Attorney General Holder Reveals Aggressive Gun Control In Response to Ft. Hood Terror Attack

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Before the Senate Judiciary Committee November 18th, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.

"The President of the United States asked that politicians not use the Ft. Hood attack to engage in 'political theater.' It appears those committed to attacking gun owners and the Second Amendment simply can't help themselves and are engaged in blaming guns and gun owners on the heels of this terrorist attack. Sadly it looks like 'politics as usual,'" said LEAA's spokesperson, Ted Deeds.

After explaining and defending his decision to give enemy combatants constitutional protections and the right to public trial in civilian courts, Attorney General Holder revealed his support for a national gun owner registration scheme and authorizing the government to ban firearm possession for any person by merely adding that person's name to the terror watch list.

Drawing reasonable conclusions from what Holder publicly said, we now know:

* Holder wants a national, permanent gun registration system administered by law enforcement. A registration of honest citizens that have cleared the federal background check for gun purchases with those records permanently retained by and shared among law enforcement.
* Holder wants new federal authority to prohibit any person on the federal watch list (reported to be 400,000 names) from buying guns and supports confiscating guns from those on the list who possess them.

Transcribing General Holder: "The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases." "... [It's not] inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement." "It seems incongruous to me that we would bar certain people from flying on airplanes because they are on the terrorist watch list and yet we would still allow them to posses weapons." {Emphasis added}

LEAA's Executive Director Jim Fotis said, "Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners!"

By: PR Newswire

Dangerousness statute amendment to go before House next year

As anxious as he is about getting illegal guns off the streets, Bristol County District Attorney Samuel Sutter will have to have to wait until at least January for the House to consider legislation amending the state’s “dangerousness hearing” statute.

On Wednesday, the Senate adopted an amendment to restore Sutter’s right to request that a judge hold anyone caught carrying a loaded, illegal gun up to 90 days without bail.

Since May, Sutter has been crusading for a law that incorporates such an amendment in response to the state’s Supreme Judicial Court’s designation of illegal possession of a loaded gun as “passive and victimless.”

On Thursday, Sutter said that despite Wednesday having marked the last day of formal legislative sessions for 2009, the House Joint Committee on the Judiciary should act sooner by calling an emergency session.

“We need this legislation,” a clearly impassioned Sutter said by phone.

But state Rep. James Fagan (D-Taunton), a staunch supporter of Sutter’s effort to change the law, said there is no alternative but to wait until after Jan. 1. He said the full House is entitled to carefully examine what is actually a larger piece of legislation — into which the Senate incorporated a segment referring to an individual caught in possession of an illegal gun being held without bail.

“All members of the House must vote on it — it’s an inherent part of the process,” Fagan said.

The Senate version, he said, is “a rather complex piece of legislation that involves other laws.”

Fagan did, however, say that he would encourage an emergency preamble on the bill once Gov. Deval Patrick signs it into law. In that case it would take effect immediately.

As for the chances of Patrick signing the bill, Fagan said that he’s “confident that the Governor absolutely supports Sam’s [dangerousness hearing] aspect.”

By: Charles Winokoor, The Taunton Gazette

Gun Control: Making the K in Kalifornia Stick in 2010

I want you to think of 2010. I want you to think of your family and I want you to think of gun control. When you think of guns, don't think of the harm they do, which numbers around 14,000 or so last year in the hands of persons who already are prohibited, think of the good they do in the hands of 2.5 million American citizens who stop a crime in progress every year. The other 300 million gun owners are not only lucky in not having to draw their weapons, but they are also not among those committing the violence in America.

When you think of gun control, then, think of how it is not the only policy or program adverse to your family, but the likely historical predecessor of all of them. This would include what is in store for us in 2010, and it's not smaller government.
And when you think of big government, I want you to think about what is weaponized and how our freedom is taken little by little in the name of gun control and other controls we are beginning to see as suspicious and bogus. You don't need to be a gun owner to see how big government is getting around to everyone as predicted.

When you check out my thanks to Paul Harvey, please take note of the remarks which summarize a keen new observation taking hold in America. It is about this bogus complaint from officials that they cannot in any way or any longer afford the government services... services we have declined and rejected over the years, services which were rammed down our throats. Demagoguery. Predatory demagoguery. Transfer of wealth. That's some nerve telling us is they can't afford services we had not wanted to begin with.

And this is as the heart of the second amendment. The concept is that when the sovereign is armed, crime is intimidated, not the citizen, and on their citizen authority, as an effective, authoritative force to be reckoned with, there is little need for silly government programs after all, programs which were alleged to fight crime, protect people and all sorts of crap.

We do not fight tyranny by shoot-outs with our own Army, the armed citizen fightz tyranny by showing how stupid, how unneeded, how predatory government programs really are in trying to take the p;lace of the armed citizen. It fails on gun control and in nearly every single program after it.

If you believe in personal independence by way of getting out from under officials and their stupid programs, if you believe they are wrong and greedy, if you believe they take powers not granted, if you believe in smaller government, then you believe in what is the second amendment. Independence.

The idea is that no one can take your place in a lot of things, and how ludicrous it is even to presume they can. Only the weak think that, the weak of freedom who are strong on dependency and the weak of character who prey on them.
Well, d-uh.

When it comes to 2010, don't let the predators in. You'll know them by their funny, unneeded programs, stupid solutions, baffling logic, and by their deafness.

The problem is in discerning who will really unwind those. And that's the rub.
Check this out from my March article: "The reason people are even ‘rounded up' at all is because being armed brings not only the power of the gun in independence, but the power of realization, the realization that one does not need as much from a government as the government would like to ‘give'. This kind of critical thinking is a threat to any government who wishes to rule over people more than serve the people, so they are ‘rounded up' and exterminated."

We call them tyrants in other countries around the world. Liberty purists think of them as useful case studies and warnings to free peoples. But these tyrants started out with thought police first as the gateway drug to gun control and then murder we hear about as civil war. It's not civil war over there, not when one side is entirely disarmed already.

Can't happen here? Only if we repeal all gun laws along with political correctness. These are two examples of programs which were never needed and which went against our better judgment.

What's needed is a return to critical analysis free from castigation backed by police powers. .. The realization that one does not need from government as much as the government would like to ‘give'.

By: John Longenecker, LA Gun Rights Examiner