targets for burglery (no opposition). It may be a deterent for all residents to get a permit whether or not they intend to carry. They can use this newspaper to their advantage.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 06/27/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
So publish my name! Like I care! In fact it might just save me a few rounds!
Why are you repeating the publishing of the list of Concealed Carry permit holders names? A lot more people read this blog than read the Sandusky Register. This compounds the probem for the people on the list. A little more common sense please.
Yeah, a lot of gang members are reading political blogs these days
#38 ReagansWingman
Couldn’t have said it better myself !
Gee, let’s punish the gun owners responsible enough to go through all the proper paperwork. INFURIATING!
Concealed Carry Permits cover handgun concealment. In all the state laws I’m aware of, rifles, carbines, and shotguns are not considered concealable and therefore not covered.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
AK-47s were not banned by the ‘assault weapons ban.’ High-cap magazines and bayonet lugs were. All that ban did was make a lot of money for manufacturers of banned items at the expense of citizens. They upped production right before the ban was enacted, then sold the items as ‘pre-ban’ for inflated prices.
Notice the graphic on the story’s header at the website. The weapon is not concealed, but open carried. Morons.
Nice Post mac_health
When you are talking AK-47 you have to remember also that these are not full auto guns. It is illegal to have a fully automatic gun unless you have a special permit given out by the federal gov’t. The AK-47 in question here is simply a semi automatic gun that has the ability to accept a large magazine. In fact, they can accept a 5, 10, 20, or 30 round magazine.
Gun ownership is about much more then hunting rights, and that is what proponents of the newly revived weapons ban (HR 1022)are trying to center around to push it through congress. What they are trying to classify as acceptable firearms is absurd. When a .22 caliber rifle that has a removable magazine is going to be outlawed, you know the bill is flawed.
BTY: if you don’t like someone being able to own an AK-47, move to mexico…….you would like their gun laws just fine.
GOD BLESS THE NRA!
BTY: The 7.62×39 caliber makes a very nice hunting caliber for deer sized game……(Caliber used by the AK-47)
Also, that ban expired in September of 2004…
It doesn’t seem to have caused a problem, since you apparently can’t tell WHEN it exspired… Where’s the unending bloodbath people predicted?
Yeah lets see some statistics on amount of people killed by assault weapons each year with and without the ban.
All this ban is intended to be is the first step toward citizens only being allowed to own black-powder muskets.
Homeland Security means owning a 12 gauge!
Does that twit Christine Trejbal at the Roanoke Times still have his job?
Alrighty, well I guess I’ll clarify my post and answer some others.
No, Sandusky is not a suburb of Cleveland. It is more than an hour away.
In Ohio, the State recently passed a law that stated that municipalities could not create their own gun laws. This was the ban on the assault rifles that I was thinking of. The City of Cleveland has filed a law suit challenging that change in the law. http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/05/clevelands_gun_lawsuit_draws_n.html
The fact that people can buy TEC-9, Beretta AR-70 and SC-70, SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9 and M-12 BECAUSE of the expiration of the federal ban on assault rifles creates a desire for the city to create its position.
———————————–
I just found this. Tell me if this is not true though it contradicts your post.
FACT FILE Legal weapons
The 19 named assault-style firearms banned under a 1994 law that expires Monday:
AK-47 and all models of the Norinco, Mitchell and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs, designed in the former Soviet Union.
Uzi and Galil, both made by Action Arms Israeli Military Industries.
TEC-9, TEC-22 and TEC-DC9, manufactured by Intratec.
SWD M-10, M-11, M-11-9 and M-12. Based on the design of the MAC-10, their full-automatic cousin, these assault pistols are designed to fire many bullets over a wide area in seconds.
Street Sweeper and Striker 12 and other revolving cylinder semiautomatic shotguns.
Beretta AR-70 and SC-70, used by armed forces in a number of countries including Italy, Jordan and Malaysia.
Colt AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle that is the U.S. military’s standard-issue rifle.
Several weapons manufactured by Fabrique Nationale, the FN-FAL, FN-LAR and FNC. The guns are used by the armed forces of more than 90 countries.
Steyr AUG, a rifle made in Germany.
Source: Associated Press
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/
Oops, quoted the wrong part of the post. Apologies.
Thank God these people didn’t have a gun.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/orange/orl-bk-invasion062107,0,2103093.story?coll=orl_tab01_layout
We should take all guns from law abiding citizens!
This is just another example of the commie-puke/al-Qeada loving democRATs
thinking.Stalin is their hero.
But this person did.
Garbage and a big gun in fugitive’s apartment
Police find AK-47, 1,000 ammo rounds in her shabby room
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
By PETER N. SPENCER
STATEN ISLAND ADVANCE
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — Commune leader Jeff Gross, in hiding ever since Rebekah Johnson allegedly ambushed him with a .38-caliber handgun last May, apparently had good reason to fear the disgruntled stalker would return to finish the job.
Police found an AK-47 assault rifle and 1,000 rounds of ammunition, along with targets, during a search of the fugitive’s Philadelphia apartment after she was captured Monday.
“I imagine she could have done a lot of damage with that weapon if she had the opportunity,” Gross told the Advance last night.
Ms. Johnson, a 44-year-old former West Brighton resident, is being held without bail in a Philadelphia jail after being arraigned Monday night in the Philadelphia Criminal Justice Center on a fugitive-from-justice warrant, according to Philadelphia Police Lt. John Walker.
Hours before her court appearance, police found the weapon under a futon, along with a curved “banana clip,” during a search of the second-floor studio apartment Ms. Johnson was renting just north of Philadelphia’s Center City district, Walker said.
http://www.silive.com/news/advance/index.ssf?/base/news/1182340841159020.xml&coll=1
jc3gunner is right.
This is a service to the bad guys.
They now know which home owners are more likely to be armed and can concentrate on the others.
It gives them better odds of breaking and entering a home that is not protected by a gun owner.
I smell lawsuit. How about “Invasion of Privacy” and “Reckless Endangerment” for starters?
There are several states in which one could carry a concealed rifle or shotgun legally with a concealed carry permit. This has been a not uncommon discussion on various firearm forums.
My primary concern with the published list is that it gives criminals information as to where to most likely obtain firearms illegally. Someone commented that just because someone has a CCW doesn’t mean they have a gun. I would hazard that is very rare instance. On the one hand criminals are going to know where to avoid if people are home, however, if they pick out several to case, they will eventually find one where people are out of town and then we have more illegal weapons on the street. Missouri did this one right being that our CCW law from the start makes all permit holder’s info available only to MO law enforcement.
Take it easy on the journies here, folks. At the end of the day, they really do know what’s better for us, and they have a very difficult job keeping the public informed with that ever-shrinking subscriber list. Readers, be honest with yourselves now. How do you think we can ever successfully implement a global utopia and gulag archipelagos for neo-cons if the masses continue to own firearms? Pravda!
You are correct that AK-47s were specifically named. This did not, in fact, actually prevent US citizens from legally purchasing and owning AK-47s during the ban period.
From the wikipedia
An armed society is a polite society.
Make mine a 12 guage with 00 buckshot.
Michelle, you really touched a nerve with me…..
Strict gun laws only impact law abiding citizens. A gun to a criminal is just a means to an end, and criminals don’t care what the gun laws say. It is impossible to legislate guns out of the hands of criminals, but loosening gun laws to make it easier for law abiding people to keep and bear arms for their own personal protection saves lives. It’s important to remember that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The cops aren’t going to get there for at least 10-15 minutes, so what is a person supposed to due to stop a criminal with a gun in the mean time? There is a very old saying, “Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight”. Well, if the crazy left wing Dems have their way, then criminals would be the only ones with access to guns and we would all be left with only a steak knife from the kitchen draw to defend our family from a home invasion in the middle of the night.
Our second amendment was not intended to provide us with guns with which to go hunting, guns with which to defend ourselves on the streets or guns to shoot targets with.
Though the 2nd Does all of these things they are secondary to the primary purpose of the amendment which was to ensure that a tyrannical government could never emplace its self in the United States while its people still live. I guess you could say it was for defense; defense of our freedoms from our own government.
Guns = Liberty
Well said DR1579!
As the saying goes: An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a subject.
BZ DR1579!
“As a person who has a conceal carry permit, I could care less if they publish my name.” –Radio Relay (21)
I agree with you on one level but the problem is that people with CPLs usually have other firearms in their homes, making them potential targets for criminals.
Thanks to this paper, all a criminal has to do is refer to the list, look up the address, (assuming it isn’t included in the article), and then wait for the house to be empty. If one targeted house isn’t an easy target or has a massive gun-safe, they can just move on to another name in the list.
The paper is basically inviting criminals to brake into law-abiding citizens homes.
Also, some employers might discriminate against gun owners if they only knew who they were.
And here, Raging Republican, is where I dissagree with your assessment as this topic also touches a nerve with me.
I had a gentleman turn a “gun” on me and threaten myself and other people where I attended school. This gentleman (who formally served in the armed forces) was eventually expelled for what turned out to be a fake gun with the cap removed. If that gun were real, many of the students would have been in big trouble becuase they may have been dead. Those who advocate for unlimited access to guns, regardless of location, forget that bad things can happen when you put guns in the hands of “good people”, especially when that person has had alcohol or under some other influence. Guns laws protect those who do have guns, as well as those who don’t. They do not seek to ban all guns, as has been alleged, but only seek to curb access of people getting unrestricted access to guns. This is how the VT killer got his gun. If the guns rules were enforced, he never would’ve been able to get his gun. The criminal WOULD have cared about gun laws to achieve a desired end.
So I say that it is possible to find common ground with those who want gun control, with those don’t want their freedoms infringed upon. But digging in and closing the ears to the other side helps no one.
The Raging Republican: I agree with your point but do not agree with using a threat of violence.
I have always questioned what is the right approach to helping to solve our countries tragic gun violence. I agree 100% with ones right to own a firearm (I do) to defend their home but to me I still do not know what is the best approach outside of the home. I do not believe Texas is any safer as a state because of its CHL laws. The ways of the wild west should be long gone in our society and I cannot see how having CHL prevents crime…does anyone have a statistic showing crimes prevented by carriers of a concealed firearm?
Thank
Dr1579, good post.
Dark Night, perhaps you should buy a gun, get a license to carry it and the next time somebody pulls a gun on you, real or fake, you won’t end up as just another crime statistic on a computer somewhere.
The first rule of fascism is: disarm the population.
Supersean, I don’t have time to look up the information for you, (somebody else probably will), but every state that has implemented a CC law has had a drastic reduction in crime.
…That’s why most of the states, including liberal ones like where I live, have passed CC laws.
FloatingRock:
I look forward to seeing data that backs that up
I second what supersean said in waiting to see where that is documented.
Additionally, if I had that fake gun pulled on me, and I killed him with a registered real gun, we have a vetern who made a mistake that is dead, and the fact that I killed another human being on my mind the rest of my life when there may have been other options. In fact, the police arrived at the scene and took control of the situation and everything worked out. Things would have been a lot worse if everyone was armed.
All…
I did a quick google search on the subject and found most of the “official” research to be a bit stale (no studies since 2002). THere seems to be a spilt around 50/50 in support of and against assessing the impact that CC/CHL laws have on crime rates.
I did find an article from 2006
http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=649
From their bio: PPSC is a diverse group of professionals, brought together by common goals, and a common commitment to excellence. While nearly half of our staff consists of individuals with Ph.D.’s, Medical Degrees, and Master’s degrees, the other half of our staff are seasoned criminal justice trainers and practitioners. We have collectively provided training and consultation to thousands of U.S. law enforcement agencies, and to agencies in over 30 other countries.
The information is easy to Google, supersean.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry
Also:
http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm
AlturaCT
What a great link!
To be honest, I don’t want to get into a lengthy debate on the merits of CC laws. I’m rusty on the issue and don’t wish to spend hours scouring the Internet for data to back up my argument. I’m mainly concerned about shamnesty now and what it has revealed about our government… or is it their government now?
Instead, if you’re interested, here are a few links on the pre-eminent researcher who wrote the standard by which all arguments in favor of CC laws are based: John Lott is far more qualified than myself to argue the merits of his findings.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/chapin/chapin10.html
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html
I should note that there has been at least one instance where some anti-gun group claimed to have disproved his findings, but their data was shown to be laughably bogus. Sorry, I don’t remember the details.
Floating Rock,
Thanks for the link. I was not debating the merits, I was looking for information to make an informed decision.
otcconan,
I think my second post just missed your post. I did review the data that you mentioned but 1996 seems a bit stale.
FloatingRock…
This is a must read on the subject. THanks again for the link
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=523002
A steak knife is too dangerous. Look what they use in the UK to defend their homes. Elite Self Defense System for countries that have banned guns.
Gun facts e-book is a great read.
Supersean;
I’m glad to hear you have an open mind. Sorry for the insinuation, (or whatever), in my first paragraph above… it’s just that usually I find people have already made up their minds on the issue and debating it rarely changes them.
Raging Republican made one side of the argument, but did not reply to mine. :-/
I’m all for honest debate and keeping an open mind for the record. I just don’t think its appropiate to just sum up your opposition by just calling them all Communist and “Stalin is their hero” (post #54).
Surely you agree FloatingRock?
DarkKnight I’m sorry but your argument has no merit.
In your experience you were threatened with what seemed at the time to be a fire arm had you been armed you could have defended your self since at the time you could not know it was a fake gun and it very well could have been real and then where would you be?
With out a gun you are 100% at the mercy of any one stronger, more gutsy or more well armed than you. With a gun you may die anyway but you would die like a human fighting for your existence rather than like a slave begging for your life.
besides whether or not people are injured by firearms at a higher / lower rate given their [guns] popularity in a given area is irrelevant! I’m sorry but it doesn’t matter if there is a high rate of gun crime or not that doesn’t have a hill of beans to do with the people’s right to keep and BEAR ARMS(that is to go about with a fire arm in a ready to use condition). We are not allowed to own guns in this country, it is a right that the government cannot take away even though it passes illegal and unconstitutional laws that says it can.
DR1579 you are completely correct! US Citizens have as a given the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment just prohibits the State from taking it away or from making ANY infringement on that right – even though the Federal Government has illegally and unconstitutionally passed many restrictions.
Although my personal choice of weapon is the longbow, I have several firearms as a backup LOL – and am going to get more and stock up on ammunition before OSHA decides that we can’t have any because of safety issues!
Any candidate for any public office who advocates anything involving gun control, will never get my vote – unless by “gun control” they mean never having to say “Sorry I missed you!”
IT GETS WORSE; the coliseum of corruption is robbing your liberty faster than Michelle can blog about it:
http://95theses.wordpress.com/2007/07/10/its-osha-and-the-corrupt-congress-combined/