Court: Cops Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Your Guns Without A Warrant If They Feel It’s In Your Best Interest

Shock FedGov Court Ruling: Police Can Kick In Your Door And Seize Guns Without Warrant Or Charges – Daily Sheeple

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals may have just dealt a serious blow to the U.S. Constitution.

.

.
In a unanimous decision earlier this month the Court determined that law enforcement officers are not required to present a warrant or charges before forcibly entering a person’s home, searching it and confiscating their firearms if they believe it is in the individual’s best interests.

The landmark suit was brought before the court by Krysta Sutterfield of Milwaukee, who had recently visited a psychiatrist for outpatient therapy resulting from some bad news that she had received. According to court records Sutterfield had expressed a suicidal thought during the visit, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, when she said “I guess I’ll go home and blow my brains out.” This prompted her doctor to contact police.

For several hours the police searched for Sutterfield, speaking with neighbors and awaiting her return home. They received an update from her psychiatrist who said that Sutterfield had contacted her and advised that she was not in need of assistance and to “call off” the search, which the doctor did not agree to. Police eventually left and Sutterfield returned home, only to be visited later that evening by the lead detective on the case:

Krysta Sutterfield vs. city of Milwaukee, et al.

Sutterfield answered Hewitt’s knock at the front door but would not engage with her, except to state repeatedly that she had “called off” the police and to keep shutting the door on Hewitt. Sutterfield would not admit Hewitt to the residence, and during the exchange kept the outer storm door closed and locked. Unable to gain admittance to the house, Hewitt concluded that the police would have to enter it forcibly.

Sutterfield called 911 in an effort to have the officers leave; as a result of that call, the ensuing events were recorded by the emergency call center. Sutterfield can be heard on the recording telling the officers that she was fine and that she did not want anyone to enter her residence.

After informing Sutterfield of his intention to open the storm door forcibly if she did not unlock it herself, Berken yanked the door open and entered the house with the other officers to take custody of Sutterfield pursuant to the statement of detention. A brief struggle ensued.

Sutterfield can be heard on the 911 recording demanding both that the officers let go of her and that they leave her home. (Sutterfield would later say that the officers tackled her.) Sutterfield was handcuffed and placed in the officers’ custody.

At that point the officers conducted a protective sweep of the home. In the kitchen, officer James Floriani observed a compact disc carrying case in plain view. He picked up the soft-sided case, which was locked, and surmised from the feel and weight of its contents that there might be a firearm inside. He then forced the case open and discovered a semi-automatic handgun inside; a yellow smiley-face sticker was affixed to the barrel of the gun, covering the muzzle. Also inside the case were concealed-carry firearm licenses from multiple jurisdictions other than Wisconsin. Elsewhere in the kitchen the officers discovered a BB gun made to realistically resemble a Glock 29 handgun.

The contents of the case were seized along with the BB gun and placed into police inventory for safekeeping.

Berken would later state that he authorized the seizure of the handgun in order to keep them out of the hands of a juvenile, should a juvenile enter the house unaccompanied by an adult while Sutterfield remained in the hospital.

Sutterfield subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee with the district court, a case that was initially dismissed. She then filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th District claiming that her Second and Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

In a 75-page opinion the court, while pointing out that the intrusion against Sutterfield was profound, sided with the city of Milwaukee:

“The intrusions upon Sutterfield’s privacy were profound,” Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel.

“At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one’s home.”

But the court also found, that on the other hand, “There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm.”

“Even if the officers did exceed constitutional boundaries,” the court document states, “they are protected by qualified immunity.”

As noted by Police State USA, the court may have just created a legal loophole for law enforcement officials around the country, giving them immunity from Constitutional violations if they merely suggest that exigent circumstances exist and that they are acting in the best interests of the health and safety of an alleged suspect, regardless of Constitutional requirements:

In short, Sutterfield’s privacy (which was admittedly encroached upon) was left unprotected by the Bill of Rights because of the “exigent circumstances” in which police executed an emergency detention – with no warrant, no criminal charges, and no input from the judiciary. Similarly, the gun confiscation was also deemed as acceptable due to the so-called “emergency” which police claimed had been taking place for 9 consecutive hours.

The federal ruling affirms a legal loophole which allows targeted home invasions, warrantless searches, and gun confiscations that rest entirely in the hands of the Executive Branch. The emergency aid doctrine enables police to act without a search warrant, even if there is time to get one. When the government wants to check on someone, his or her rights are essentially suspended until the person’s sanity has been forcibly validated.

The implications of the courts legal decision are alarmingly broad. Though this particular case involved exigent circumstances in which an individual suggested she wanted to commit suicide, albeit tongue-in-cheek, the court’s opinion suggests that such tactics can be applied for any “emergency” wherein police subjectively determine that an individual may be a danger to themselves or others.

Under new statutes passed by the federal government these emergencies and dangers could potentially include any number of scenarios. Senator Rand Paul recently highlighted that there are laws on the books that categorize a number of different activities as having the potential for terrorism, including things like purchasing bulk ammunition. Last month, when a group of concerned citizens assembled at Bundy Ranch in Nevada to protest government overreach, Senator Harry Reid dubbed them “domestic terrorists.” Even paying with cash or complaining about chemicals in water can land an American on the terror watch list. Non-conformists who do not subscribe to the status quo can now be considered mentally insane according to psychiatrists’ Diagnostic and Statistics Manual of Mental Disorders.

Law enforcement has an almost unlimited amount of circumstances they can cite to justify threats to one’s self or others, and thus, to ignore Constitutional requirements when serving at the behest of the local, state or federal government.

Have the Federal Court’s latest decision made it possible for these vaguely defined suspicious activities to be molded into exigent circumstances that give police the right to enter homes without due process, confiscate legally owned personal belongings, and detain residents without charge?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal Signs Bill Into Law Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars And School Zones

Georgia Gov. Signs Bill Allowing Guns In Churches, Bars, And School Zones – CNS

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law Wednesday a bill that expands gun rights in the state to allow weapons in government buildings, bars, places of worship, and school zones under certain circumstances.

.

.
Under House Bill 60, also known as the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, school districts will get to decide whether to allow authorized personnel to carry weapons within school safety zones under certain circumstances.

In addition, church leaders will be able to decide whether to allow licensed gun owners to bring weapons into their place of worship. The law also removes fingerprinting requirements for renewal licenses.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action called the bill the “most comprehensive pro-gun bill in state history.”

Deal, who characterized himself as a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, said the measure “will protect the constitutional rights of Georgians who have gone through a background check to legally obtain a Georgia Weapons Carry License.”

“Roughly 500,000 Georgia citizens have a permit of this kind, which is approximately 5 percent of our population,” Deal said in a press release. “License holders have passed background checks and are in good standing with the law. This law gives added protections to those who have played by the rules – and who can protect themselves and others from those who don’t play by the rules.”

“Our nation’s founders put the right to bear arms on par with freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Georgians cherish their Second Amendment rights, and this law embodies those values,” he added.

Executive Director Pia Carusone of Americans for Responsible Solutions, which lobbied against the bill, called it “extremism in action.”

“It moves Georgia out of the mainstream,” Carusone said. “Since the Georgia House first passed this expansive legislation, thousands of Georgians and tens of thousands of Americans have said loud and clear that they are tired of the gun lobby advancing its extreme agenda at the expense of their families’ safety.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEOS* Bill Whittle IS Your Virtual President


VIRTUAL INAUGURAL ADDRESS

.
GUNS

.
HEALTH CARE

.
LEGISLATION

.
GAY MARRIAGE

.
ENTITLEMENTS

.
IMMIGRATION

.
VOTER FRAUD

.

Obama Regime Secretly Declaring Thousands Of U.S. Veterans Incompetent… Then Taking Away Their Guns

Outrage! Obama Administration Is Secretly Declaring Thousands Of US Veterans Incompetent… Then Taking Away Their Second Amendment Rights – Gateway Pundit

US veterans started receiving letters from the government last year informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both.

This comes on page 2 of the VA letter.

.

.
Here is the full copy of the letter-

Here is page 1 of the letter:

.

.
Here is page 2:

.

.
The majority of US veterans receive basically the same letter. Many of the veterans do not even know the VA declared them incompetent. The targeted veterans say the VA offers an appeals process but then does not share required information.

VA Benefits Administrators are the ones making these declarations against veterans robbing them of their due process rights and arbitrarily submitting their names to the FBI’s NICS database without cause and many times without a veteran’s knowledge.

This is an outrage!

Last April the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) filed a suit against the Obama Administration on behalf of these abused veterans.

Katharine Russ reported:

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) has filed the first lawsuit of what promises to be a string of lawsuits in the US District Court for the Southern District of California against the US Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)…

…Current policies of the VA have caused more than 129,000 veterans to, arbitrarily, be deprived of their Second Amendment Rights to own firearms without due process simply because they were declared financially “incompetent.”

These arbitrary policies, in no way, consider whether a veteran represents a danger to themselves or to others.

It is, unequivocally, unsound and irrational thinking that sends our young men and women off to war and expects them to come home “whole.” Most veterans experience minor depression, minor PTSD, and even minor short-term memory loss when they return home but can still function- competently.

No court would find them incompetent and strip them of their second amendment rights for such minor diagnoses unless they were proven to be a detriment to society. In some these cases, the VA does not even offer reasons or evidence for such a Determination.

It is outrageous to think that over 100,000 US veterans are the victims of this sort of abuse.

US veterans deserve the same Constitutional rights as the rest of us.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Feds Confiscate Completely Unrelated Files Of Reporter During Raid To Seize Husband’s Guns

Feds Confiscate Investigative Reporter’s Confidential Files During Raid – Daily Caller

A veteran Washington D.C. investigative journalist says the Department of Homeland Security confiscated a stack of her confidential files during a raid of her home in August – leading her to fear that a number of her sources inside the federal government have now been exposed.

.

In an interview with The Daily Caller, journalist Audrey Hudson revealed that the Department of Homeland Security and Maryland State Police were involved in a predawn raid of her Shady Side, Md. home on Aug. 6. Hudson is a former Washington Times reporter and current freelance reporter.

A search warrant obtained by TheDC indicates that the August raid allowed law enforcement to search for firearms inside her home.

The document notes that her husband, Paul Flanagan, was found guilty in 1986 to resisting arrest in Prince George’s County. The warrant called for police to search the residence they share and seize all weapons and ammunition because he is prohibited under the law from possessing firearms.

But without Hudson’s knowledge, the agents also confiscated a batch of documents that contained information about sources inside the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, she said.

Outraged over the seizure, Hudson is now speaking out. She said no subpoena for the notes was presented during the raid and argues the confiscation was outside of the search warrant’s parameter.

“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson said this week. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”

She provided TheDC with a photo showing the stack of file folders in a bag marked “evidence/property.”

On Thursday, a spokesman for the Maryland State Police declined to address any specifics about the search.

“Due to the ongoing criminal investigation and the potential for pending criminal charges at the state and/or federal level, the Maryland State Police will not discuss specific information about this investigation at this time,” spokesman Greg Shipley said in a statement to TheDC.

At about 4:30 a.m. on Aug. 6, Hudson said officers dressed in full body armor presented a search warrant to enter the home she shares on the bay with her husband. She estimates that at least seven officers took part in the raid.

After the search began, Hudson said she was asked by an investigator with the Coast Guard Investigative Service if she was the same Audrey Hudson who had written a series of critical stories about air marshals for The Washington Times over the last decade. The Coast Guard operates under the Department of Homeland Security.

Hudson said that investigator, Miguel Bosch, identified himself as a former air marshal official.

But it wasn’t until a month later, on Sept. 10, that Hudson was informed by Bosch that five files including her handwritten and typed notes from interviews with numerous confidential sources and other documents had been taken during the raid.

“In particular, the files included notes that were used to expose how the Federal Air Marshal Service had lied to Congress about the number of airline flights there were actually protecting against another terrorist attack,” Hudson wrote in a summary about the raid provided to TheDC.

Recalling the experience during an interview this week, Hudson said: “When they called and told me about it, I just about had a heart attack.”

She said she asked Bosch why they took the files. He responded that they needed to run them by TSA to make sure it was “legitimate” for her to have them.

“‘Legitimate’ for me to have my own notes?” she said incredulously on Wednesday.

Asked how many sources she thinks may have been exposed, Hudson said: “A lot. More than one. There were a lot of names in those files.”

“This guy basically came in here and took my anonymous sources and turned them over – took my whistleblowers – and turned it over to the agency they were blowing the whistle on,” Hudson said. “And these guys still work there.”

The Daily Caller reached Bosch on his cell phone on Thursday. “Before I talk to you, I’m probably going to have to run this by our legal department,” he said.

Carlos Díaz, the chief of media relations for the Coast Guard, said in a statement that the Coast Guard Investigative Service was asked to participate in the raid because the search involved a Coast Guard employee. Flanagan is an ordinance technician for the Coast Guard in Baltimore.

Díaz explained that the files were taken because they found official government papers, which Hudson had obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

“During the course of the search, the CGIS agent discovered government documents labeled FOUO – For Official Use Only (FOUO) – and LES – Law Enforcement Sensitive. The files that contained these documents were cataloged on the search warrant inventory and taken from the premises,” Díaz said.

“The documents were reviewed with the source agency and determined to be obtained properly through the Freedom of Information Act,” he said.

Diaz said Flanagan was notified that the documents were cleared and he later picked them up after signing for the files.

But Hudson doesn’t buy the explanation: “That explains the one file they took but does not explain why they took four other files with my handwritten and typed interview notes with confidential sources, that I staked my reputation as a journalist to protect under the auspices of the First Amendment of the Constitution,” she said.

Hudson said she and her husband knew something was up in February when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives wanted to talk about a purchase Flanagan made about five years ago.

The court documents note that ATF investigators asked Flanagan if he obtained “possible machine gun parts from a Swedish National.” Flanagan responded that he once purchased a potato gun but threw it away because it didn’t work.

In July, according to the documents, Bosch interviewed several of Flanagan’s Coast Guard colleagues, who said Flanagan spoke often about being a “firearms collector.”

“One party that was interviewed remembered distinctly about Flanagan advising he had recently purchased a Bersa .380 handgun, and observed pictures of firearms similar to AK-47 semi-automatic rifles which were identified by Flanagan as being his,” the court documents state.

The documents also note that Victor Hodgin, the trooper in the criminal investigation division of the Maryland State Police whose name is on the search warrant, accessed Flanagan’s Facebook account in his investigation.

“Records maintained by Facebook.com will allow him to further implicate Paul Roland Flanagan in the illegal possession [of] firearms,” he wrote.

Hodgin didn’t return a voicemail left on his phone. Shipley, the spokesman with the Maryland State Police, said the “evidence and information developed during this investigation is currently under review by both the Anne Arundel County State’s Attorney’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office.”

“A determination will be made by officials in these offices regarding the state and or federal charges that may be placed as a result of this investigation,” he said.

Hudson told TheDC that the couple had a run-in with the Maryland State Police about six years ago. “A neighbor complained on New Years Eve about one of us shooting a gun off the pier here,” she said. “We live right on the bay.”

Hudson said the police gave them a slap on the wrist then. “They knew then we had these guns,” she said. “If this was a problem – that he wasn’t supposed to be around them – they should’ve told us then.”

During the raid, the officers also went after Hudson’s three pistols and three long guns, which she obtained legally.

“I’m a Kentucky girl,” she said. “I come kitchen trained, and firearm ready. I grew up with guns and I’ve always been around guns.”

Hudson has been a reporter in Washington, D.C. for nearly 15 years and was nominated twice by The Washington Times for the Pulitzer Prize. She is a freelancer for Newsmax and the Colorado Observer.

While at the Times, Hudson reported extensively on the air marshal program – specifically about whether Homeland Security officials had lied to Congress and reported protecting more flights than they really were. Using her sources inside the government, Hudson has also reported for years about possible terrorist “dry-runs” on airplanes.

Unlike some other reporters whose sources have been targeted in recent years by the government, Hudson said none of the information she had was classified or given to her by someone who broke the law.

“None of the documents were classified,” she said. “There were no laws broken in me obtaining these files.”

Hudson said she wants to let her sources know that they may have been exposed.

“Part of the reason I’m coming forward with this is I’m scared to contact them,” she said. “I’m terrified to contact them…I’ve got to let these guys know somehow.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Concealed carry permit holder stops potential mass shooting by shooting man armed with rifle

Of course the media will not have time for this story

 

This is a story of a mass shooting that might have been if not for the efforts of a concealed carrier. However, don’t expect to see this story on the national news since there were no fatalities.

Several guests, in their 20′s and 30′s were attending a party at a Glendale, AZ home when one of the guests, identified only as a 27 year old male, got into an altercation with several people at the home.

The 27 year old was asked to leave, which he initially did. However, shortly thereafter, the 27 year old returned, this time armed with a rifle.

The suspected shooter fired rounds off outside the home and when he pointed the gun at other guests, a 39 year old guest drew a concealed handgun and fired on the suspect, who was hit by the gunfire.

The concealed carrier waited for police, explained what happened and was released after giving a statement to police.

 

Stick to tennis, OK Martina

Doug Powers has an example of how shallow and simplistic the minds of Liberals can be

I’m always amazed by how the liberal mind works — or doesn’t as it were.

Here’s a question about guns from tennis legend Martina Navratilova:

As a law abiding citizen without a gun,how can I tell a difference between the law abiding citizen with a gun and the criminal with a gun?

Powers gives a good answer, basically that the criminal will use their gun to ROB or harm you, but allow me another response.

Martina, not sure where you reside, but if you live here in Texas, or Florida, or any other stare that has the good sense to allow shall issue carry permits, you pass people with such permits carrying guns every day. They are beside you in stores, restaurants, walking on the sidewalk, most any place you are, you will encounter them. Of course, you would never know they are carrying. Their weapons are secured in holsters, out of sight, and frankly you have nothing at all to fear from them. Of course that guy thinking of committing a crime like assault, rape, armed robbery, etc does not know who is armed either. And that guy, unlike you, has every reason to be wary don’t they? Concealed carry laws have reduced the violent crime rate in states that pass them.

So, as to how you tell the difference? Well, as Doug Powers said

The question she should be asking is “How do the criminals with guns spot law-abiding citizens without guns?” 

That is a very important question because those criminals AVOID armed citizens, so, yes, the very presence of SOME armed citizens makes everyone safer, because that bad guys do not know who is prepared to fight back with equal or greater force.

Leftards Caught On Tape: NJ Democrats Chatter About Guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate” (Video)

Caught On Tape: NJ Democrats On Guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate” (Video) – Gateway Pundit

Democrats are too afraid to admit it in public. But they want your guns.

…And they’ll admit it when they think the cameras are off.

New Jersey Democrats were caught on tape recently after a session on guns, “Confiscate. Confiscate. Confiscate!”

.

.
Guns Saves Lives has the transcript:

BREAKING: NJ State Senators Caught on Open Mic Saying They Need a Bill to CONFISCATE Guns.. You will need to turn speakers way up around the 0:15 mark to hear as they aren’t speaking directly into the mic. In the above vido we hear remarks by several NJ State Senators talking about guns after a session had ended.

We can assume they didn’t know the mic was still recording.

The discussion is as follows:

“We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”

“They [gun owners] want to keep the guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but they don’t have any regulations to do it.”

“They don’t care about the bad guys. All they want to do is have their little guns and do whatever they want with them.”

“That’s the line they’ve developed.”

These same Democrats passed 22 gun control bills on Thursday.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Veteran’s Guns Confiscated After Forced ‘Psychiatric Evaluation’

Veteran’s Guns Confiscated After Forced ‘Psychiatric Evaluation’ – LiveLeak

A US Navy veteran had his guns confiscated by police following a forced “psychiatric evaluation” in another example of how the Veterans Administration is accelerating a purge of armed ex-servicemembers in accordance with a federal government demonization campaign that has labeled vets domestic terrorists.

.
……….

50-year-old David A Schmecker is an honorably discharged disabled US Navy veteran from Connecticut with no criminal record and no psychiatric history. On February 5, Schmecker’s hospital primary care doctor called and heard a message on Schmecker’s answer machine that “sounded peculiar,” prompting him to contact the local police and urge them to visit Schmecker to perform a “wellness check”.

“The police came to my home, and, without any justification whatsoever, hauled me away for a psychiatric evaluation at a local hospital. I submitted to their forceful insistence under duress and fear of arrest or worse. I wasn’t arrested, no crime was committed nor any threats were made to myself or others,” Schmecker told Survive and Thrive’s George Hemminger.

“They confiscated my guns and pistol permit. I was released two days later from the evaluation on my on recognizance. I have since attempted to use the courts and attorneys to fight the revocation of my pistol permit. Then on top of everything else, the bills from the short stay at the hospital and EMS bills that they billed me, along with what I had to pay the attorney adds up to a large amount of money,” he adds.

Schmecker warns that the harassment he suffered is part of “a campaign orchestrated to disarm law abiding citizens,” adding that he is “concerned about where this country is headed.”

As with all contemporary authoritarian governments, the psychiatric system is being used to circumvent courts and bypass normal legal due process.

In August 2012, we reported on how a veteran in Ohio had his guns taken because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear, he was not on medication, and he had no criminal record.

As we reported last year, David Sarti, one of the stars of National Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers show, visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared “mentally defective” and put on an FBI list that strips him of his second amendment rights.

Veterans are increasingly being targeted by authorities as part of a broader move to demonize them as domestic extremists and even potential terrorists.

The FBI has repeatedly characterized returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan as a major domestic terrorist threat. In addition, Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano said she stood by an April 2009 DHS intelligence assessment that listed returning vets as likely domestic terrorists.

Just a month later, the New York Times reported on how Boy Scout Explorers were being trained by the DHS to kill “disgruntled Iraq war veterans” as part of anti-terror drills. Back in February, constitutional attorney Michael Connelly warned that the government is now moving to strip veterans it determines to be mentally incompetent of their Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Connelly cites a letter “sent by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of America’s heroes.”

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you from purchasing, possessing, receiving, or transporting a firearm or ammunition,” the VA letter states. “If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions, you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L.No. 103-159, as implemented at 18, United States Code 924(a)(2).”

“This must be Barack Obama’s way of thanking our veterans for serving,” writes the Gateway Pundit. “US veterans are receiving letters from the government informing them that they are disabled and not allowed to own, purchase or possess a firearm. If the veteran does decide to purchase a firearm he will by fined, imprisoned or both… This comes on page 2 of the VA letter.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Arizona Senate Votes To Approve Guns For Any School Employee

Senate Votes To OK Gun For Any School Employee – Arizona Daily Star

State senators voted Wednesday to allow a teacher, administrator, custodian or even a cafeteria worker at rural and some suburban schools to be armed.

……….

Sen. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, said SB 1325 would improve student safety. He said while better mental-health screening and more police officers at schools are important, it is also necessary to provide schools with a “self-defense component.”

Crandall joined with other Republicans to beat back an effort to require that whoever is designated to carry a gun must report to police if the weapon is lost or stolen. That brought derision from Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.

“The only reason that gun owners do not want to report they lost their gun or they misplaced it is because they’re too embarrassed,” Gallardo said. “They don’t want people to know that they’re an irresponsible firearm holder.”

And Gallardo said that notice of an errant gun really should not be limited to police.

“At the very least, I would believe every parent would want to know that their child is going to a school that may have a gun roaming around,” he said.

Crandall’s legislation needs a final roll-call vote before going to the House.

The measure is limited to schools with fewer than 600 students that also are more than 30 minutes and 20 miles from the closest law-enforcement facility. He said the most isolated schools, like those in Crown King and Wikieup, are far too far away from anything to be able to depend on prompt police response.

The Republicans who control the Senate also killed an attempt by Gallardo to scale back the legislation so it would apply only to schools of fewer than 200. Crandall said larger schools need similar self-defense capacity, specifically mentioning the elementary and high schools in Elfrida.

But the Senate action may not be the last word. Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, already has said he hopes to expand the scope of the legislation when the measure reaches the House.

Stevens had crafted a proposal to allow an armed teacher at all of the state’s more than 2,000 public schools. But it was introduced too late to get a hearing of its own.

Crandall said his legislation is modeled after laws in Texas that give school districts similar permission to let school employees be armed.

Aside from the school size and location limits, the legislation says weapons either must be carried concealed by the designated employee or secured in a storage locker.

Senate Minority Leader Leah Landrum Taylor, D-Phoenix, questioned the whole premise of allowing a school board to decide whether one of its employees is qualified to be armed and potentially walking around the building with a loaded weapon.

But Senate Majority Leader John McComish, R-Phoenix, dismissed those concerns.

“Who better to decide than the local school board, elected by the local community?” he said. Ultimately, he said it will be up to the community, acting through the school board, that decides whether it wants any employee armed.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Your Daley Gator Anti-Leftist Picture O’ The Day


.

More schools choosing to take serious steps to prevent future school shootings

Via Weasel Zippers

Via Daily Mail:

An Ohio school board has unanimously voted to place armed custodians on their K-12 campus in an effort to better protect their students from a future mass shooting.

Following Wednesday’s believed unprecedented 5-0 vote in the state, four male janitors were the first to volunteer to arm themselves with their own handguns on the rural Montpelier campus, the Toledo Blade reports.

The vote will permit only non-teaching employees to carry the firearms on the campus, so long as they complete a weapons training course.

Good. I deeply believe that this is the best way to both deter such attacks, and to end them quickly. No, nothing is going to be 100% effective, but protecting our kids in school IS the #1 priority. I also think it best that these decisions should be on the local level.

 

Maybe the best column on guns I have ever read

Via Storm Bringer comes this excellent column

The Gun is Civilization

By “Major L. Caudill, USMC(Ret)” – a.k.a. Marko Kloos

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation . . . and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

Your Sunday Link Fest

Obamgasms alert! Warner Todd Huston brings us the latest

Here is a bit of Rule 5 strategy for getting hits. A hot, non-blonde from Alabama asking, I think, if she is hot. Gator says, YES! In fact, I am adding her to my blogroll!

Ah, more hotness from Sundries Shack where we find a great photo of the very sexy Patti Ann Browne

Hey! I KNOW I had this idea first! The Lingerie Football League Yes, it sounds like something my mind would come up with!

Ah yes Hillary Clinton playing the “United States is to blame for the Taliban” card! Why can’t the Left invent some new ways to bash America. I mean if they are going to be morally retarded, and intellectually bankrupt, they could at least be original about it!

Given that the NFL drat is going on this weekend, Southern Appeal has a link to a great story about one Ole Miss Rebel that will warm your heart

And a story that will deeply trouble your heart is at SDA, imagine the absolute hopelessness the people of North Korea live in.

Pundit & Pundette brings us even more Sharia Assbackwardsness, who, apparently think music is evil. No, asshats, music is a gift from God, YOU are evil!

Pirates Cove has the latest idea from the Nanny Staters! on how to run our lives and spend our money!

Bryant Gumbel is still a raving douchebag! And he also receives a covted, by the Left, Marxist Moron Award from me for calling for gun control to quell gang violence. Good Grief!

Newsbusters also gives a video of Gorezilla being spanked by Lou Dobbs

Just One Minute asks whether Andy Sullivan is dumb or dishonest. Hmmm, I say both!

You know, I love hiking, I get out to the Rockies every year to do some awesome hikes. But Naked hikers? Sure it sounds great, but face it, the people who usually do things in public in the nude, have NO BUSINESS being naked in public!

But, trying to guess who the over-sexed newsbabe might be IS fun!

IowaHawk has bestowed a great honor upon President Obama.

Saturday morning news items

Well, there is lots going on around the dreaded and feared (by the far Left) blogosphere this morning. I can see lots of those Right-Wing Extremists are just begging to get flagged by DHS for their radicalizing and recruiting. Lots of Tea Party news still around too, and lots of teabagging on the Left, where right now Keith Olbermann, Anderson Cooper, David Schuster, Andrew Sullivan, and Jeneane Garafalo are likely reading about the Tea Parties while teabagging each other. Maybe Jeneane has a megaphone, screaming “racist rednecks” while the guys are brewing up their “tea”

But, enough about the degenerates on the extreme Left-Wing or reality. Here is what I am taking a look at this AM

Seems that the Democrat lie that Mexican drug cartels get 90% of their weapons in America has been debunked yet again. This time by the L.A. Times.

There are some more Tea Party updates from Eric Odom to peruse over your coffee, and cinammon raisin toast slathered generously with honeybutter.

Ah, here is a tidbit that will drive my next-door neighbor nutty. Mark Levin still has the number one bestseller on Amazon. My neighbor is a BIG Obama supporter, and hates Sarah Palin, so, I doubt Mark is on his speed dial.

Here is a story to make you smile armed woman 1 thief 0

Oh, and get ready to smile some more armed home-owner 4 intruders 0

Michelle Malkin reminds us, and the MSM, IF they are paying attention, that the Tea Party attendees are just as PO’d at Republicans who are spending into Hell.

Seems like the Big O has picked yet another overlord for us.

The London Times is reporting that the time for Israel to open a can of whoopass on Iran is getting closer. Who the Hell knows what happens if that goes down. I know our President will stand with Israel if he has a lick of sense. First thoughy, we must watch how Obama responds to this news

And here is a sure fire way to get a chuckle out of you. Just two words Dead terrorists! Yep, that always makes my day too.

Here is a note for all of you sports fans. The NBA PLayoffs tip-off today, and in the NHL, the Hurricanes drew even with the Devils at at a game apiece last night, and the Canucks and Penguins put the Blues and Pflyers in 2-0 holes in their series.

Also today you can get your fill of post season madness in both the NBA and NHL, each has four games on the slate.

Juan Williams, Constitutionally illiterate

Juan Williams dredges up the “why don’t we license gun owners?” argument, and frankly, he shows a complete lack of common sense and a total lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights

For some reason this nation’s leaders cannot stop teenaged drug dealers, certifiable nuts and criminals from easily getting a gun.

 

Well, Juan, people who break laws can be tough to stop, because they refuse to obey the law in the first place. So, how do you reason that ANOTHER law will suddenly be obeyed by those who willingly break laws no matter the penalty? The only people these law will touch are those who already OBEY laws, and Juan, they are not criminals.

 In fact, that idea is so far off the map that in January a bill in Congress calling for individuals to be licensed to buy guns or ammunition did not get one co-sponsor and never came close to a vote on the House floor. This was just a matter of a license. A license would carry more stringent requirements than a permit but it is still just a license. Americans have to have a license to drive a car. But the politicians are scared to make even the slightest move to limit easy access to guns.

Ah, here we are, the oft-repeated Libeal mantra! Well, you have to get a license to drive a car so…. The problem with this is simple, the Constitution gives Americans the right, the inalienable right, to keep and bear arms Juan, There is no such right to drive a car in the Constitution Juan. Is your grasp of our founding document really that poor? Have you ever read the Founders and their views?

Frankly, Juan, if you are going to demand guns ownership be licensed then you might as well argue that church attendance, free speech, etc be licensed as well. After all, if you will start lincensing, and thus restricting rights, then you must agree that all rights ought to be licensed. Come on Juan, at least be consistent in your total disregard for our Constitition.

This “lock and load” mania is running strong despite last year’s ruling by the Supreme Court that individual Americans have a right to own guns. That ruling was a reassuring victory for gun owners. But anxiety among people who love their guns continues to rise. The most common explanation for this rising wave of fear is that President Obama — who has said next to nothing on the issue — might want to try to curb gun sales.

Juan, Obama has a horrendous record on gun rights, he has selected a pro-gun control AG in Eric Holder as well. We are right to be concerned. Our rights ought to be jealously guarded, as YOUR OWN CALL for restricting them shows.

The anxiety of those who fear any limits on guns has accelerated since the Mexican government has asked the U.S. for help in keeping guns out of the hands of large Mexican drug dealers. When Attorney General Eric Holder responded to the crisis in Mexico by talking about putting in place a ban on the sale of large guns able to hold multiple cartridges of firepower it was interpreted by some gun rights advocates as a reason to stockpile more guns and ammo.

Again Juan, gun owners KNOW that bans on some guns, usually based on their appearance or on ammunition, based on magazine capacity is the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent. Some bans on “assault weapons” have been worded so that pretty much ANY handgun or rifle could be banned under the proposed bill’s vague defintions.

 Juan, there are people, like you, who desire that the government TAKE our guns away. Yet you are puzzled that gun owners are afraid that one day their guns might be taken away? That is sort of like a burglar being puzzled that some folks worry about burglaries!

Just so you know where I am coming from, I’d ban guns — big and little — for private use in the USA. I live in a big city, Washington, D.C., and I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. The bad guys with guns are running wild in big cities. As in most of urban America the people with the guns are young drug dealers fighting over turf and willing to kill anyone from children to little old ladies who happen to get in their way. Black on black homicide, largely among these young men, has been hitting record highs for most of the past decade. These people have no conscience and they scare me.

Juan, millions of Americans have stopped crimes with their guns, MILLIONS of us. Do you really care about crime? If so, then why would you have deliberately DISarmed those Americans?

Juan, before I was ever born, my grandmother was home, alone, when a man posing as a phone repairman knocked on her door. After she refused to open her screen door and let him in to “check the phone” he began pushing through the screen Juan. You know what Juan? He was intent on geting in, but when my grandmother picked up the gun kept in a drawer in the living room, the man decided to go away. Why would YOU feel better if elderly women did not have that defense Juan? Are you, in your morally retarded state going to tell me that this country would be better if that man had NOT had to face an armed woman?

Look Juan, if you choose to be a damned coward go ahead, you want to be gun-free? OK with me. You want thugs to have no worries about armed citizens Juan, then YOU are the one with the problem, not gun owners.

Tell you what Juan, go to this site here! You read all of the examples of armed Americans defending themselves with firearms. Then, I want you look in the mirror and ask yourself if Ametica would be somehow safer if all of those people should have been victims?

Go ahead Juan, I dare you to be intellectually honest!