Eric Holder 1995: We Must Brainwash People on Guns

[In] 1995 … then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announc[ed] a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation’s most dangerous cities for gun violence, though crime has abated somewhat since the 1990s.

via Brieitbart.

Video:
http://content.bitsontherun.com/players/vvy0FSoM-svqBtzyp.html

He also exposes how modern progressives use schools to promote their brainwashing on America’s youth.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

Right thinking people believe that parents are the primary educator.

More and more it’s quickly becoming clear that Holder is an anchor around Obama’s neck… if the media would just wake up.

National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012

Good news for Second Amendment types:

Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.”  The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822, which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state’s laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

via NRA-ILA.

Of course the anti-gun folks are ready to puke up their lunch.  They cannot face the facts regarding gun ownership; more guns, less crime.

Consider:

Today 49 states either issue carry permits or otherwise authorize law-abiding people to carry firearms outside the home for self-defense. 41 states have fair “shall issue” permit systems that allow any law-abiding person to get a permit.  …

These bills would have no effect on permitless carry laws, currently on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Wyoming and Vermont, that allow concealed carry without a permit. In addition, Vermont residents would be able to take advantage of S. 2188 and H.R. 822 by obtaining a permit from one of the many states that offer non-resident permits.

To think that four states allow citizens to walk around carrying handguns without any permit whatsoever.  Oh the horror!!

8 Shot on South, West sides Overnight

6:00 a.m. CDT, March 11, 2012

At least eight people were shot Saturday night and Sunday morning on the South and West sides, according to police.

via Chicago Tribune.

Eight in one night.  It appears that all the criminals are willing to carry despite all the laws Rahm et. al. keep passing.  So what are the innocent to do?

-=-=-

One day I’m going to investigate how Anita Alvarez prosecutes these cases.  My guess is that we have all these guns laws and none are being applied.

Downstate and Chicago, Brothers in Arms?

It’s an Op-Ed, but it’s also propaganda:

Mayor Rahm Emanuel was in Peoria earlier this week talking about how Chicago and Downstate politicians need to stop fighting so much.

“The politics of the past where we used to play Chicago versus downstate is over. It doesn’t serve the people of Illinois,” Emanuel said, adding, “It’s not working anymore.”

Note to Rahm: It never worked.

One of the biggest issues in downstate politics is guns. …

The basic caricature is that Downstate politicians love guns and want one in every citizen’s hands, while Chicago politicians are afraid of guns and want to ban them entirely. …

Emanuel got along great with Downstate legislators last year. … But then a few weeks ago the mayor announced that he wanted a new law to register all the handguns in Illinois. The mayor scored some routine political points with his gun-hating Chicago constituents, but he infuriated Downstaters, and the resulting explosion was cataclysmic.

Downstaters who had worked with Emanuel just days before began publicly ripping into him as if he were some sort of evil dictator bent on grabbing all their guns. Most are now using their opposition to Emanuel in their campaigns. Ironically enough, Emanuel helped boost Downstate legislators politically while simultaneously alienating them from his legislative agenda.

On the other side of the equation, though, is the Downstate ignorance about how deeply so many Chicagoans hate guns. Many Chicagoans are as insulted and infuriated by Downstate demands that people be able to legally carry loaded handguns on the city’s streets as downstaters are that they’ll have to pay $20 to register every handgun they own.

So, if the mayor really wants to work toward peace, he’ll first have to find a way to get past these gun issues. And if he can do that, he’s a better man than most.

via Chicago Sun-Times.

Kudos to Rich Miller for pointing out how Rahm is causing the divide he claims he wants to repair.  Oh, wait… Miller didn’t do that, I just did.

The bigger issue with Miller’s piece is his create choice of language; he choose his word carefully.  By saying, “the Downstate ignorance about how deeply so many Chicagoans hate guns” he doesn’t have to claim that a majority of people (or voters) hate guns but he can create the inference as such.

The truth is that so many Chicagoans really really really want the right to own (most of those want to be able to carry) a handgun.  Perhaps if Mr. Miller would get outside of the liberal cocktail party set he would realize that many residents feel terrorized in their own homes.  A black minister once told me, “Many in my congregation don’t want to police harassing the folks in their neighborhood.  But they also want to keep a .38 under the pillow.”

Most logical open minded people know that when seconds count the police are just minutes away.  A firearm is used in defense far more often than in offense.  Mr. Miller and his anti-gun friends just can’t get their heads around the facts.  They really should read John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime.

Concealed Carry works.  Illinois is now the only state in the union without any sort of CCW.  I’m not a believer in the “if everyone jumped off a bridge logic” but it appears that our foot dragging is making us look foolish, childish.  States like Alaska and Vermont have no laws restricting carrying a concealed firearm at all.  Florida has a very open CCW policy (they even gave me a permit;) and yet Miami doesn’t have near the gun violence of Chicago.  Compare Dallas or Houston as well.

The bottom line is that the Downstaters have it right and the political elites in Chicago have it wrong.

Gun Owners Need Not Provide ‘Good Reason’

Good news for those who believe in the Second Amendment:

Maryland residents do not have to provide a “good and substantial reason” to legally own a handgun, a federal judge ruled Monday, striking down as unconstitutional the state’s requirements for getting a permit.  …

“A citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights,” Legg wrote. “The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.”  …

“People have the right to carry a gun for self-defense and don’t have to prove that there’s a special reason for them to seek the permit,” said his attorney Alan Gura, who has challenged handgun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago as an attorney with the Second Amendment Foundation. “We’re not against the idea of a permit process, but the licensing system has to acknowledge that there’s a right to bear arms.”  …

“In addition to self-defense, the (Second Amendment) right was also understood to allow for militia membership and hunting. To secure these rights, the Second Amendment’s protections must extend beyond the home: neither hunting nor militia training is a household activity, and ‘self-defense has to take place wherever (a) person happens to be,'” Legg wrote.

via Fox News.

I believe the judge not only reached the correct verdict but did so with the correct logic.  At the end of the day, our right to defend ourselves is given to us not by government but by our creator. i.e. by nature for you atheist folks.

Before the McDonald case reached the USSC it was heard by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.  In that opinion J. Easterbrook wrote:

Self-defense is a common-law gloss on criminal statutes, a defense that many states have modified by requiring people to retreat when possible, and to use non-lethal force when retreat is not possible.  An obligation to avoid lethal force in self-defense might imply an obligation to use pepper spray rather than handguns.  A modification of the self-defense defense may or may not be in the best interest of public safety—whether guns deter or facilitate crime is an empirical question—but it is difficult to argue that legislative evaluation of which weapons are appropriate for use in self-defense has been out of the people’s hands since 1868. The way to evaluate the relation between guns and crime is in scholarly journals and the political process, rather than invocation of ambiguous texts that long precede the contemporary debate.

Easterbrook wrongly binds our right to self-defense to criminal statutes.  By this logic the right to self-defense simply did not exist at all until the criminal statutes were but into place.  This is of course absurd.

Our founding fathers knew this:

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolves the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, …

(You should be ashamed if you don’t know the source.)

The powers of the earth together with the Law of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle each and every living thing to defend itself, its progeny, and its kind by whatever means available from any threat.  If you doubt this, go put yourself between a mother lion and her cubs.

Kudos to J. Everett Legg for at least bringing the self-defense argument front a center when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Gun Control Measures Advance

Yes, this is a few days old:

Two controversial gun control proposals advanced to the full House Wednesday.

On a partisan vote, the Democratic-controlled House Executive Committee approved a measure requiring handgun owners to register their weapons with the state.

The panel also signed off on legislation that would create a special 2 percent tax on ammunition, which would finance trauma facilities that treat gunshot victims.

Both measures headed to the floor after failing to win support from Republican committee members. They said it remains unproven that such laws will reduce crime. And, they added, downstate gun owners would be unfairly burdened with the changes.

via The Quad City Times.

This is of course ridiculous.  I have already written on how gun control registries are expensive and don’t live up to their claims.  But I guess the gun control Nazis don’t care about such things.

Thanks to the folks over at Second City Cop, I did not a little research and found out that in the U.S. (my previous writing was on the Canadian registry) criminals actually cannot be prosecuted for not registering their weapons.  Really?  Yes, really!

The USSC (United States Supreme Court) ruled in Haynes v. United States that:

Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Haynes.

You see, in Illinois if you are felon you cannot get a FOID card which is necessary to possess — even touch a single bullet — a firearm or ammunition in the state.  So if you don’t have a FOID you cannot register your handgun.  However, because registering your handgun would force you to demonstrate that you do not have a FOID means that you would be incriminating yourself by trying to register.  Therefore, registration would violate your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination.

So, this registry has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting guns out of the hands of criminals — the don’t have to register them!!

It’s all about creating a list of law abiding citizens (including police officers) who happen to own handguns.

Rahm Wants Handgun Registry

Stupidity in human form.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel today said he wants state lawmakers to approve a statewide handgun registry.  …

Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has championed efforts to pass a concealed weapons bill in Illinois, said the mayor’s office called him Thursday morning to let him know the registration proposal would be introduced.

“Number 1,  my first response was I don’t know why you’re trying to do this statewide because we don’t want your policies on us downstate,” said Phelps, a Southern Illinois Democrat from Harrisburg. “Number. 2, it’s never going to work. They’re trying to go after criminals. They’re never going to register their guns. They won’t pay the fee. “

Phelps called Emanuel’s initiative a “slap in the face of every law-abiding gun owner.”

via Chicago Tribune.com.

It’s been shown time and time again that gun registries simply do not work.  The greatest national experience was Canada’s long gun registry.

Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated fromlicensingfees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004/05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.[6]

In February 2004, documents obtained by Zone Libre of Télévision de Radio-Canada suggest that the gun registry has cost around $2 billion so far.

So we know that a registry is crazy expensive and becomes another government boondoggle.

Well, maybe it’s still worthwhile because it really reduces crime.

Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino (who was opposed to the gun registry) stated in a press release in 2003:

We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them. None of the guns we know to have been used were registered, although we believe that more than half of them were smuggled into Canada from the United States. The firearms registry is long on philosophy and short on practical results considering the money could be more effectively used for security against terrorism as well as a host of other public safety initiatives.”

Well ok, maybe he was really really biased.  Perhaps other police really thought the registry was a great idea?

In April 2011, a survey was conducted by the Edmonton Police Association. Its members voted 81 percent in favour of scrapping the long-gun registry.

Well, at least law abiding citizens who do register their guns will know that their data is safe right?

John Hicks, an Orillia-area computer consultant, and webmaster for the Canada Firearms Centre, has said that anyone with a home computer could have easily accessed names, addresses and detailed shopping lists (including make, model and serial number) of registered guns belonging to licenced firearms owners. Hicks told the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters (OFAH) that “During my tenure as the CFC webmaster I duly informed management that the website that interfaced to the firearms registry was flawed. It took some $15 million to develop and I broke inside into it within 30 minutes.”

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters questioned the security of the gun registry after a home invasion that seemed to target a licenced gun collector. The OFAH argues that, in the wrong hands, a database detailing the whereabouts of every legally-owned firearm in Canada is a potential shopping list for criminals.

Given that any handgun registry would likely include all of the guns owned by police officers (& county sheriffs, state troopers, etc.) means that a whole big batch of government bureaucrats and anyone who wants to hack into the database would have the name, address, and list of owned handguns of everyone law enforcement officer in the state.

This could be the dumbest idea from the Rahmfather yet.