Where’s Chris Christie Now?

Mother facing 10 years for having a licensed gun.

New Jersey’s gun laws – the same types of laws Mike Bloomberg and his ilk want to see adopted nationwide – are outrageous and unjust.  They destroy the lives of innocent people while doing nothing to reduce crime.  Case in point: Shaneen Allen, single mother of two, healthcare worker trying hard to provide for her family in Philadelphia. She was working two jobs, often pulling late shifts and odd hours.  She had been robbed twice in the past year, and a family member encouraged her to get a gun for protection.  She went through a firearms training class, passed a background check, and was issued a license to carry a firearm by the Pennsylvania State Police.  About a week after acquiring a firearm, Shaneen was pulled over for a minor traffic violation.  As she had been instructed in her licensing class, she immediately informed the officer that she had a license and a handgun with her.  Unfortunately for Shaneen, she was on the New Jersey side of the river at the time, and her Pennsylvania license is not recognized in New Jersey.  Shaneen spent over a month in a New Jersey county jail and is now facing up to ten years in prison, with a mandatory minimum sentence of at least three years, along with a felony conviction on her record.  If she is convicted or pleads guilty, the judge will have little choice regarding her sentence, he will be required by law to sentence her to at least three years or more.

 A legal defense fund has been set up to assist Shaneen Allen in her struggle for survival.  Information about it can be found on the Shaneen Allen Legal Defense Fund page on Facebook.

Continue reading Out Christie →

Solving the Open Carry Protest Problem

The announcement by Target Corporation that, while they are going to continue their practice of respecting local firearm laws, they “respectfully request” that customers not bring firearms into their stores, has brought to a head a long-brewing conflict within the firearm rights community.  That issue is the use of open carry of firearms as a form of political protest.

Some folks just oppose open carry in any context.  Their reasons may be tactical, i.e. being an obvious target, or they may dislike potentially making others uncomfortable.  Some oppose it only in the context of political protest.  Some are okay with open carry of handguns, but adamantly oppose open carry of long guns under any circumstances. 

Even those who see open carry, whether long guns or handguns, as a valid form of protest are divided.  Some think the only appropriate place for “political open carry” is in organized marches and rallies on public property intended to raise awareness of the issue.  Others insist that marches and rallies just scare people and that routine open carry, including long guns, should just be part of life to get people used to seeing it and accustomed to the idea that a gun doesn’t make a person a threat.  Yet another camp defends the right of property owners to bar people who are visibly carrying.  And, naturally most of us are particularly disturbed when we see apparent safety violations being committed by protesters carrying long guns.

Continue reading Keyboard Critics →

Bloomberg Off Target

Last week I reported on Mike Bloomberg and his Demanding Moms’ propaganda campaign to convince Target to ban guns from their stores.  This week, Target’s acting CEO released a statement saying that guns were not conducive to the family atmosphere the company strives for in their stores, and that, while they were going to continue to be ruled by local laws on the subject, they were respectfully requesting that customers not bring guns into their stores.

Bloomberg and his PR subsidiary, Moms Demand Action, are spinning the statement as a victory for their anti-rights cause, but like previous “victories,” the Target statement has more to do with getting out of the middle of a battle between Bloomberg’s Astroturf groups and millions of gun owners than it has to do with safety or a family environment.   Target is the fourth national chain the Bloomies have targeted for “allowing” people who are legally carrying firearms to spend money in their establishments, and they are the fourth company to sidestep the issue by politely asking gun owners not to carry in their facilities.

Continue reading It’s A Right! →

Supreme Court Tightens Definition of Straw Purchase

The US Supreme Court released their decision this week in the case of Abramski v. US, which involved a former police officer, Abramski, who purchased a gun for an uncle in another state.  Neither Abramski nor his uncle was prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.  In fact, since the uncle lives in a different state, Abramski subsequently transferred the gun to his uncle through a licensed firearms dealer in that state, and the uncle completed all of the necessary paperwork and background check before taking possession.  The only reason for Abramski making the original purchase was that he could get the gun at a better price due to his police service.  The purchase drew attention while Abramski was being investigated in an unrelated matter.  It is likely that the investigators initially raised the issue as a way of generating leverage to motivate Abramski to cooperate in their primary investigation.  Whatever the reasons, no charges were filed in that original case, but Abramski’s purchase of a gun for his uncle was prosecuted.  The District Court and Appeals Court split on whether Abramski’s purchase violated federal law, and the Supreme Court settled the matter with their 5-4 decision.

The Court split down their standard “liberal” vs. “conservative” line with Justice Kennedy once again playing the role of swing vote.

Continue reading Straw Purchase? Don’t Lie →

It’s the Murderer Stupid!

Last Friday, as people began celebrating their extended Memorial Day weekend, one demented little narcissist took a knife and slaughtered 3 innocent people in the opening act of a really bad play he called his “Day of Retribution.”  He went on to kill three others and severely injure several more before finally taking his own worthless life.

Before I go on, let me make something really clear: I believe that all media, myself included, have a responsibility to avoid glorifying wanton criminals, minimizing reporting about the murderer.  The efficacy of this approach has been proven in studies concerning the reporting of suicides.*  I personally take that a step further by actively denigrating, shaming, and belittling the pathetic deviants for their evil actions.  As a policy, I never repeat the name of one of these loathsome rodents, nor do I publish their pictures or their idiotic rantings, because doing so feeds the beast.  It gives them what they wanted – fame and recognition – and it helps to motivate the next iteration of a murdering scumbag that we know is waiting in the wings looking for the trigger to change his life and make him “famous.”  If all media would adopt a similar attitude toward these low-life no-accounts, I believe we would not see such aberrations occurring as often as we currently do.

In the most recent case, there are strong indications that the murderer was emulating a movie about another murderer, and there is some indication that his whole idea for a “Day of Retribution” – and the resulting “fame” – might have been triggered by news coverage of the Sandy Hook atrocity.  Unfortunately, I see a high probability of this murderer’s story being turned into a feature film to help fuel demented sickos for years to come. 

Continue reading Still They Continue to Blame the Guns →

Supreme Court Side-Steps Second Amendment Again

Once again, the US Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal in a case concerning the Second Amendment and bearing arms for self-defense outside the home.  On Monday May 5, without comment, the Court rejected the case of Drake, et al. v. Jerejian.  The case challenged New Jersey’s law regarding concealed carry.  Under that law, a person applying for a license to carry a concealed firearm must prove a “justifiable need” to even be considered, and can still be denied at the whim of local law enforcement.  The “justifiable need” provision requires that the person prove “specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by other means.”  The plaintiffs in the Drake case included a man who restocks ATM money machines, a Reserve Sheriff’s Deputy, a civilian employee of the FBI, and a person who was the victim in an interstate kidnapping.  All of them had been denied the right to carry by New Jersey’s system.

The Federal Appeals Court for the 3^rd Circuit (NJ, PA, DE, and PR) ruled that the law’s stringent requirements are not a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms.  By refusing to review that ruling, the Supreme Court allows that 3^rd Circuit ruling to stand.  In recent months, similar rulings in similar cases challenging carry restrictions in New York and Maryland were also ruled constitutional by the 2^nd and 4^th Circuit Courts (NY, VT, CT, and RI, and WV, VA, MD, NC, and SC respectively) and were refused review by the Supreme Court.

Continue reading Drake v. Jerejian →