Tag Archives: Gun Rights

Reality Check

Reality Check: Major Corporations Influencing Gun Control?

Video Leave a comment

Major institutions across the U.S. are taking a stand in the debate over gun control.

Many gun control advocates believe this is a great move by American corporations. But what does it mean when corporations are punishing customers for behavior that is not illegal? Could these businesses become moral police?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

In response to the latest mass shooting event in Parkland, Florida, major corporations and banks are now instituting their own gun control policies. Let’s first look at how banks are getting involved.

Bank of America announced just 10 days after the parkland shooting that it would begin conversations with its customers who manufacture guns to, “examine what we can do to help end the tragedy of mass shootings.”

Then in mid-March Citigroup revealed it would institute its own restrictions on gun manufacturer clients. The bank has since banned its business customers from selling guns to anyone under 21, and from selling high-capacity magazines and bump stocks altogether.

And now, Bank of America will no longer lend to gun manufacturers, including current loan customers Vista Outdoors and Remington.

While banks are private institutions, there are questions here about why banks would not lend to companies that are not doing anything illegal, but that the bank’s executives simply don’t agree with.

According to Bank of America’s annual shareholder meeting in April, a shareholder named Justin Danhof, the director of the free enterprise project, asked CEO Brian Moynihan how much business the bank was sending away, noting that Warren Buffett said he wouldn’t make a similar move in his business.

In response, Moynihan said that the choice was in response to those associated with the bank who were impacted by the parkland shooting. Without citing any figures, Moynihan said, “this comes from our teammates saying we have to help.”

Yet Bank of America, the second largest bank in the U.S., has made a unilateral decision that imposes a political view on its employees and shareholders.

Remember, these banks have trillions of dollars in assets. Bank of America alone serves 3 million small business owners in the U.S. and because their policies affect so many people, these banks can sway policy in our country without a single vote cast.

Now, what about the major retailers in the U.S. stepping into the gun control debate?

According to the New York Times, Dick’s Sporting Goods and Walmart, two of the nation’s leading gun sellers, have opted to further restrict customers by raising the age to purchase any firearm to 21.

Dick’s Sporting Goods has removed what it calls assault-style weapons from all of its stores’ shelves.

And Walmart went even further. The retailer will stop selling toy and air guns that resemble assault-style guns.

The actions these major corporations have taken to address gun control highlights the power to punish customers for legal behavior.

But can’t customers vote with their dollar and choose to bank or buy products with a company that highlights their values?

Yes you can vote with your dollar, but it’s very hard when so few corporations are so large and impose their will. And that’s what you need to know.

The problem here is when major, private companies have centralized control. In a free market, corporations should be able to do what they want. If you don’t like it, you support a competitor.

But that’s not the system we have in the U.S.

Instead, it’s a system where cronyism has allowed a few large corporations to have massive control, and there are huge hurdles to anyone trying to create an alternative.

It is why, as I have said before, the decentralization of everything is what is so necessary in virtually every industry. Because it is decentralization that allows freedom.

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it right now on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured, Gun Rights, States Rights, US

Oklahoma Senate Passes Constitutional Carry Bill

Leave a comment

Oklahoma City, OK – The Oklahoma Senate passed concealed carry, or “constitutional carry,” legislation that would allow Oklahoma residents who are 21 and older, as well as military personnel 18 and older and legally eligible to own a firearm, to concealed carry their gun. The passage of Senate Bill 1212 would remove the current requirement of obtaining a concealed carry permit in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense and follows the Oklahoma House approving the legislation in a 59-28 vote on April 25.

The Senate passed the legislation by a 33-9 vote, according to a report by The Hill. Tulsa World reported that state Sen. Nathan Dahm (R), the author of the bill, said the legislation would have no effect on locations that have banned firearms such as governmental buildings and schools, and that “the bill would still require a background check currently required to purchase a firearm.” The Norman Transcript notes that “under current law, Oklahomans who are legally able to purchase a firearm are required to attend an eight-hour training course, undergo an Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) background check, and be fingerprinted and photographed if they’re not already in the state system.”

A report from the Associated Press noted that “A background check would still be required before a person could purchase a firearm and handguns would remain prohibited in places where they are currently banned, including elementary schools, colleges, universities and government buildings. The bill also excludes anyone prohibited by state or federal law from owning a weapon as well as those convicted of assault and battery, domestic abuse, violating a protective order or drug crimes.” The AP also referred to a statement from Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that announced the bill would remove “the training requirement for carrying a firearm as well as an extensive background check process that includes mental health and court records.”

Breitbart reported that “State Sen. Kevin Matthews (D-11) opposed the legislation, arguing that people should be required to obtain a permit for a gun, similar to obtaining a license to drive a car. Dahm refuted Matthews “by pointing out that the Second Amendment protects a constitutional right to bear arms, not a constitutional right to drive cars.”

Currently, there are twelve states that have passed legislation to abolish permitting requirements to concealed carry a firearm, including Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, and West Virginia. Breitbart reports that the majority of Montana and Arkansas recognize constitutional carry as well.

According to a report by Breitbart News:

FBI figures published by the NRA show that Alaska’s handgun murder rate “declined after the state enacted permitless carry in 2003.” Moreover, in the years since Alaska’s permit requirement was abolished “handgun murders have declined as a percentage of the total number of murders.”

A drop in handgun murders also took place in Arizona after that state abolished its concealed carry permit requirement in 2010. And in Wyoming–which abolished its permit requirement in 2011–handgun murders have declined as well.

The bill to eliminate carry permits is now at the desk of Republican Gov. Mary Fallin. Tulsa World reported that “Fallin, a Second Amendment supporter, signed legislation to allow open carry of firearms but has previously vetoed gun bills.”

Reality Check

Reality Check: Are Gun Confiscation Laws Trampling Your Civil Liberties?

Video Leave a comment

A candidate for sheriff in North Carolina has said he would confiscate guns in his county by taking them from the “cold, dead hands” of the people he is supposed to protect. Now, he says he was only joking.

Joking or not, the attitude of gun confiscation is raising concern about the power of law enforcement in this country. And are newly enacted gun confiscation laws violating due process and civil liberties?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

R. Daryl Fisher’s recent comments about gun confiscation are disturbing. In a video captured March 7, Fisher was speaking to the members of the local Moms Demand Action meeting when he said this:

“What about people that already have weapons? Well, I will tell you now, don’t buy into the scare tactics. Don’t believe the scare tactics. Because you’ve heard people say, ‘You’ll have to pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.’ Okay.”

Now, since that video was released, Fisher has come forward saying he shouldn’t have joked.

Fisher supports tougher gun control. As we reported at TruthInMedia.com, Fisher, like many politicians, wants to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm, ban “high capacity” magazines and anything that increases a firearms rate of fire.

He also wants to outlaw military style weapons and require firearm qualifications before people can carry guns.

Fisher said it would be unconstitutional to take guns from people before a ban was in place, and that “Responsible gun owners have nothing to worry about.” And yet, the “joke” of killing gun owners for refusing to allow their guns to be confiscated, resonated with the audience. You hear it in their cheers.

That alone raises questions about the mentality about gun confiscation in this country.

Today, lawmakers across the U.S. are looking to implement so-called “red flag” gun laws in order to confiscate guns from owners who are deemed an “extreme risk.” Immediate family or law enforcement file a ERPO, or extreme risk petition order, on a gun owner to confiscate their weapons. A judge can swiftly approve the ERPO as an immediate temporary order or full order, according to TruthInMedia.com

And while the intent is to protect gun owners from harming themselves or others, civil liberties groups and Second Amendment advocates claim otherwise.

Let’s look at the State of Washington, which has a “red flag” law in place in its capital of Seattle. There, the law allows for gun confiscation before an arrest or charge of crime.

According to TruthInMedia.com, “While this has been championed as a valuable tool for law enforcement, due process procedures come into question; under the provisions of an ex parte ERPO, the accused respondent will not have the opportunity to face their accuser or challenge the claim until after a temporary order is already issued. This effectively allows law enforcement take a person’s firearms first, with due process occurring after firearms are removed.”

Yes, law enforcement can take guns away from people they deem “extreme risk” and hold those weapons until a judge decides the owner is not a threat to the public or themselves.

Five states including Washington allow guns to be confiscated before a crime has been committed. Similar measures have been proposed in 18 other states, including Florida, plus the District of Columbia, according to the Washington Post.

What you need to know is that while we can agree that we want to reduce threats of violence in this country, we must consider the rights of individuals and the authority we give those in power.

In the wake of mass shootings, lawmakers rush to push gun control legislation that often duplicates existing laws on the books or tramples our civil liberties.

Let’s take the politics out of it so that we can have a real discussion about whether these “red flag” gun confiscation laws are actually accomplishing what they are meant to do.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that, on Facebook and Twitter.

Civil Liberties, Government Accountability, Gun Rights, Politics, US

Unpublished CDC Study Supports Claim Of Over 2 Million Yearly Defensive Gun Uses

Leave a comment

[Editor’s note, April 27th, 2018, 10: 15 am EST: Gary Kleck has removed his research paper online. According to Reason, it was pointed out by National Review’s Robert VerBruggen “that Kleck treats the CDC’s surveys discussed in this paper as if they were national in scope, as Kleck’s original survey was, but they apparently were not. From VerBruggen’s own looks at CDC’s raw data, it seems that over the course of the three years, the following 15 states were surveyed: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. (Those states, from 2000 census data, contained around 27 percent of the U.S. population.)

Informed of this, Kleck says he will recalculate the degree to which CDC’s survey work indeed matches or corroborates” his own studies. An earlier version of Kleck’s paper, published April 25, can be seen here.]

Washington, D.C. – An unpublished study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck’s claims from his 1990s study that indicated there were more than two million defensive handgun uses (also known as DGUs) per year in the United States.

Breitbart reported that “since the early 1990s, Kleck has maintained that there is a minimum of 760,000 DGUs annually. That is his low estimate; Kleck and research partner Marc Gertz have contended the actual number is closer to 2.5 million.” Although Kleck conducted what some have called the most thorough survey of the subject during the 1990s, his findings were disputed. In February 2015, Kleck doubled down his findings and noted that while there were plenty of critics of his work, none have been able to counter his findings with empirical evidence.

While the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is prohibited from using Congressional funding on research that aims “to advocate or promote gun control,” during the 1990s the CDC engaged in research that examined the frequency of innocent Americans using guns for self-defense, and the level of harm from guns used by violent criminals. Kleck recently announced that he has found unpublished data from the CDC.

Kleck’s controversial claims that there were more than 2.2 million defensive gun uses (DGUs) in the United States each year, has now been bolstered by the previously unpublished CDC study. Nonetheless, NPR, citing the National Crime Victimization Survey’s lower estimate of around 100,000 DGUs annually, revisited the DGU controversy last week, apparently oblivious to the existence of the CDC surveys.

In Kleck’s latest research paper, titled “What Do CDC’s Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses?”, Kleck claimed that in 1996, 1997, and 1998 the CDC specifically asked about DGUs in its Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

Kleck summarized in his paper:

In 1996, 1997, and 1998, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
conducted large-scale surveys asking about defensive gun use (DGU) in four to six states.
Analysis of the raw data allows the estimation of the prevalence of DGU for those areas.
Estimates based on CDC’s surveys confirm estimates for the same sets of states based on data
from the 1993 National Self-Defense Survey (Kleck and Gertz 1995). Extrapolated to the U.S.
as a whole, CDC’s survey data imply that defensive uses of guns by crime victims are far more
common than offensive uses by criminals. CDC has never reported these results.

A report from Reason magazine quoted Kleck’s reaction to the unpublished CDC study; he explained that a figure of 2.46 million DGUs a year “[implies] that guns were used defensively by victims about 3.6 times as often as they were used offensively by criminals.”

Gun Rights, Politics, States Rights, US

SC Bill Would Convene Legislature to Consider Secession If Feds Seize Guns

Leave a comment

Republican state representatives in South Carolina introduced a bill on Thursday that would convene the state’s legislature to consider secession from the U.S. government in the event that federal officials began seizing lawfully-purchased firearms in the state.

The bill summary for H 5217, which was introduced by state Reps. Mike Pitts (R-District 14), Jonathan Hill (R-District 8), and Ashley Trantham (R-District 28), reads, “A bill to amend the code of laws of South Carolina, 1976, by adding Article 11 to Chapter 31, Title 23 so as to provide that the General Assembly shall convene to consider whether to secede from the United States based upon the federal government’s unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this state.”

The introduction of the bill comes amid a nationwide debate over school security and gun laws that was sparked by the deadly February 14 mass school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. that left 17 dead and 17 wounded.

Gun control activists have called for new restrictions on firearms, such as bans or age limits on tactical rifles and expanded background checks, while supporters of gun rights have advocated for the elimination of gun-free zones in schools through measures including allowing some teachers or faculty members to carry firearms. In a New York Times op ed, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he believes that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be repealed, calling the amendment protecting gun rights a “relic of the 18th century.”

Bill author Rep. Mike Pitts said that it was the increasing chorus of demands for new gun restrictions that inspired him to pen the legislation and not former Justice John Paul Stevens’ comments on the Second Amendment.

Rep. Pitts, who claims that he is not “promoting secession,” said according to Fox News, “Without a Bill of Rights, our nation is not what it is. I see a lot of stuff where people even talk about totally repealing the Second Amendment, which separates us from the entire rest of the world.”

According to The Hill, the bill was assigned on Thursday to the House Judiciary Committee.

The measure is reportedly being considered primarily symbolic and unlikely to pass during this session, as it would have to gain swift traction in order to be transferred to the state’s Senate by the session’s April 10 deadline. As of press time, with that deadline fast approaching, the bill has yet to be introduced in the Senate.

Civil Liberties, Government Accountability, Gun Rights, Politics, States Rights, US

Judge Upholds MA AR-15 Ban: “Not Within Scope of Personal Right to Bear Arms”

Leave a comment

Boston, MA— A lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ ban on assault weapons was dismissed by a federal judge on April 5, who asserted in his ruling that military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines, banned by the state in 1998, are “not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in the decision.

Young said in his ruling that the features of a military-style rifle are “designed and intended to be particularly suitable for combat rather than sporting applications,” and that Massachusetts was within its rights to enact a ban through elected representatives.

“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young wrote. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

The Hill reported that the lawsuit dismissed by Young was filed by the Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, which claimed the ban infringed on Second Amendment rights. The group asserted in its complaint that the term “assault weapons” is non-technical and “entirely fabricated” to politicize the most popular types of guns in the United States.

“Healey unilaterally decreed that thousands of Massachusetts residents are suddenly criminals simply for having exercised their Second Amendment rights,” the complaint said, in reference to Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who expanded in 2016 the definition of “copies or duplicates” of AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles that are prohibited under the state’s 1998 assault-weapon ban.

In a statement, the National Rifle Association (NRA) criticized the decision.

“Like all law-abiding Massachusetts gun owners, the NRA was extremely disappointed that the court upheld Massachusetts’s ban on many of the most popular firearms in America,” the group said.

In his decision, Young, who Bloomberg reports was nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, quoted the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in a critical 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns, but also warned of potential limitations.

“Weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and “may be banned,” Young quoted Scalia as saying, referring to the automatic rifle popular with the military. The AR-15 is similar to an M-16, Young said, equating the military fully automatic firearm with a civilian semi-automatic.

In addition, Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular and widely owned within the United States.

“The AR-15’s present day popularity is not constitutionally material,” Young said.

Civil Liberties, Gun Rights, States Rights, US

Gun Rights Advocates Sue After Ill. Town Ordinance Bans “Assault” Rifles

Leave a comment

Deerfield, IL— Framed as a response to the Feb. 14 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the Deerfield Village Board passed a ban April 2 on semiautomatic “assault” rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines.

“We hope that our local decision helps spur state and national leaders to take steps to make our communities safer,” said Mayor Harriet Rosenthal. According to The Chicago Tribune, Deerfield’s definition of an “assault weapon” includes “semiautomatic rifles that have a fixed magazine with a capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition, shotguns with a revolving cylinder,” and “semiautomatic pistols and rifles that can accept large-capacity magazines. ”

In turn, gun rights advocates on April 5 sued the village— which is about 25 miles outside of Chicago— over the ban, while Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of The Second Amendment Foundation, claimed the ordinance “flies in the face of state law.” The Second Amendment Foundation sued Deerfield Village, along with the Illinois State Rifle Association and a Deerfield resident.

Rosenthal claimed that state law allowed for the updating of the village’s existing ordinance, which gave guidance on transportation and storage of “assault-style” weapons and defined specific models of firearms the rules were applicable to. Despite Rosenthal’s explanation, the lawsuit accuses the village of violating state law.

Although state law allows for amendments to previous ordinances, the lawsuit argues that the sweeping ban under the auspices of an ordinance amendment goes too far. John Boch, president of the Illinois-based gun rights advocacy group Guns Save Life, also said he would be filing a lawsuit.

[Also Read: Under 21 ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Requiring Gun Surrender Clears Illinois Senate]

“We are going to fight this ordinance, which clearly violates our member’s constitutional rights, and with the help of the NRA, I believe we can secure a victory for law-abiding gun owners in and around Deerfield,” he said.

Rather than simply updating an ordinance, critics contend the new amendment goes much further, particularly with the village’s claim that possession of specified weapons in Deerfield is not “reasonably necessary” to protect an individual’s right to self-defense.

Furthermore, firearm owners are required by law to transfer high-capacity magazines and “assault” rifles out of the village, modify them so they comply with ordinance standards, or surrender them to law enforcement.

According to a report by The Washington Times:

The Supreme Court in 2008 ruled that Americans have a constitutional right to keep a handgun in their home for self-protection, and extended those rights to the states in 2010.

But the high court has declined since then to weigh in on lower court rulings upholding other similar bans on specific semiautomatic weapons — including an ordinance from Highland Park, another Illinois town that Deerfield says it modeled its rules on.

Gun-rights groups pointed to Deerfield’s new language that specifically allows police to confiscate the banned weapons as particularly concerning…

A divided Seventh Circuit appeals court panel upheld the Highland Park ordinance in 2015, saying it didn’t want to try to fill in what the Supreme Court rulings had arguably left open as to whether constitutional protections include a right to own certain semiautomatic weapons.

In December 2015, the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the case.

The ordinance goes into effect on June 13, 2018 – with residents facing fines of up to $1,000 per day for failure to comply within 60 days – and reportedly gives police the authority to confiscate and destroy weapons and magazines, although the village says it will not have police conduct “door to door” compliance checks.

“While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense,” Mr. Gottlieb said.

“This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns,’” Gottlieb said.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVws4ohBHH8

Opinion, Polls, US

VOTE: If the Meaning of the Second Amendment is About Preventing Tyranny, is it Outdated?

Video Leave a comment
    Please pick one. Participation in this poll will enroll you in Ben Swann Truth In Media's free newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Reality Check

Reality Check: The True Meaning of the Second Amendment

Video Leave a comment

It may be the most controversial, the most contentious right we have as Americans: the right to keep and bear arms. The root of that contention is in the often misunderstood intention of the founders and framers.

So what is the Second Amendment really about?

This is a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

There are so many questions being debated in the media about what rights we have under the Second Amendment. One of those questions that has come up is: is the Second Amendment outdated?

If the founding fathers of this country had been aware of the kind of weapons we would have today, would they have kept the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights?

And is the Second Amendment about protecting yourself, or is it more about hunting and sportsmanship?

Let’s start with the actual language of the amendment. It reads:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Over the years, Politico, The Atlantic, The New Yorker and other media outlets have reported about the National Rifle Association’s efforts in the 1980s that caused the “well regulated militia” part of the Second Amendment to become ignored. And, thanks to an all-out push by the the NRA, the meaning of the Second Amendment was expanded from “militia” to the individual.

Jeffrey Toobin, senior legal analyst for CNN and staff writer at The New Yorker, wrote an article for the magazine in 2012 on this very topic. He writes, “The re-interpretation of the Second Amendment was an elaborate and brilliantly executed political operation, inside and outside of government. Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 brought a gun-rights enthusiast to the White House.

“At the same time, Orrin Hatch, the Utah Republican, became chairman of an important subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he commissioned a report that claimed to find clear and long lost proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”

Now, Toobin’s analysis may be historically correct in his observation of the change in the public’s understanding of the Second Amendment today. But he gets it wrong when he indicates that the Second Amendment did not grant the right to private ownership of a gun for individuals.

Let’s read the Second Amendment once more, for clarity, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

So what about well-regulated militias? What were the framers talking about?

The answer lies in the history of our country. Of all the fears held by the founding fathers, none was stronger than their fear of standing armies.

As constitutional scholar David E. Young has observed, “The necessity of an armed populace, protection against disarming of the citizenry, and the need to guard against a select militia and assure a real militia which could defend liberty against any standing forces the government might raise were topics interspersed throughout the ratification period.”

Now this likely a very foreign concept to many Americans, but understand this: the very first battle over the Second Amendment was not about whether or not the people should be armed. It was a given at the time of writing the Bill of Rights, as everyone was armed.

No, the battle was over whether we would have a standing army, a battle between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

The Anti-Federalists, among them George Mason, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams, were staunch advocates of the inclusion of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution because they did not trust the power of the federal government to be self-restrained.

Don Kates, a constitutional and Second Amendment scholar, explains, “During the ratification debate, the Federalists vehemently denied that the federal government would have the power to infringe freedom of expression, religion, and other basic rights – expressly including the right to arms. In this context, Madison secured ratification by his commitment to support and to safeguard the fundamental rights that all agreed should never be infringed.”

On the other side of the debate were the Federalists, which included John Jay, James Madison and George Washington. These men supported a Second Amendment because, they believed, that a central, federal government would be capable of controlling a standing army.

Instead of a standing army, Anti-Federalists wanted every able-bodied man in America to be armed in the event that a federal government, or America’s own standing army, turned against its own people.

What you need to know is that, for many Americans, this is a very difficult and uncomfortable truth. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. And it’s not about defense of your property.

The Second Amendment was written by men who ultimately believed that governments and armies would turn on their own people, as a way to guarantee that that would never happen.

That’s Reality Check. Let’s talk about that, right now, on Twitter and Facebook.

 

Producer’s Note: In the slides quoting the Second Amendment, the quote should read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The quote on screen includes an  “and” that should not be there.

Civil Liberties, Featured, Gun Rights, Politics, US

NJ High School Revises Gun Policy Following Student Suspension Reports

Leave a comment

Lanoka Harbor, NJ — Two New Jersey high school students were allegedly suspended after one reportedly posted a gun photo on Snapchat that showed “four rifles, ammunition [magazines], and a gun duffel bag” taken during a family visit to a shooting range with the caption “fun day at the range,” according to Lacey Township resident Amanda Buron, who said she was a family friend of one of the students.

NJ.com reported that Buron claimed the students received a five-day in-school suspension for violating the school’s policy on weapons possession after a screen shot of the image circulated among students and social media, and was eventually brought to the attention of the Lacey Township High School administration.

The school faced a swift backlash over the reported suspensions, as the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) sent a cease and desist letter to the school district, which noted that the school district’s weapons policy allowed students to be suspended for up to a year if “reported to be in possession of a weapon of any type for any reason or purpose on or off school grounds.”

The ANJRPC noted that they were prepared to take legal action if the policy wasn’t modified.

“The policy is clearly wrong and violates the Second Amendment,” ANJRPC executive director Scott Bach said. “We hope that they’re reasonable people and they will fix it. If they don’t, we’re prepared to take legal action.”

Bach also pointed out that schools lack the authority to “chill the rights of their students off of school grounds.”

“Schools do not have the authority to chill the rights of their students off of school grounds, and this blatant infringement of constitutional rights will not be tolerated,” Bach said. “I don’t care if no students were disciplined. The policy has got to go.”

After being threatened with a lawsuit, last week, by the ANJRPC, the Lacey school district quietly revised the policy in question, which prohibited students from legally handling a gun off campus. The policy now omits any mention of possessing a weapon off school grounds, nor a specific suspension length for offenders.

“Students are forbidden to carry any type of weapon or simulated weapon to school,” the revamped policy states, which can be accessed on the district’s website.

Bach told NJ.com that his organization considers the district’s policy change a victory, but is currently reviewing it.

“It addresses many of the major issues we identified, but our counsel is still reviewing it,” Bach said.

Bach also took issue with the district’s failure to take responsibility. “Instead of the superintendent fessing up and admitting the policy was wrong, they try this misdirection,” Bach proclaimed.

In an email to NJ Advance Media, on Thursday, Lacey schools Superintendent Craig Wigley said that “information posted on social media is incorrect” and that student privacy laws prevents him for commenting on the matter, declining to say what aspect of the account was inaccurate.

“We are not at will to contradict public opinion on the internet,” Wigley wrote.

Although the policy has been modified, the social media uproar over the boys suspension could potentially lead to a large turnout at a school board meeting scheduled for Monday evening at Lacey Township High School.

Featured, Gun Rights, Politics, States Rights

Under 21 ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Requiring Gun Surrender Clears Illinois Senate

Leave a comment

The Illinois State Senate passed HB 1465 on Wednesday, a bill banning the sale of certain types of semi-automatic weapons to individuals under age 21. The bill would also make owning such a weapon below that age a Class 3 felony for a first offense and a Class 2 felony for a second offense.

The bill deviates from the traditional military definition of assault rifle, requiring the weapon to be capable of selective fire options like three round bursts and fully-automatic, and instead defines it as any semi-automatic rifle or pistol with a belt or magazine fed system capable of more than 10 rounds or featuring a folding stock or the ability to accept tactical attachments such as scopes. The definition also includes some .50 caliber rifles. Those individuals currently owning the weapons would be required to surrender them within 90 days.

According to WAND-TV, the bill passed by a vote of 33 to 22. It previously passed the House, but must go back to the House for reconciliation after lawmakers added an amendment that would allow individuals who owned such weapons prior to the passage of the law to use that fact as an affirmative defense when facing felony charges under the legislation.

[RELATED: Seattle Police Achieve State’s First “Red Flag Law” Gun Seizure]

The amendment was added to attract Republican votes to the bill, but Mahomet Republican state Sen. Chapin Rose told Watchdog.org that the amendment would not necessarily protect owners of the weapons from facing felony charges if they do not surrender them. He believes the bill should have exempted current owners of the weapons from facing charges, rather than just offering them an affirmative defense while under arrest.

“Never mind the fact that you’re an innocent person and you’re in shackles and have been taken to jail and booked and your mugshot is now on TV,” said Sen. Rose.

The Illinois State Senate also passed HB 1467 on Wednesday, which bans bump stocks and trigger cranks in the state, and added an amendment to that bill allowing localities to ban what it defines as assault weapons, potentially creating different gun laws on a town-by-town basis in the state.

In addition, the Illinois House of Representatives recently passed HB 1468, which would impose a 72-hour waiting period on purchases of items defined as assault weapons under the bill. The Senate has yet to vote on the measure.

The Illinois General Assembly is controlled by a Democratic majority. Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner recently vetoed a bill that would have required gun retailers to be licensed by the state, claiming that to be “unnecessary, burdensome regulation.”

Gubernatorial vetoes can be overturned by a three-fifths majority vote in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly.

Education, Featured, Government Accountability, Politics, US

Teacher Placed On Leave After Questioning School Walkout

Leave a comment

Rocklin, CA— California high school history teacher Julianne Benzel is on paid suspension after engaging her students in a discussion where she shared her perspective on the politics of organized protests in anticipation of the National School Walkout, which took place on the morning of March 14.

“We had a dialogue in class about it in Thursday and Friday. And today I received the call. So I am aghast,” Benzel told CBS Sacramento.

Benzel said that she questioned her students as to the appropriateness of schools sanctioning a protest against gun violence and whether the school administration was willing to allow protests for other causes, but she noted that she never discouraged her pupils from taking part in the walkout.

“If you’re going to allow students to walk up and get out of class without penalty then you have to allow any group of students that wants to protest,” Benzel said.

“And so I just kind of used the example which I know it’s really controversial, but I know it was the best example I thought of at the time,” Benzel told CBS Sacramento. “[If] a group of students nationwide, or even locally, decided ‘I want to walk out of school for 17 minutes’ and go in the quad area and protest abortion, would that be allowed by our administration?”

According to Benzel, her students understood the purpose of her discussion, but on Wednesday, she received notification that she was being placed on leave. While students were walking out of class, Benzel was informed she was being placed on paid administrative leave.

“I didn’t get any backlash from my students. All my students totally understood that there could not be a double standard,” she said.

School officials didn’t elaborate on the specific nature of the issue, but released a statement reading in part:

A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher’s communications regarding today’s student-led civic engagement activities.

Benzel said that she hopes the national student walkout will facilitate broader discussion not focused entirely on second amendment gun rights, but also on free speech.

Student Nick Wade, who didn’t walk out, told CBS13 that he believes the politics behind the protest played a large role – and that protests related to a more “conservative” cause would likely be denied by school officials.

“I feel like if we were to go to school and say something like I want to walk out maybe for abortion rights, then you know they probably wouldn’t let us because that’s more of a conservative push. But someone wants to say let’s walk out for gun control then the school’s going to go with it because it’s more of a popular view,” said Wade.

Benzel told the news station that she acquired legal counsel and plans to meet with the school administration on Thursday.

Featured, Gun Rights, US

Northeastern Study: Schools Safer Than in ’90s, Shootings ‘Not an Epidemic’

Leave a comment

A new Northeastern University research study claims that mass shootings are happening at a historically typical pace and that shooting deaths in schools have been on the decline since peaking in the 1990s.

The study entitled “The Three R’s of School Shootings: Risk, Readiness, and Response” by Lipman Family Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy James Alan Fox and doctoral student Emma Fridel, which is set to be published in The Wiley Handbook on Violence in Education: Forms, Factors, and Preventions in June of 2018, compiled data on school shootings from USA Today, the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Report, Congressional Research Service, Gun Violence Archive, Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries, Everytown for Gun Safety, a Mother Jones compilation of shooting statistics, and an NYPD active shooters report.

While each of those reports define a mass and school shooting differently, Fox said that according to his examination of the totality of the data, since 1996, 16 multiple-victim shootings have taken place in schools, defined as shooting incidents in which there were 4 or more victims and at least 2 fatalities excluding the perpetrator. Fox defined 8 of those shootings, involving deaths of 4 or more victims excluding the perpetrator, as mass shootings, which mirrors the 1980s FBI definition of mass murder, The Washington Post noted.

Fox also said that, including school shootings below the threshold of a mass shooting, four times as many children were fatally shot in schools in the 1990s compared to the present day. He also added that an average of 10 students per year die to gunfire in schools in the United States, meaning that bicycle accidents and pool drownings are significantly greater threats to the lives of schoolchildren.

 

School Shootings
source: Northeastern University

“There is not an epidemic of school shootings,” said Fox.

Incidentally, Professor Fox is a supporter of gun control legislation and said that he believes that banning bump stocks and raising the legal age to purchase tactical rifles from 18 to 21 could help reduce overall gun crime. However, he claimed that these policy changes would do little to impact mass shootings.

“The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround,” he said. Fox also noted that there have only been five times in the past 35 years in which a person between the ages of 18 and 20 used a tactical rifle along the lines of an AR-15 to carry out a mass shooting.

Fox slammed the idea of arming teachers, calling it “absurd” and said, “I’m not a big fan of making schools look like fortresses, because they send a message to kids that the bad guy is coming for you—if we’re surrounding you with security, you must have a bull’s-eye on your back. That can actually instill fear, not relieve it.”

Emma Fridel pointed out that many security policies aimed at stopping mass shootings have been ineffective. She said that mass shooting drills have not been shown to work in studies and that students find them traumatizing. She also noted that many mass shootings have taken place at schools with metal detectors and other security precautions, as shooters have found ways around them, such as targeting students outside during fire drills or ambushing security guards at the front door to gain entry.

“These measures just serve to alarm students and make them think it’s something that’s common,” Fridel claimed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVws4ohBHH8

 

Featured, Reality Check, Videos

Reality Check: Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Severely Mentally Ill People To Buy Guns

Video Leave a comment

Vote in our poll about gun control. Click here to vote.

The latest mass shooting at a school in Florida is once again reigniting the debate over gun control and mental health.

But now the media headlines are blaming President Trump because, they say, he signed a bill that actually made it easier for people with severe mental health problems to get guns.

Is that true?

Let’s give it a Reality Check you won’t get anywhere else.

19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, police say, is the man responsible for gunning down at least 17 teenagers at a Florida high school.

We now know much more about Cruz’s background, which include a number of very disturbing reports of police calls to his home.

According to police records obtained first by CNN, police responded to Cruz’s home 39 times over a seven-year period.

Details about the calls to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office have not yet shown if all involved Cruz.

What do we know about the calls police were responding too? According to KTLA, those included calls of a “mentally ill person,” “child/elderly abuse,” “domestic disturbance” and “missing person.”

We also know that, according to the New York Times, “Last fall, a bail bondsman in Mississippi spotted a disturbing comment on his YouTube channel.”

‘Im going to be a professional school shooter.’

“The bondsman, Ben Bennight, took a screenshot and flagged the comment to YouTube.” And he even “left a voicemail message at his local F.B.I. field office alerting it to the comment.”

The name of the person who wrote that comment? Nikolas Cruz.

And there is more. ABC News reports that law enforcement sources say Cruz claimed “he heard voices in his head, giving him instructions” for the attack. And those “voices were described as ‘demons’.”

So to summarize, at this point it appears that Cruz very likely suffered from extreme mental health issues.

And yet, he was able to legally buy a Smith and Wesson M&P 15 .223, according to Peter Forcelli, special agent in charge of the Miami office of the ATF.

According to USA Today, “Federal law allows people age 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.”

According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, if somebody is “‘adjudicated mentally defective’ or has been ‘committed to a mental institution’,” he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law.

Cruz had not been flagged by the proper authorities. So what was the response from the media?

That it is President Trump’s fault because, they say, he and the Republican Party have actually made it easier for people with mental health problems to buy assault weapons.

So is that true? Did the GOP pass, and then President Trump sign, a repeal of an Obama-era directive to keep guns out the hands of people with severe mental illness?

No, that’s not actually what happened.

What did happen?

HJ Resolution 40 was signed by President Trump on February 28, 2017, days after his inauguration.

According to the BBC, “It repealed an Obama-era rule that would have affected about 75,000 US citizens who are too mentally ill to handle their own disability benefits.”

The Obama measure covered those of “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

“It also ordered the US Social Security Administration, which administers benefits, to add these names to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.”

And this is what media is jumping all over.

But what they are not telling you is the incredible groundswell of opposition to the this rule from at least 15 mental health organizations, including American Association of People with Disabilities. And even the ACLU led the charge against this measure, saying it was unconstitutional and wrong.

Wrong, because, according to the Seattle Times, about 2.7 million people currently receive disability payments from Social Security for mental health problems. Another 1.5 million have their finances handled by others for a variety of reasons, according to the LA Times.

Those reasons may have nothing to do with mental illness. And they, those 1.5 million people, are who would not be allowed to purchase a gun.

Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who studied how veterans with mental health problems managed there money, points out, “Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe.”

And the ACLU’s opposition letter rule states:

“We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one’s Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.”

So what you need to know is that the Obama-era rule allowed one federal agency, the Social Security Administration, to be judge, jury and executioner of whether millions of Americans can purchase guns, based upon whether some else handles their finances.

Meanwhile, a 19-year-old who has the police come to his home 39 times in seven years somehow goes unflagged.

At the 11th hour, Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review of the FBI and DOJ for mishandling tips about Cruz, stating “It is now clear that the warning signs were there and tips to the FBI were missed. We see the tragic consequences of those failures.”

What will result from this investigation remains to be seen. But if legislation is created to protect against people with violent and dangerous mental health conditions buying guns, then it needs to be crafted in a way that actually works.

That’s Reality Check, let’s talk about it right now on Twitter and Facebook.

Polls

VOTE: If Legislation is Going to be Created to Stop Mass Shootings, Should it Focus On?

Video Leave a comment
    Please pick one. Participation in this poll will enroll you in Ben Swann Truth In Media's free newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Education, Featured, Gun Rights, Politics

Colo. State Rep Who Survived Columbine Introduces Bill to Arm Teachers

Leave a comment

Colorado State Representative Patrick Neville (R-Castle Rock) has introduced a bill that would allow teachers and faculty in the state who possess a concealed carry license to carry firearms in school.

Neville is a Columbine High School graduate who survived the infamous 1999 mass shooting, which USA Today notes left 13 dead and 20 injured.

“The only thing that is going to stop murderers intent on doing harm is to give good people the legal authority to carry a gun to protect themselves and our children,” said Rep. Neville according to The Hill.

[RELATED: Fact Check: 355 Mass Shootings So Far in 2015?]

“Parents wake up everyday and bring their children to school on blind faith that their kids will return home safe. Unfortunately, the current system continues to leave our children as sitting targets for criminals intent on doing harm,” he said.

Neville introduced a similar bill last year, which was defeated in Colorado’s Democrat-led House of Representatives. Under current state law, teachers are banned from carrying concealed weapons on school grounds.

[RELATED: Democratic N.Y. Sheriff Asks Handgun Owners to Carry in Wake of Mass Shootings]

When advocating for last year’s iteration of the bill, he said, “Our teachers and faculty [at Columbine] were heroic in so many ways that day. That’s why I truly believe had some of them had the legal authority to be armed, more of my friends would still be alive today.”

“As was the case in 1999, criminals aren’t deterred by a flashy sign on the door,” added Neville.

Obtaining a concealed carry permit in Colorado requires submitting to an FBI/CBI background check and providing proof of the completion of a firearms training course. Individuals who are addicted to drugs or alcohol or named in a civil or criminal restraining order are prohibited from carrying.

Last December, Ben Swann released a Reality Check segment, seen below, which examined the question of whether licensed gun owners carrying their weapons could help impede mass shooters.

Reality Check: Why More Guns in Right Hands May Be Answer To T…

Ben Swann explores the call of a Sheriff, asking those who are licensed and capable with a firearm to carry guns with them whenever possible. A look at the numbers behind this idea.Learn more: http://bit.ly/1ORNxJw

Posted by Ben Swann on Wednesday, December 9, 2015

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Featured, Gun Rights, Hot, International

Eagles of Death Metal Vocalist Says Gun Control Did Not Save Lives in Paris Attacks

Leave a comment

After living through a deadly terrorist massacre at the Bataclan theater in Paris, France where 90 people lost their lives and hundreds were injured, Eagles of Death Metal frontman Jesse Hughes’ opinion on gun rights has not changed.

Hughes, a politically-conservative, Donald Trump supporting National Rifle Association member, responded emotionally to a question about gun control posed during a Monday television interview on the French network iTélé.

“Gun control kind of doesn’t have anything to do with it, but if you want to bring it up, I’ll ask you,” he said to reporter Laurence Ferrari, “Did your French gun control stop a single f***ing person from dying at the Bataclan? If anyone can answer yes, I’d like to hear it, because I don’t think so. I think the only thing that stopped it was some of the bravest men that I’ve ever seen in my life charging head-first into the face of death with their firearms.”

[RELATED: France Declares State of Emergency, Military Enacts Full Control]

“Maybe, I know people will disagree with me, but it just seems like God made men and women, and that night guns made them equal,” Hughes added, fighting back tears, “And I hate it that it’s that way. I think the only way my mind has been changed is that maybe until nobody has guns everybody has to have them, because I don’t ever want to see anything like this ever happen again, and I want everyone to have the best chance to live, and I saw people die that maybe could have lived. I don’t know, but I wish I knew for sure if they could have had a better chance, because there were some real angels, real wonderful people in that show that aren’t alive today, and I really wish they were.”

The Guardian notes that Hughes also told Agence France-Presse, “I don’t go anywhere in America without a gun anymore. That sucks. And I’m not paranoid. I’m not a cowboy… but I want to be prepared.”

[RELATED: French Prosecutor: Suspected ‘Mastermind’ of Paris Attacks Killed in Police Raid]

Eagles of Death Metal is set for a defiant return to Paris on Tuesday for the band’s first concert in the city since the coordinated November 13 terror attacks. The concert will take place at the Olympia and will feature additional security. The band invited surviving victims of the previous attack at the Bataclan to attend the show, and psychologists and psychiatrists will be on hand to help those individuals if the need arises.

According to The New York Times, Hughes told the French cable channel Canal+, “[Tuesday’s] Paris [concert] isn’t just a show. It is not a rock show; it is a lot bigger than that. It has a much bigger purpose than just entertaining this time around.”

Survivors’ groups say the concert is an opportunity for some victims to heal and move past the event.

Hughes, who emphasized that he is “pro-freedom,” told iTélé, “I’m not a hero, but I love my friends. And I was raised that you have to be willing to give your life, or else it is not worth living, and you are not a member of a community. I’m not a hero, but if I had had a gun I could have changed something, and I would have been willing to do it.”

Follow Barry Donegan on Facebook and Twitter.

Election, Featured, US

Cruz: ‘The Second Amendment Will Be Written Out of the Constitution’ if Trump is President

Video Leave a comment

As previously reported by Truth In Media, Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes at a ranch in West Texas Saturday morning.

The passing of Scalia sparked different reactions from presidential candidates and political organizations. Both the National Rifle Association and Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are emphasizing the importance of replacing Scalia’s seat with a pro-2nd Amendment Justice.

According to Washington Examiner, the NRA will spend $20 million during the election to push for gun rights and will lobby for pro 2nd Amendment justices.

The NRA tweeted Senator Ted Cruz’s statement at the news of Scalia’s passing.

Senator Cruz told This Week‘s George Stephanopoulos the importance of the next election and how it will affect the SCOTUS’ decision on important issues like the 2nd Amendment. Cruz also told Stephanopoulos that he intends to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee brought forward by President Obama.

“I don’t think the American people want a court that will write the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution,” said Cruz.

But Cruz went a step further by attacking his opponent Donald Trump.

Cruz said, “And if Donald Trump becomes president, the Second Amendment will be written out of the Constitution because it is abundantly clear that Donald Trump is not a conservative. He will not invest the capital to confirm a conservative.”

[RELATED: Reality Check: What Trump’s Love of Eminent Domain Tells You About His Values]

Cruz added, “whether it’s Hillary, Bernie or Donald Trump. The Second Amendment will go away.”

“He says you’re wrong. He says he will and he says your judgment should be questioned because you supported John Roberts,” said Stephanopoulos.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/698990680719360000

Cruz said, “Listen, number one, I did not appoint John Roberts. George W. Bush did. Now once the president made the appointment, I supported that nomination. That was a mistake.”

Featured, Foreign Policy, Gun Rights

Alleged ISIS Plotter Said He Planned to Target Detroit Church Where Guns ‘Not Allowed’

Leave a comment

Federal Bureau of Investigation officials say that 21-year-old Dearborn Heights, Michigan resident Khalil Abu-Rayyan told an undercover informant that he had planned to carry out a mass shooting on a Detroit church but was foiled when his father discovered evidence of the plot.

WDIV ClickOnDetroit notes that Abu-Rayyan is currently in custody on drug and gun charges in connection with an Oct. 7, 2015 traffic stop in which he was found in possession of marijuana, sleeping pills, and a pistol. He has not been charged with any crimes related to terrorism, though authorities say that such charges might be added in the future.

The FBI had been monitoring Abu-Rayyan’s activities since May of 2015 when he allegedly began liking and sharing ISIS propaganda on Twitter.

[RELATED: Did FBI “Set Up” Capitol Bombing Suspect? They’ve Done It 49 Times Since 9/11!]

According to a criminal complaint filed Thursday by an FBI special agent, Abu-Rayyan spoke with an undercover informant in Dec. of 2015 and reportedly expressed support for ISIS and interest in carrying out a martyrdom operation.

The complaint claimed that Abu-Rayyan told the informant, “I tried to shoot up a church one day. I don’t know the name of it, but it’s close to my job. It’s one of the biggest ones in Detroit. Ya, I had it planned out. I bought a bunch of bullets. I practiced a lot with it. I practiced reloading and unloading. But my dad searched my car one day and he found everything. He found the gun and the bullets and a mask I was going to wear.”

He allegedly told the informant that he singled out the church for a mass shooting inspired by ISIS because, “It’s easy and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news. Everybody would’ve heard.” The FBI says that Abu-Rayyan did not specify which church, but noted that it has seating for 6,000 people.

[RELATED: FBI Foils ISIS Terror Attacks After THEY Recruit and Plot the Attack?]

FBI officials say that Abu-Rayyan claimed to carry a large knife in his car and said that it is his “dream to behead someone.” The informant also said that Abu-Rayyan had expressed interest in murdering the police officer that arrested him on Oct. 7.

Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Michigan executive director Dawud Walid told The Detroit News, “If the allegations are true, then they’re extremely troublesome,” but that his organization is “encouraging the broader community to also reserve judgment regarding this matter.”

Abuy-Rayyan is set to face a detention hearing on Monday afternoon.

Featured, Gun Rights, Politics

President Obama Outlines, Defends Gun Control Executive Orders

Leave a comment

On Tuesday, President Obama announced and outlined the executive orders that he will sign to unilaterally implement new gun control regulations.

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking,” said President Obama in a White House address according to CNN.

He added, “We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.”

Obama’s orders will mandate that anyone who sells firearms at all, including online or at gun shows, obtain a license and perform background checks. The New York Times notes that the White House claims that this rule could even affect individuals selling only one or two guns.

[RELATED: New California Law Allows Seizure of Legal Guns Without Notice in 2016]

Another order will mandate background checks when guns are purchased through a trust or corporation.

Obama’s executive actions include steps that he claims will improve criminal record sharing between states to beef up the nation’s background check system. He will also hire 200 more ATF agents and over 230 more National Instant Criminal Background Check System examiners to enforce gun regulations.

The Social Security Administration will also begin analyzing recipients of mental health disability payments to determine if their gun rights should be suspended.

[RELATED: President Obama to Announce Executive Action for Gun Control]

Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan issued a statement on the orders and said, “From day one, the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding. He knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue. Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty.”

Ryan continued, “His executive order will no doubt be challenged in the courts. Ultimately, everything the president has done can be overturned by a Republican president, which is another reason we must win in November.”

President Obama said in his address, “Congress still needs to act. … Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures, we can reduce gun violence a whole lot. But we also can’t wait. Until we have the Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives.”

The Blaze captured screenshots of a White House fact sheet outlining the executive actions in detail, which can be seen below.

WhitePaper1

WhitePaper2

WhitePaper3

WhitePaper4