Are you dreaming about gun control?

A furniture shipment was supposed to go to the refugees in camps of Greece to make their life more bearable, ease their pain, and hardship. 

It makes you cry, doesn’t it?

But, a clandestine shipment was foiled by the Greek Border Securities…

Fifty-two (52) tons of guns and ammunition in 14 big 40-ft double containers followed the migrants to Europe, registered as furniture.

If this doesn’t convince you that gun control at the home base is nothing but BS and this refugee migration is nothing less than an ARMED INVASION, then nothing will.

Wonder no more why all those young and stalwart men with such virility took on the task of traveling all those miles (many without their womenfolk and children)…

They are coming to see y’all like they said they would, but not with a bouquet of flowers… 

What are you going to do? Are you going to stand there, ready to get your derrière shot off?

So, what’s in your wallet (pocket or portmanteau)?

Cheers!

More Gun Laws WILL NOT Make Us Safer

I wanted to share this letter sent to me by Roger Stockton, Co-Founder of the Western Representation PAC:

Dear Patriot,

I want to share the following article written by Greg Campbell, one of our writers at ResistanceMovement.com. The left is not about to let up on their quest to take away the right for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and your support is needed to continue this fight. “We must do something.” That’s what we hear from the left on gun control. “We must do something.” It’s never, “We must pass this bill based on the undeniably sound analysis that shows the effectiveness it would have in reducing gun violence.” No, the left’s argument always seems to begin and end with “We must do something.”

Occasionally, they will throw in for good measure a, “Why do you need an ‘assault rifle?’” But mostly, they stick to the, “Won’t someone please think of the children,” argument. The arguments of gun control have changed over time and we have now reached a point where even the left tacitly admits that gun control doesn’t work. In the 1980’s, discussions of gun control swirled around flimsy stats and counter-factual arguments where both sides of the debate argued that the stats and analysis supported their contentions.

The 1990’s were a dark time for those who valued the Second Amendment as it was the era of the Assault Weapons ban. However, from those dark times emerged a silver lining. In 2004, the effectiveness of gun control was no longer a counter-factual argument; we tried it their way and the assault weapons ban did not work. After a ten-year trial run, the ban died from a want of results and we have the traceable data that highlights the flawed logic of gun control arguments. Now, the left has all but abandoned the notion that their brand of anti-gun zealotry will save lives. Instead, we hear obfuscated rhetoric that calls for the saving of lives and the enactment of gun control measures. However, we don’t hear anything about how the proposed measures would save lives. We only hear, “Well, we’ve got to do something.”

It really is a phenomenon that is unique to government. You don’t really see this kind of inspired leadership in the private sector. Imagine a man at a company going into a board room and saying, “Well, profits are down and something has to change. I’ve drafted up a plan. It’s not good and it doesn’t actually address the third-quarter losses but it’s different and, hell, we’ve got to do something. So, let’s implement this plan and viciously smear anyone who dares to point out that it does nothing to fix the problem.”

Yesterday, liberal gun-grabber Rep. Carolyn Maloney demonstrated her astonishing ignorance on MSNBC as she discussed the need for gun control in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing. Specifically, she addressed the suspects’ ability to obtain firearms.

“One thing that Congress can do right now is pass the gun-safety laws,” she said. “As it stands right now, the next Tamerlan [Tsarnaev] can go to a gun show and buy all the guns he wants, all the weapons he wants, no problem, no questions asked. I think at the very least Congress should pass sensible gun-safety laws that law enforcement is asking for.

Law enforcement really wants the bill- actually, I authored it several years ago- that would make trafficking guns a felony. I mean, how dumb can we be?

As it stands right now Tamerlan, as we know now, was on the terrorist watch list. So we know a gun check would stop him if there was a background check. But as it stands now, Tamerlan, or the next Tamerlan or the next terrorist can go to any gun show and can buy a hundred round magazine, they can buy all the assault weapons they want, no questions asked. The gun lobby has the upper hand now even though 90% of Americans want gun safety.”

Ignorance of a subject is certainly understandable. I know precious little about many things. But considering that Maloney is a lawmaker who is urging the creation of laws that violate Second Amendment protections, it’s not unreasonable to ask that she do a modicum of research on the subject before running off at the mouth on a subject about which she obviously knows nothing. If she or one of her staffers would have bothered to research the issue, she would have discovered that the gun show loophole is a myth. Gun sellers at gun shows have to perform background checks. Of course, in many states private sales are legal and thus, people who run in similar circles are known to trade or sell guns. However, the dealers at gun shows are required to run background checks and risk prosecution and, at the very least, the revocation of their federal firearms license if they don’t.

Furthermore, the Tsarnaev brothers already broke many laws in obtaining their weapons. Making it “super-duper illegal” won’t deter those who are willing to break a half-dozen firearm laws. And lastly, the admission that Tamerlan wouldn’t have been able to pass a background check only proves the validity of what gun rights supporters have been saying; criminals don’t follow laws. He couldn’t pass a background check so he went elsewhere. Believing that creating a law making it illegal to sell a gun without a background check will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is as naïve as believing that since Marijuana is illegal, people can’t get it.

But hey, we’ve got to something, right?

The left has yet to bring forth a proposition that is both conducive to logic and compatible with the Constitution. While they flail about, declaring that we have got to do something, anything, they reveal their true aims. Liberals are not interested in finding a solution because they know there is no adequate solution; they just figure that while emotions are running high, they might as well make another grab for our Second Amendment rights at which they have been trying to get for decades.

Sincerely,
Roger Stockton
Co-Founder Western Representation PAC

Mayor Bloomberg Wants to Re-Interpret the Constitution

It seems like the liberals politicians will use any reason to turn the argument around towards an anti second amendment push. A rational person cannot think that more gun control laws will have anything to do with safety either from terrorists or criminals, as he only people obeying laws are NOT the terrorists or criminals.  And don't forget, Mayor Bloomberg is the same elitest, socialist snob who thinks he knows better than anyone else. 

The following is an Legislative Alert from the National Rifle Association.

According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect

"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."

According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.

"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.

"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."

Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan

This was written before the Connecticut Vote,.....which unfortunantely passed depriving law abiding Connecticut citizens basic rights. 

Conn. lawmakers unveil bipartisan gun control plan, by Susan Haigh of the Associated Press

With an announcement of sweeping proposals to curb gun violence, Connecticut lawmakers said they are hoping to send a message to Congress and other state legislators across the country: A bipartisan agreement on gun control is possible.  Update:  Not only possible but this new restrictive, un-constitutional gun control pased into law........Colt Manufacturing should packup and leave Connecticut for any state that supports and defends the unalienable rights affiremd by the Constitution.  

Legislative leaders on Monday revealed proposals spurred by the Dec. 14 Newtown school shooting following weeks of bipartisan, closed-door negotiations. A vote is expected Wednesday in the General Assembly, where Democrats control both chambers, making passage all but assured.

"Democrats and Republicans were able to come to an agreement on a strong, comprehensive bill," said Senate President Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, who called the proposed legislation the strongest, most comprehensive bill in the country. "That is a message that should resound in 49 other states and in Washington, D.C. And the message is: We can get it done here and they should get it done in their respective states and nationally in Congress."

The massacre reignited the gun debate in the country and led to calls for increased gun control legislation on the federal and state levels. While some other states, including neighboring New York, have strengthened their gun laws, momentum has stalled in Congress, whose members were urged by President Barack Obama last week not to forget the shooting and to capitalize on the best chance in years to stem gun violence.

The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation's first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new "ammunition eligibility certificate," imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state's assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.

The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.

Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, a Fairfield Republican whose district includes Newtown, said Republicans and Democrats have understood they needed to "rise above politics" when they decided to come up with a legislative response to the massacre.

"At the end of the day, I think it's a package that the majority of the people of Connecticut I know will be proud of," he said.

The bill also addresses mental health and school security measures, including gun restrictions for people who've been committed to mental health facilities and restoration of a state grant for school safety improvements.

After clearing the state legislature, the bill would be sent to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, who has helped lead efforts to strengthen the state's gun laws but has not yet signed off on the proposed legislation. Earlier Monday, Malloy voiced support for the Newtown families and their desire to ban the possession of large-capacity magazines.

Ron Pinciaro, executive director of Connecticut Against Gun Violence, said his group will live with the lawmakers' decision not to ban them as other states have done. He said the leaders made their decision based on what was politically feasible.

"We have to be satisfied. There are still other things that we want, we'll be back for in later sessions," he said. "But for now, it's a good thing."

Robert Crook, executive director of the Connecticut Coalition of Sportsmen, contended the bill would not have changed what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where gunman Adam Lanza fired off 154 shots with a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle within five minutes. He went through six 30-round magazines, though half were not completely empty, and police said he had three other 30-round magazines in addition to one in the rifle.

"They can register magazines and do all the rest of this stuff. It isn't going to do anything," he said.

Gun owners, who've packed public hearings at the state Capitol in recent months, voicing their opposition to various gun control measures, are concerned they've been showing up "for virtually nothing" after learning about the bill, Crook said.

Six relatives of Newtown victims visited the Capitol on Monday, asking lawmakers to ban existing high-capacity magazines. Some handed out cards with photographs of their slain children.

Allowing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets to remain in the hands of gun owners would leave a gaping loophole in the law, said Mark Barden, whose 7-year-old son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting.

"It doesn't prevent someone from going out of the state to purchase them and then bring them back. There's no way to track when they were purchased, so they can say, 'I had this before,'" Barden said. "So it's a big loophole."

Barden and other victims' family members who visited the statehouse on Monday did not immediately respond to messages seeking their reactions to the agreement.

Jake McGuigan, a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is based in Newtown, said he wouldn't comment on the proposal until he saw it in the writing, but he questioned the mechanics of a registry for magazines.

"How will they register a magazine? It seems a little weird," he said.  "How do they register a magazine? " By placing your name on a list owning x number of magazines,..so when the time is right the State or Federal Government will knock on your door and confiscate them. 

More Second Amendment Supporters

Harry Reid finally figured out that the Democrats have no support in the Senate to pass second amendment destroying legislation. Despite efforts by Obama, Uncle Joe Biden, Senator Frankenstien (D-CA) and others to make gun control an emotional issue, Second Amendment supporters found an ally in a previously quiet area, Black-American leaders.

Watch this short, but exceptional video on Black Americans coming together to support the second amendment putting it into perspective as the unalienable right that holds all the other rights together.

Senate Votes To Block U.S. From Joining UN Arms Treaty

Senate Votes To Block U.S. From Joining UN Arms Treaty, however the actual title of this report should be "some ass clown Senator's actual vote YES on the U.N. Arms Treaty"

In the last batch of amendment votes to the budget, the Senate voted on several foreign policy proposals.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) introduced an amendment that would prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty in order to uphold the Second Amendment. His amendment passed on a 53-46 vote.

Republicans have been critical of President Obama’s decision to consider the treaty, although Obama has said he would not vote for anything that would violate the Second Amendment.  It is very troubling that 46 Senators voted for this treaty which would, in effect, supercede the second amendment. 

One Man's Personal View on Private Property

One Man's Personal View on Private Property, and a good one at that.

Private Property and the Second Amendment, by Alfred Adask

Not one of the nations opting for gun control recognized private property rights. Not one of the nations opting for gun control achieved prosperity while gun control was in effect.

According to political scientist political scientist R. J. Rummel, “In the 20th century, democide [murder of civilians by their own government] passed war as the leading cause of non-natural death.”

Get that? According to Mr. Rummel, during the 20th century, more people were murdered by their own government than were killed by a foreign government in the midst of a genuine war.

Virtually all of these two hundred million deaths of civilians by their own governments came after the people had been sufficiently stupid and/or self-destructive to agree to surrender their arms to their government.

Simply put, if Mr. Rummel’s studies are correct, gun control caused more deaths in the 20th century than war.

Think international war is bad?

Domestic gun control is worse.

The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect us against our own government. It doesn’t only protect our freedoms and our lives—it also protects our right to private property, our prosperity and standard of living.

Lose your guns; lose your private property; lose your personal and national prosperity; and, maybe, lose your life. Bet on it.

Remember: No one really wants you disarmed except the gangs (private or governmental) who plan to rob you.

Gun Companies May Leave Their Restrictive States

From an article titled, "Magpul Industries Was Not Bluffing, Remington and Colt May Follow Suit" by Matt Liponoga posted on the Free Patriot,........ No sooner had Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed three gun-control bills into law Wednesday than the economic backlash began.

Officials at gun equipment manufacturer Magpul Industries confirmed that the company would make good on its vow to leave Colorado if the governor signed the bill to limit ammunition-magazine capacity. The Erie-based manufacturer confirmed on its Facebook page that it will start its transition “almost immediately.”

Magpul may be the first firearms-related business to relocate as a result of state gun-control laws, but it probably won’t be the last. Companies in Connecticut, Maryland and New York are considering moves to more gun-friendly pastures as their state legislatures act on restrictive firearms measures similar to those pushed through by state Democrats here.

In New York, where Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed laws banning so-called assault weapons and limiting magazine capacity to seven rounds, venerable gun manufacturer Remington Arms is being wooed by officials in at least a half-dozen other states.

“We are carefully evaluating our options,” Teddy Novin, marketing director for Remington parent company Freedom Group, Inc., told the Utica Observer-Dispatch in January.

Remington, which has operated for nearly 200 years in Ilion, N.Y., employs 1,300 people and brings an estimated $50 million to the state annually.

Another gun company that may be receptive to relocation is Colt’s Manufacturing Co. in Hartford, Conn. The state legislature in Hartford is debating firearms restrictions in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in December, which left 26 people dead, including 20 children.

Colt President Dennis Veilleux said in a March 18 editorial in the Hartford Courant that he feared the legislation would erode the 175-year-old company’s customer base and cripple its ability to do business in Connecticut. Last week, Colt drove home the point by sending 10 buses with more than 500 employees to the state legislature. The workers held a rally outside the state capitol, waving signs and chanting “Save our jobs!”

And in Maryland, officials at Beretta USA, the American base for the famed Italian gunmaker, have expressed concerns that bills moving quickly through the state legislature would make some of the company’s products illegal in its home state. Beretta employs as many as 400 workers, making the company an attractive target for nearby states, including Virginia and West Virginia.

Magpul, which manufactures polymer firearms accessories, including ammunition magazines, employs about 200 people and supports 400 supply-chain jobs in Colorado. The company blamed political currents outside Colorado for the Democratic legislature’s gun-control package.

“It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives and the 2014 election,” said the company.

Mr. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, acknowledged at the signing ceremony that Magpul might leave Colorado, but said he had concluded that the legislation’s benefits “clearly” outweighed the costs.

“Those are 200 people who go to work every day, and if Magpul decides they do indeed have to leave, that’s a hardship, that’s difficult,” said Mr. Hickenlooper. “In any difficult piece of legislation, there’s pluses and minuses.”

News in the Second Amendment Fight

Colorado sheriff refuses to enforce gun-control bills

A Colorado sheriff says he won't enforce two aggressive gun-control measures waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke told The Greeley Tribune that Democratic lawmakers are scrambling after recent mass shootings, and the bills are "feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable."

One bill expands background checks on firearm purchases, and the other limits ammunition magazines to 15 rounds. The 15-round magazine limit would make Colorado the first state outside the East Coast to ratchet back gun rights after last year's shootings in Aurora, Colo., and Newtown, Conn.

Colorado's gun-control debates have been closely watched because of the state's gun-loving frontier heritage and painful history of mass shootings, most recently last summer's movie theater shooting that killed 12.

The sheriff said he "won't bother enforcing" the laws because it would be impossible for officers to keep track of how the requirements are being met by gun owners — and he and other sheriffs are considering suing the state to block the measures if they are signed into law.

Cooke said the bill passed Friday requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun wouldn't keep firearms out of the hands of those who use them for violence.

"Criminals are still going to get their guns," he said.

The sheriff's office did not immediately return calls left by The Associated Press.

The magazine-limit bill passed earlier in the week will technically ban all magazines because of a provision that outlaws any magazine that can be altered, he said, adding that all magazines can be altered to a higher capacity.

Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.

Cooke oversees law enforcement in Colorado's third-largest county by area. His jurisdiction includes its largest city, Greeley, and large swaths of farmland and areas of oil and gas production.

----------------------------------------------

Kansas House OKs three gun laws

The Kansas House has approved three proposals to alter the state's gun regulations, including expanding the locations where concealed weapons could be carried.

Kansas State Capitol, State House, Captial Dome Topeka More NewsRead more Breaking NewsThe bills passed with broad support Thursday and head to the Senate for consideration.

One measure would let school districts and state colleges designate employees who could carry concealed firearms inside their buildings, even if such weapons were banned for others.

The bill also would expand the number of public buildings where people with a state permit could bring concealed weapons, including the Statehouse.

Another measure declares that the federal government cannot regulate firearms manufactured, sold and kept in Kansas.

The proposals are a reaction to discussions about new federal gun-control measures after December's school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

Maryland Legislators Schooled Over Gun Rights

Testimony in Opposition of Maryland Senate Bill 281 from Darren Mellors, Executive Vice-President of LWRC International.

My name is Darren Mellors, Executive-Vice President of LWRC International. LWRCI manufacturers rifles in Cambridge MD in Dorchester County. Our customers are the U.S. Government, law enforcement agencies nationwide, and allied governments that are sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State. We also sell a line of commercial products to qualified law abiding U.S. and Maryland citizens, until recently in all 50 states.

I am in the unique position to offer factual testimony to this legislature on behalf of the 300 families that depend on us for skilled employment; the various contractors that provide services and products for LWRCI; and the law abiding citizens of MD who are being vilified by your proposed legislation. Vilified may sound to be a strong word, but infringing on the rights of select group of citizens in response to the illegal, evil acts of a deranged individual or career violent criminals is the very definition of the word.

I also represent my mentor; the owner of LWRCI and consummate entrepreneur Mr. Richard Bernstein. He not only started LWRCI, but many other successful ventures in MD that have created an estimated 3000 jobs over the last 40 years by estimation of the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development. His record of job creation on the eastern shore of MD is second only to Mr. Frank Purdue. He single handedly made Salisbury MD the center of Microwave Filter Technology manufacture for the world with K&L Microwave, and Lorch Microwave. Other examples of his success were BAI Aerosystems, Salisbury Pewter, Matech (Machining Technologies) along with many commercial real estate developments on the eastern shore.

Mr. Bernstein is also very active in our MD community being a large contributor to Salisbury University, and the namesake of the Bernstein School of Business. He has been given entrepreneurial, and community service awards, locally, nationally, and internationally. His entire ethos is focused creating jobs and building value in a company through local people, most starting from small ventures.

Facing these 20 gun bills, he is now put in a position to abandon his home, many of his MD employees and his proud legacy to move his ventures to a state that does not ask that productive member of society fall on a sword as a scapegoat for inaction by its government against the prosecution of criminals for gun crimes. There is also apparent malaise by the government to addressing serious mental health care deficits in MD and an apparent disregard of its citizen’s Constitutional rights under the second amendment.

To understand the consequences of passing this legislation, you must know what is at stake. LWRCI’s rate of job creation over the past 7 months has been approximately 10 new jobs per month. We have expanded the business through three MD counties with employees numbering 300. Then there are the employees of businesses we subcontract to, like Eastern Plating in Baltimore County. We do so much work with Eastern Plating; LWRCI has a resident employee in house.

LWRCI will bring in excess of $130 million dollars into Maryland this year. This money is put to work in Dorchester County, one the most economically distressed Counties in MD, and the money is spread throughout the state through subcontract work to Maryland businesses, the purchase of capital equipment and technical services, the rental of properties, contracting construction for expansion, employee’s payroll dollars and corporate taxes. The millions of dollars we bring from outside of MD into the state do more to stimulate the economy than any scheme legislators or members of the State and Federal executive branches ever could.

We have invested every dollar back into expansion and growth. We invest in our employees, training them in high tech skills like machining, programming, drafting and other skilled jobs. We use the Maryland institutes of higher education offering tuition reimbursement to our employees. Our goal from the first day of operations was to expand and build something of value, not take annual dividends. We have invested in Maryland, our communities, and its people.

In Feb of 2012 LWRCI signed a $109 million dollar 18 month contract with the Government of Saudi Arabia, sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Congress. This is the largest direct commercial to foreign government sale of firearms in the history of the ATF Exports Branch. $109 million dollars of foreign money coming into Maryland to a company that is five years old. In these economic times, this is a story that the Department of Business and Economic Development can be very proud of. New jobs; developing a workforce; and stimulating the economy.

We are successful because we offer and innovative product that is the best in the world. We have been awarded more than nine U.S. Patents in the past five years, and have as many pending.

Like our colleagues from Beretta, LWRCI is Maryland success story that this legislature and the Governor should be proud of. Success in these uncertain economic times should be celebrated and encouraged. While the U.S. manufactures fewer and fewer products, and U.S. exports to the world dwindle, the world still looks to the U.S. to secure its people and their countries borders with American firearms under the direction and supervision of the U.S. Department of State. We supply rifles to DOD, DOJ, DOC, DHHS, and the Pentagon Force Protection Agency to name a few federal agencies. We have supplied hundreds of local and state law enforcement agencies rifles to protect our law officers and the public they serve. Countless U.S. citizens buy our commercial rifles for the same reasons our government and international customers do. For sport or defense, people want and have the right to own the safest, highest quality product they can get. We have a noble job that we are proud of and take very seriously.

Our company success, and the success of our employees should be celebrated as a model to economic growth and civic responsibility. Instead manufacturers and our industry are vilified with the introduction of this legislation to ban cosmetic features of a certain type of rifle. Modern rifles are functionally no different or more dangerous than any other firearm. If you think they are, you need to educate yourself, and not by watching the latest Die Hard movie or Piers Morgan.

We already work in the most highly regulated industry in America. There are more than 20,000 domestic laws relating to firearms. As a company we are diligent to follow them to the letter of the law. Yet the Maryland Legislature, whom have already passed some of most extensive state firearms regulations in the union are attempting to pass further non-sensical laws that will do nothing to improve public safety.

Instead, these laws punish law-abiding citizens, and strip them of their rights. This law will push firearms into the black market to felons and criminals on to the streets as it did in Canada, the UK and Australia. Law-abiding citizens are faced with deciding whether to comply with an unconstitutional law or be labeled felons. Once passed, citizens with no legal method of disposing of these firearms will invariably create a black market with off the books sales with no checks, balances or regulations. Maryland seems doomed to repeat mistakes of the past while ignoring the core issues.

Our representatives should be alarmed with the fact that current firearms regulations are not enforced or prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Prince Georges and Baltimore City have some of the worst violent crime in the country despite having severely restrictive firearms regulations. Criminals responsible for gun crime should be brought to justice with the full veracity of our courts and laws. Criminal recidivism is common and encouraged by the lack of serious consequences to those who commit crimes with firearms, or obtain them illegally. Despite all of this crime concentrated in densely populated urban centers, gun violence in America in general is at a level lower than it was during the 10 years of the 1994 Federal “Assault Weapons Ban” and close to levels not seen since the 1960’s.

The Connecticut judicial system, legislators, an ineffectual gun ban, a broken mental health system and law enforcement did not prevent a deranged and disturbed individual from taking the lives of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. The rifle found at Sandy Hook was already banned in that state. Our MD legislators are looking to do more of the same with political fanfare about improving public safety.

As parents, as citizens, we demand our government address the real issues, and protect our children and us. Not vilify it citizens by stripping them of their rights to put on a political show. We ask you address the real issues of crime control and comprehensive care for the mentally ill.

When the MD Department of Transportation buys our product to protect bridges and infrastructure from terrorism, the State refers to them “patrol rifles.” When a law abiding MD resident buys a rifle after filling out no less than 3 state and federal forms, including an Authorization to release Mental Health medical records, the state calls them “assault rifles.” They are simply rifles. Rifles made to be ergonomic, made of lightweight materials, made to be safe to shoot, made to be accurate. Not expressly made to “assault” anybody.

By the end of this hearing, you will all understand that by-product category, these firearms rarely used in crime. I can give you my own LWRCI statistic to add to the other statistics you will hear. We have shipped over 60,000 rifles to qualified buyers, and not once in 5 years we have been in business has an ATF trace been associated with an LWRCI product being used in a crime.

I came here to share this information on behalf of many Marylanders. We are asking ourselves a question everyday. Is it intent of this legislation to cause a mass exodus of law abiding citizens and productive companies? These citizens and companies will be forced to leave either on moral grounds, business grounds or both. These are the same people that are the core of civic responsibility and contribution to our community and state and its economy. How can LWRCI stay in MD and produce rifles, pay taxes, create jobs, and stimulate the economy when its government intends to restrict the rights of its own citizens? Aside from the moral issue, the citizens of this country would not forgive the hypocrisy of LWRCI staying despite passage of this legislation.

The legislation as written seems to be window dressing for political gain by a few in the face of ineffective crime control. The real issues of public safety as they relate to gun violence go largely unanswered. The MD government is making it clear through its actions with this legislation that we, nor Beretta nor other firearms manufacturers are welcome in MD. It sends the message that this is not the State to expand in.

This legislation also sends a clear message to MD citizens that wish to exercise their rights under the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution; that they are no longer welcome in MD. For criminals, it will be business as usual. As such, if this unconstitutional ban passes as written, we will comply with your wishes and move our companies out of Maryland along with as many employees and their families that wish to go.

Respectfully,

Darren Mellors

Executive-Vice President

LWRC International, LLC

Star Parker, Black Americans and Gun Control

This article on CNS News by Penny Starr was actually titled "Star Parker: Blacks Who Back Gun Control Need to Study History of Slavery and Jim Crow". Star Parker, founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE), is currently a regular commentator on CNN, TBN, CSPAN, CBN, and FOX News.

Articles and quotes by Star continuously appear in major publications around the world. She has written several books including Uncle Sam's Plantation and White Ghetto. Currently, Star is working on her next book: How the Poor Get Rich.

At a Friday event billed as a Black History Month press conference, Star Parker said African Americans in Congress who support gun control efforts by President Barack Obama and his administration should consider the history of blacks in this country and people around the globe who were oppressed, including being banned from owning firearms.

CNSNews.com asked Parker, who is the founder and president of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE): “There are a lot of African Americans and people of color in Congress who are backing Obama’s plan for gun control. What would you say to them because today [at this event] it was revealed that there is a direct effect on the African American community with this gun control?”

Parker said: “Well, I'd say they need to revisit their history – black history, black slave history, black Jim Crow history -- and they should visit the histories of other tyrant nations where we had people like Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Every single time there is someone who wants to take away all other rights of the people, the first right they take away is your right to bear arms.”

“I believe that the the Congressional Black community, or the Congressional Black Caucus is absolutely out of step with black America today on this issue,” Parker said.

Speakers at the event in Washington, D.C., defended the Second Amendment and its guarantee that American citizens have the right to own and bear firearms and that the government should not infringe on that right, including Ken Blackwell, chairman of the board of the Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) and a board member of the National Rifle Association.

“That right to protect one’s life and liberty is a God-given right,” Blackwell said in a statement. “It is a gift from God, not a grant from government.”

Parker said her organization held the event to allow black leaders “to express our deep concern of efforts currently under way to limit our God-given and constitutional right of self-defense.”

The gun control laws that banned or put restrictions on African Americans from owning firearms in the United States are documented on a timeline from 1640 to 1995 by the National Rifle Association’s Institute of Legislative Action and can be found here.

Patriots Against Obama's Attack on Gun Rights

All is not lost if you have read several accounts from Patriots across the Country responding to President Obama's thinly disguised Anti-Gun executive orders and recommendations. The Democrats are spinning gun control as "gun violence reduction", using children as props to make it seem like failure to follow or accept Obama's dicates somehow places children at risk.

The Tea Party News Network sent out a great article on what actions people are taking to not accept Obama's illegal graps of power not enumerated by the Constitution.

Lawmakers and Law Enforcement Announce Resistance to Executive Orders on Gun Control January 17, 2013, By Greg Campbell, Contributor,TPNN Contributor

As Americans review the astounding 23 executive orders signed on Wednesday to strengthen gun control measures on a federal level, many officials across the country are declaring that they are unwilling to enforce such mandates.

As TPNN reported, Wyoming is considering legislation that would make it illegal to enforce Obama’s executive orders and Texas has joined them. However, many other lawmakers have joined the effort to resist the gun control edicts that have originated from the executive branch.

According to sources on Capitol Hill, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is expected to introduce legislation that will nullify and prohibit Obama’s executive orders, defund them and ask the Senate to file a court challenge to them.

Taking the fight one step further, Texas Congressman Steve Stockman has threatened to begin impeachment proceedings against President Obama if he violates the Constitution via executive orders. He stated:

“The White House has indicated they are willing to use Executive Orders to infringe upon the God-given right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment from government intrusion. President Obama announced the specifics of his anti-gun sneak attack today, though he refuses to answer questions regarding his own illegal transfer of weapons to Mexican drug lords. Among the Executive Orders issued are tracking of your firearms, which creates a de facto national gun registry, and a White House demand for laws regulating the private transfer of firearms…

Impeachment is not something to be taken lightly. It is a grave and serious undertaking that should only be initiated in a sober and serious manner. It should be reserved only for most egregious of trespasses by the President. I would consider using Executive Orders to engage in attacks on a constitutionally-protected right and violating his sworn oath of office to be such a trespass.”

In a letter to Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves and House Speaker Philip Gunn, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant asked state lawmakers to resist President Obama’s executive orders, writing,...

“I am asking that you immediately pass legislation that would make any unconstitutional order by the president illegal to enforce in Mississippi by state or local law enforcement.”

The list goes on…

But beyond the steps of state capitols, local law enforcement officials across the country have made clear their intention of upholding their oaths to uphold the laws of their state and have declared their unwillingness to abide what many see to be unlawful edicts.

In my home state of Oregon, a state that consistently votes Democratic, sheriffs from numerous counties have written letters declaring that they will refuse to enforce any law they consider to be unconstitutional. In such a letter, Linn County Sheriff Tim Mueller (picture of Sheriff Muellar at top) wrote:

“We are Americans. We must not allow, nor shall we tolerate, the actions of criminals, no matter how heinous the crimes, to prompt politicians to enact laws that will infringe upon the liberties of responsible citizens who have broken no laws.”

Mueller later stated, “We’re restricted and prohibited from enforcing all types of federal laws, including immigration laws. It would be unreasonable for anyone to think that I would enforce a federal firearms law.”

As America waits to see how Obama’s executive actions will take effect, lawmakers and law enforcers across the country have signaled that this fight is far from over.

County Sheriffs vs Over Bearing Federal Government

A high-profile former sheriff who once sued the U.S. government over its gun regulations – and won – says it’s the local sheriff who will have to defend Americans when and if the feds start banning and confiscating guns.

Richard Mack, a former sheriff in Graham County, Ariz., joined with then-Ravalli County Sheriff Jay Printz in a lawsuit against Washington when Bill Clinton demanded sheriffs enforce provisions of the Brady Bill gun-control law.

He won. And since then he’s been at the front of a movement that highlights the responsibility of local sheriffs.

Now, as Washington gears up to consider imperious plans to limit guns, require fingerprinting and registration, impose additional taxes and fees, ban particular features or functions outright, and even confiscate weapons of self-defense, Mack has told WND that there’s hope remaining in local law enforcement.

It’s not complicated, he said.

“Gun control is illegal, and it’s against the Constitution,” he said. “What people don’t realize is that the Second Amendment was designed to protect us from the power of the federal government.”

He said he would expect sheriffs across the country to defend the rights of ordinary Americans.

“I hope and pray America’s sheriffs won’t allow any more gun control,” Mack said. “The sheriffs need to be united in letting the federal government know that we’re not going to allow it.

“In the ’90s when I was the sheriff of Graham County, Ariz., we worked with other sheriffs and stopped two or three Brady Bills,” he recalled, a fight that he’s been detailing in seminars with sheriffs.

He said the office is critical, as it’s not only in law enforcement, but also is elected directly by the people.

“Out of 200 sheriffs with whom I’ve met, I’ve only had one give me a wishy-washy answer. That one said he would try to take the federal government to court,” Mack said. “Most of them have said they would lay down their lives first rather than allow any more federal control. They also said they would do everything they could to stop gun control and gun confiscation.”

Alan Stang at News With Views wrote about another battle Mack encountered while sheriff. A bridge had washed out and parents were driving children 26 miles to school, which physically was located only half a mile across a river.

The county decided the fix the bridge and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warned that an environmental study alone would take 10 years. Mack promised to provide protection for the workers, and said he’d call out a posse if needed.

The bridge was built.

Stang wrote about other close encounter between sheriffs and the feds:

Find out who is working to aid Barack Obama in the destruction of the 2nd Amendment, in “America Disarmed.”

“In 1997, in Nye County, Nev., federal agents arrived to seize cattle that belonged to rancher Wayne Hage. The sheriff gave them a choice: skedaddle or be arrested. They skedaddled. … In Idaho, a 74-year-old rancher shot an endangered gray wolf which had killed one of his calves. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sent three armed agents to serve a warrant. Lemhi County Sheriff Brett Barslou said that was ‘inappropriate, heavy-handed and dangerously close to excessive force.’ More than 500 people turned out for a rally in the small towns of Challis and Salmon to support the sheriff and the rancher and to tell the federal government to back off.”

Mack, who’s written “The Magic of Gun Control,” said if there is an actual specific plan to start taking Americans’ weapons, he expects a response.

“If the federal government wants to start a new Civil War, all they need to do is go ahead with gun confiscation,” Mack said.

Just a day earlier, WND reported that Firearms Coalition Executive Director Jeff Knox said Second Amendment supporters aren’t planning negotiations with Obama over gun control.

“We are not going to back down. We are not going to give in. And we are not going to concede one more inch,” Knox said.

He was responding to questions about America’s response to plans like those from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to demand gun registration, bans and fingerprinting in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut.

“Unfortunately, the president and other anti-rights politicians are not doing anything to keep what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary from happening again,” he said. “Instead they are going after law-abiding gun owners and targeting commonly owned firearms and ammunition feeding devices. Their proposed restrictions on these items would have had no impact on what happened at Sandy Hook, and, if passed, would not stop the next craven murderer from wreaking just as much havoc and destruction.”

Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt shares Mack’s opinion.

“The county sheriffs need to act and make new deputies to stop federal authority in the counties,” Pratt told WND. “This is a defensible idea. He can deputize people to serve since they are the ones who voted for him to represent them. A lot of citizens would stand up for their Second Amendment rights if they were protected by the sheriff.”

He cited a move that already is surging among states to adopt laws and use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal activity. The Tenth Amendment simply reserves to the states and the people all responsibilities not specifically assigned to Washington in the Constitution.

Pratt noted the move that over the past few years has seen eight states adopt laws that exempt firearms made, sold and kept in the state from federal oversight. The federal government has taken the issue to court, where it remains at this point.

“A number of states are passing laws that use the Tenth Amendment to curb federal control. Their law says that if a gun is made in the state and sold in the state, that the federal government has no control over it,” Pratt said.

He provided additional examples of what already has resulted from sheriffs’ disputes with the feds.

“In Elkhart County, Ind., there was a farmer who produced raw milk. The Department of Justice was investigating the farmer and was trying to shut down the farm,” Pratt said. “Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers defended the farmer by saying that without a warrant signed by a judge and without probable cause, they had no jurisdiction to investigate the farmer within his jurisdiction of Elkhart County.”

“Rogers said that if they didn’t leave, he would arrest them. The DoJ threatened to arrest him, but Rogers sent his deputies to defend the farmer,” Pratt said. “The feds have had to back off.”

He also said local officials in New Mexico burned trees from a small parcel of federal land to halt a raging forest fire.

“The sheriff is the chief officer in the county even on federal land if the land is in the county,” Pratt said.

But Washington is not idle. Barack Obama said he will put the weight of his office behind gun control, and Feinstein even has proposed a federal gun buyback program that has been endorsed by about 40 members of Congress.

Feinstein’s dedication to eliminating the Second Amendment is unquestioned.

The California Democrat was one of sponsors of the so-called “Brady Bill,” the 1995 “assault weapons” ban. Faced with the limitations placed in the version that was making its way through Congress, Feinstein said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every gun in America, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

Mack, who is also the founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, said Feinstein is a “polimagician,” a political leader who believes his or her policies will work magic for their constituents.

“They think they’re special and better than everyone else. Feinstein’s [own] concealed carry permit is the product of this elitist attitude,” Mack said. He said Congress and Obama simply are loading their political agenda onto the backs of the victims of Sandy Hook.

He said gun control through history produces one result: “Genocide.”

Pratt warned that Washington’s strategy will accomplish nothing but creating vast new ranks of felons in America.

“A lot of Americans spend an awful lot of money on these guns. I don’t think there will be very many who will willingly accept $200 for a gun that they paid $500 to $1,000 for,” Pratt said.

The last two major gun rights cases that went before the U.S. Supreme Court were decided in favor of gun rights, and as a followup the Second Amendment Foundation has been taking on local and state restrictions.

Recently, a federal judge struck down a North Carolina provision that authorizes a ban on firearms and ammunition outside homes during “a declared emergency,” determining that violates the Second Amendment.

WND reported earlier when residents of King, N.C., were startled by the banishment of firearms during a “declared snow emergency.”

Judge Malcolm J. Howard wrote, “[T]he court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny. … While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”

“When SAF attorney Alan Gura won the Heller case at the Supreme Court,” noted SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the gun ban crowd said that we were a ‘one-trick-pony’ and that we would never knock out another gun law. Well, SAF has now knocked out gun laws in Maryland, Illinois and North Carolina.”

This is a very well written article original published on WND, by Michael Carl who is a veteran journalist with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He also has two Master's Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his family in the Northeast United States.

Gun Control - Yes It Works

Yes, Gun Control does work,.....if you are a totaltarian regime intent of disarming the population so you can round them up for forced labor camps or execution. And make no mistake about this registration crap. In order to confiscate guns, you first have to have a registery.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then, from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20 million dissidents were rounded up and killed.

In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

In 1970, Uganda embraced gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians were rounded up and killed.

In all, over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century.

I know some of you liberals will be saying, "We are not like the rest of the world",....true for a short time, then we'll be just like Greece,....bankrupt.

The Gun Control Debate

There is a lot of gun control debate back and forth on the news and in Congress following the murders committed by a mad man at Sandy Hill Elementary School which took the lives of 20 children and 7 adults.

However as high profile as mass murders seem to be they are actually on the decline, if you don't add 3,000+ deaths that Obama and Eric Holder are responsible for with Fast and Furious.

From an Associated Press article, by Helen O'Neill, posted on The Blaze, we learn that: While the perception in the wake of this year’s mass shootings has been that such acts are on the rise, the Associated Press found that it’s actually the exact opposite when you look at the data on a macro level, “There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University.

He (Fox) adds that the random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest. While mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s.

And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, says.

Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

From NewsMax, an article by David A. Patten concerning an interview with College Professor and Gun Law Expert Dr. John R. Lott:

Gun Expert Lott: Let Teachers Carry Arms, Ban Gun-Free Zones to Halt Mass Shootings

Banning gun-free zones and allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons could help eliminate mass shootings at schools, John R. Lott, one of the nation's leading gun experts, tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview Saturday.

Lott, an author and college professor, told Newsmax that gun-free zones become “a magnet” for deranged killers who hope to burn their names into the history books by running up a big body count.

Lott’s landmark book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws" is in its 3rd edition. He told Newsmax there is a “very good chance” the Connecticut school shooting could have been averted, if teachers there were permitted to carry concealed handguns.

It is no accident, he said, that mass shootings repeatedly have occurred in designated gun-free zones, which attract lunatics looking to murder as many souls as possible before they turn their guns on themselves.

Newsmax: Dr. Lott, your work suggests people are more secure, rather than less so, when firearms are readily available in society.

Dr. Lott: Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.

Newsmax: The media typically spins these mass shootings as an American phenomenon. They suggest we ought to be more like Europe, with strong gun control, because then we would not have these problems. Is that

Dr. Lott: No. Europe has a lot of multiple victim shootings. If you look at a per capita rate, the rate of multiple-victim public shootings in Europe and the United States over the last 10 years have been fairly similar to each other. A couple of years ago you had a couple of big shootings in Finland. About two-and-a-half years ago you had a big shooting in the U.K., 12 people were killed.

You had Norway last year [where 77 died]. Two years ago, you had the shooting in Austria at a Sikh Temple. There have been several multiple-victim public shootings in France over the last couple of years. Over the last decade, you’ve had a couple of big school shootings in Germany. Germany in terms of modern incidents has two of the four worst public-school shootings, and they have very strict gun-control laws. The one common feature of all of those shootings in Europe is that they all take place in gun-free zones, in places where guns are supposed to be banned.

Newsmax: Can you give readers an example of an incident where a teacher or authority-figure with a gun was able to thwart a violent shooting?

Dr. Lott: There was the university case in the Appalachian law school. You had the K through 12 in Mississippi and the one in Edinboro, Pa. You had New Life Church [in December 2007] — you had 7,000 parishioners there when the person broke into the church with about a thousand rounds of ammunition.

But there was a woman there, a former Chicago police officer who had gotten a concealed handgun permit because she was being stalked by her ex-husband. She had asked permission from the minister there to be able to carry a concealed handgun. She was worried if she couldn’t carry it at the church there, that she would be vulnerable going to and from the church. She shot at him 10 times, wounding him, and he committed suicide . . . These types of cases occur all around us, and they usually don’t get much attention, especially if they are stopped before people are injured or killed.

Newsmax: How can society prevent such mass shootings, or are they avoidable at all?

Dr. Lott: About 75 percent of the time when these attacks occur, the killers themselves die at the scene. Even the times when they don’t die, it seems pretty clear their intent was to die, but they just couldn’t bring themselves to commit suicide, pull the trigger, and shoot themselves at the last moment.

But in their warped mind, what they want to do is commit suicide in a way that will get them attention, so people know who they were when they were here. I’s a pretty sick idea, but if you read the documents that they leave, the diaries and the video tapes, it is pretty clear that these guys know that they get more attention the more people they can kill.

So their goal is to try to kill as many people as possible. So there are two issues here. One is focusing on the attention. And I think it’s pretty clear that . . . if people stopped mentioning their names — I'm not saying that’s possible — that’s one thing that would reduce their incentive to go and commit these crimes.

The second thing is to give people the option to protect themselves. One of the things I’ve written about recently is the attack at the Aurora, Colorado movie theater. There, you have seven movie theaters that were showing the Batman movie when it opened at the end of July.

Out of those seven movie theaters, only one movie theater was posted as banning permit-concealed handguns. The killer didn’t go to the movie theater that was closest to his home. He didn’t go to the movie theater that was the largest movie theater in Colorado, which was essentially the same distance from his apartment as the one he ended up going to. Instead, the one he picked was the only one of those movie theaters that banned people taking permit-concealed handguns into that theater.

The problem is, whether it is the Portland shooting earlier this week, or the Connecticut shooting Friday, or the Sikh temple attack in Wisconsin, time after time these attacks take place in the few areas within a state where permit-concealed handguns are banned. It’s not just this year, it’s all these years in the past. And at some point people have to recognize that despite the obvious desire to make places safe by banning guns, it unintentionally has the opposite effect.

When you ban guns, rather than making it safer for the victims, you unintentionally make it safer for the criminals, because they have less to worry about. If you had a violent criminal stalking you or your family, and was really seriously threatening you, would you feel safer putting a sign up in front of your home stating, “This home is a gun-free zone.”

My guess is you wouldn’t do that. And I’ve never run into any gun-control proponents who would do that either. And the reason is pretty clear: Putting a sign there saying this is a gun-free home isn’t going to cause the criminals to say, ‘Oh, I don’t want to break the law, so I’m not going to go in and attack these people.’ It encourages them to do it. It serves as a magnet for him, if he’s going to engage in this attack, that that’s the place where he is going to engage in, because he finds that it is going to be easier to do it there.

Yet every time we have one of these mass shooting incidents, it renews the call from the media and the left for banning guns.

I believe that the people who are pushing for these gun controls are well intentioned. I think they’re wrong. I think the things they’re going to make life more dangerous. But it’s understandable. If you see something bad that happens, and it happens with a gun, the natural reaction is: ‘Well, if I take the gun away, bad things won’t happen anymore.’ The problem is you have to realize that when you go and ban guns, you may only take them away from good law-abiding citizens and not the criminals. And to disarm good law-abiding citizens . . . you just make it easier for crime to occur, not harder.

You also have to think about self defense. They say bad things happen with guns. But the news rarely covers people using guns defensively to stop crimes from happening. And that has a huge impact on people’s perceptions about the costs and benefits of guns.

Newsmax: So can you give us a correlation between crime rates in jurisdictions that try to ban concealed guns and the crime rate in those that do not?

If you look over past data, before everyone that was adopting [concealed carry laws], you find that for each additional state that adopted a right-to-carry law . . . you’d see about a 1.5 percent drop in murder rates, and about 2 percent drop in rape and robbery . . . Just because states are right-to-carry doesn’t mean they’ve issued the same number of fees. You have big differences in states’ training requirements.

The bottom line seems to be when you make it costly for people to get permits, fewer people get permits. You particularly price out people who live in high-crime urban areas from being able to get permits, and those are the ones who benefit the most from having the option to defend themselves.

Newsmax: Do gun free zones invite these attacks?

Dr. Lott: Yes, they’re magnets for these attacks. They make them more likely. These gun-free zones are really tiny areas within a state, and yet that’s where these attacks occur time after time.

Whenever you see more than a few murders taking place, the odds are almost a hundred percent that they are going to occur at a place where permit-concealed handguns are banned. And they were doing it, ironically, in an attempt to try and make people safe. But the problem is it is law-abiding citizens who obey those bans, not the criminals.

Look at Virginia Tech, for example, where we had 32 people killed. If you were an adult with a concealed handgun permit, you could take your permit-concealed handgun virtually anyplace in the state, except for universities and a couple of other places. There are hardly any gun-free zones in Virginia. And yet, if you were a faculty member and you accidentally carried your permit-concealed handgun onto university owned property there, and you got caught, you were going to get fired and your academic career would be over.

You're not going to get an academic job anyplace in the country. Same thing with the students: If you get expelled for a firearm-related violation, your academic career is over. Those are real penalties. Those people’s lives are going to be dramatically changed. But if you take somebody who is a killer . . . you would be facing 32 death penalties or 32 life sentences, plus other charges. And the notion that somehow the charge of expulsion from school would be the key penalty that would keep them from doing it, not 32 death penalties, is absurd. It just doesn’t make any sense . . . It represents a much bigger real penalty for the law-abiding good citizens than it does for the criminals there.

So we have to think about who is going to be obeying these laws. And it’s true for gun-control laws generally. One of the things I try and do in "More Guns, Less Crime" is show what happens to gun rates when guns are banned. It would be nice if things were that simple, that going and banning guns would eliminate crime.

But what you find happening is murder rates and violent crime rates go up. And the question is why. It’s a pretty simple answer: Because the law-abiding citizens are the ones who turn in their guns, and not the criminals.

Newsmax: Would it be a good idea to have teachers who have concealed carry permits in the schools, to better protect kids?

Dr. Lott: I’m all for that. I’ve been a teacher most of my life. I’ve been an academic. I have kids in college still, and kids below that. It’s not something that I take lightly. But it’s hard to see what the argument would be against it.

People may not realize this, but we allowed permit-concealed handguns in schools prior to the ironically named Safe School Zone Act. And no one that I know has been able to point to a single bad thing that occurred, not one.

We changed the law, and we started having these public-school shootings. So I don’t think they got the intended result that they were hoping for with that type of ban. Right now, [some jurisdictions] allow you to carry concealed-permit guns in the schools. There are not a lot of them. But there are no problems that have occurred with any of those states, either.

Newsmax: Could arming teachers and getting rid of gun-free zones have averted a tragedy such as we saw in Connecticut?

Dr. Lott: Well, I think two things would happen. One is, we see the way these killers search out places where people can’t defend themselves. So I think there’s at least a very good chance that if it is known teachers and others there would have permit-concealed handguns, it would have dissuaded the attack from occurring to begin with. Secondly, even if he did attack, it would be by far the safest course of action.

See how armed person stops potential massacre in theatre

The amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and when someone can get to the scene with a gun is very important in determining what the carnage is going to be. The faster you can get somebody [there], the more you can limit it. If you could get the police there in 8 minutes, which would be record time, that would be an eon for people who are there helplessly having to face the killer by themselves with no protection.

See where Teachers Carry Guns