2nd Amendment Under Fire
Protests related to the killing of an unarmed 18-year-old by police in a St. Louis suburb turned violent Sunday night, overwhelming law enforcement authorities and leading to thousands of dollars in property damage and stolen goods.
The initially peaceful protesters had assembled to demand that the Ferguson police officer who shot Michael Brown — who, despite being unarmed, was deemed a lethal threat by law enforcement officials — be relieved of duty and prosecuted.
One of the first things any competent carry instructor teaches his or her students is conflict avoidance. This is (or should be) a basic way of life for all of us who carry firearms for self-defense. Someone with a short temper, a belligerent attitude, or, for lack of a better description, a chip on their shoulder, should seriously consider whether or not they should be carrying a gun.
Taylor Woolrich, a student at Dartmouth College, knows she’s being stalked. When she was living in San Diego, as a high school student, a man in his 60s began showing a sinister interest in her while she worked at a local café, and since then, no amount of legal cajoling has gotten him off her […]
The latest frightful television ad from Everytown for Gun Safety — the new iteration of Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group — features an angry man bursting through his ex’s door to shoot the mother and haul away their toddler son. The message that sends isn’t one of gun control — in fact, it’s the exact opposite.
Boston Police Commissioner William Evans supports a Massachusetts legislative measure that would allow local police to decide who can or cannot be licensed to own long guns. As Evans made clear in a radio interview, it all boils down to a simple feature: control.
A Wausau, Wis., man has sued his former employer, a major manufacturer of windows and doors, claiming it violated Wisconsin’s gun law when it fired him for having a gun in his car.
The term “gun violence” seems to have been coined by either the anti-gun media or some other anti-gun group in an effort to vilify the tool used to perpetrate violence on another. Somewhere someone said, “If we call it ‘gun violence’ that will make it sound like guns are bad. We should do that.”
In States led by elected officials who view violent crime as a problem that can be mitigated by limiting citizens’ access to guns, one preventive “solution” to head off sensational mass shootings may be to emulate a longstanding Connecticut law that provides for the confiscation of firearms under certain circumstances.
In 1999, Connecticut passed a law that allows a judge to order the “temporary” seizure of a citizen’s firearms if law enforcement can persuade the court that the subject represents a danger to himself and/or others. A seizure must be followed, within 14 days, by a hearing to determine whether the subject can have his firearms immediately returned. If the court finds against the subject, then the State is authorized to hold on to the guns for a year.
Regulation of gun ownership is confiscation by another name. It victimizes people who do not even own guns because what is being confiscated is their right to do so. There nothing benign, nothing protective about taking away an individual’s right to self-defense.
Carl Nace, the sheriff of Perry County, Pa., is being sued. He won’t turn over his constituents’ gun licensing information to county auditors, and the auditors are suing him for the information, with a promise that they’ll return all the files once they’ve reviewed them.