NRA continues quest to expand gun rights

Organization backs gun owners in court.
Associated Press
Apr 6, 2014


The San Diego County sheriff denied Edward Peruta a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Christopher Haga's gun collection was seized, and he was charged with crimes after he was mistakenly linked to a theft of assault weapons from a Fresno-area military base.

The National Rifle Association then lent legal assistance to both men as part of its aggressive legal and political campaign to blunt gun controls across the nation.

Emboldened by a seminal U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that upstanding Americans have the fundamental right to keep guns in their homes, the NRA has involved itself in hundreds of legal cases, many in California.

That case "unleashed a torrent of litigation," said University of California, Los Angeles Law School professor Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert.

Much of it is either started by the NRA or supported by the organization, which offers financial assistance and legal help to people embroiled in lawsuits and legal trouble because they own guns.

Winkler said the latest legal battle over the Second Amendment centers on expanding the right to carry guns outside the home, which is why the NRA is representing Peruta and several other gun owners who are challenging restrictions blocking permission to carry concealed firearms in public.

Peruta filed a lawsuit in 2009 after the San Diego County sheriff rejected his application for a concealed-weapons permit because Peruta failed to show he had a "good cause" to carry a gun outside his home. Peruta owns a motocross track in Connecticut, but he and his wife spend many months each year in San Diego living in their recreational vehicle.

Peruta said he wanted permission to carry a gun weapon for protection, but the sheriff and California law said he needed a better reason, such as that his occupation exposes him to robbery.

"I'm not a hunter. I'm not a collector or a target shooter," Peruta said. "I'm not a gun crazy. But I do want to protect myself."

After a federal judge refused to toss out the lawsuit in 2010, the NRA took over the case for Peruta. "The NRA is the 800-pound gorilla in this fight," he said.

In February, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling, struck down California's "good cause" requirement, ruling that self-defense was a good enough reason to issue a concealed-weapons permit.

The California attorney general and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are seeking to overturn that decision after San Diego County Sheriff William Gore said he would abide by the court decision.

"The issue is important: As a result of the decision, residents and visitors will be subjected to the increased risk posed by the carrying of loaded, hidden handguns on the streets of San Diego County by persons with no good cause to do so," a lawyer for the Brady organization wrote in a court filing seeking permission to formally oppose Peruta and the NRA in an appeal.

The 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut — where a gunman used an assault rifle to kill 20 children and six others — led some cities and states to enact laws banning high-capacity magazines, and the NRA countered with lawsuits.

So far, federal judges across the country have unanimously rejected the NRA's legal challenges to these bans. Federal judges in recent weeks have upheld bans enacted by San Francisco and Sunnyvale, a Silicon Valley suburb about 40 miles to the south.

"California has always been sort of one of the front-line states," said Chuck Michel, a Long Beach lawyer who represents the NRA in many of its California-based cases. Michel said the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates have filed "a whole slew of lawsuits" using the 2008 high court ruling to challenge gun-control laws enacted after Sandy Hook.

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the group has always involved itself in furthering gun rights in court, but that legal challenges have increased since 2008.

NRA has been involved in "hundreds of cases" and spends "tens of millions" of dollars out of its $300 million annual budget on legal issues, Arulanandam said.

Among the cases is a lawsuit to repeal a Connecticut law that went into effect Monday, requiring a state license to buy rifles. Another is a challenge to New Jersey's concealed-weapons law, which is similar to California's.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear two NRA-backed cases. One sought to overturn a federal law barring licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21; the other was a Texas law barring people under 21 from carrying concealed weapons.

The NRA employs about two dozen in-house lawyers and hires many more outside lawyers — including former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement — to do battle in courtrooms across the country. It not only takes on weighty constitutional issues seeking to broaden the reach of the Second Amendment but also helps people who find themselves in trouble with the law because they own guns.

The NRA provided financial assistance and legal counsel to Christopher Haga, a gun collector who owns an auto shop in the Central Valley town of Parlier.

In 2011, Haga allowed federal firearms agents to search his house after they were tipped he had some of the 26 AK-74 assault rifles recently stolen from Fort Irwin, Calif. Haga's lawyer Mark Coleman said his client had no connection to the theft and consented to the search after agents assured him they only were interested in stolen guns. After finding none, the investigators left — but they told Fresno police Haga had types of assault rifles prohibited by California law.

Following that tip, Fresno police searched Haga's home and business and seized his gun collection. He was later charged with 35 felony gun counts.

With legal support and money from the NRA, Coleman challenged the legality of the guns search, and a judge sided with him. The district attorney dropped all charges late last year and returned Haga's guns. Haga agreed to remove two of his AK-74s and a submachine gun from California.

The case was more about search-and-seizure laws than expanding gun rights, Coleman said. "But the NRA's help was still valuable," he said.



Nazi Repuglican Agressors.

JMOP's picture

Republicans and the NRA want our rights protected. Democrats want to make money off of people's ignorance.


THE NRA was founded to train and provide blacks with GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM YOU DEMOCRATS THAT WERE HANGING THEM, Raping their women, burning down their homes! As always you and your liberals somehow hide from being discovered; in the past you covered your faces while today your lie and pretend to be on the minorities side while in truth you enslave them with the stealing of others money and then rewarding others with poor or lazy behavior. Martin Luther King Jr. stated these very reasons for his being a REPUBLICAN. If you support such a political party I suggest you take HOLY out of your posting name.


Don't bother presenting facts to libs like Holysee, they just don't get it. They rail about the NRA but support groups such as Planned Parenthood whose founder Margaret Sanger stated that her reason for founding the group was to practice Eugenics through the use of genocide of those her and her white supremacist supporters deemed "unfit." By unfit Sanger admitted that the Negro was the largest group of those she believed "unfit.". Her mission was to abort as many black babies as she could. Democrats don't like history because anyone who digs past the surface will find one mired in racism. They are disgusting!!! What is even more disgusting is the number of blacks who turn a blind eye to the racism in the Democrat party and continue to pull the lever to keep the crumbs-a-coming.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Well said KnuckleDragger.

Peninsula Pundit

Pass the Kool-Aid!
Knuckle Dragger's buyin'!


james brady said that he would like to give john hinckley a taste of his own medicine. while i understand his sentiment, he and his whole bunch are just hypocritical, do as i say, not as i do politicians..

From the Grave

We're going to need those guns to eventually overthrow our government, which is currently showing signs of being out of control.

The Big Dog's back

Out of control? So working for the people is out of control? You must be a Corporatist.


How is killing them with drone, spying on them and indefinately incarcerating them working for them?


Ignore Dog, he's a plant from the old Soviet Union.


So there we have it. A call for open rebellion.
SR gonna do your job and contact the FBI?
'course not.


I guess Ann thinks a little fiery came at night and waved its wand over America and "POOF", we obtain our Constitutional Freedoms. People REBELLED and DIED to PERMIT you to post your drivel, Ann, and you dishonored their memory with your post.

Thomas Jefferson:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

AGAIN: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."


Please stop quoting The Father of His Slaves out of context.
- Yes... it took a rebellion to correct the Constitution and abolish slavery - something Jefferson favored but knew it would not pass the South.
- It took a hundred-years rebellion to correct the Constitution and recognize a woman's right to vote - there were few if any shots fired.
It took riots in the streets to end a hundred years of conscription of men to die in wars.
- It took a brief rebellion... Shay's to be specific, to give birth to Washington's Second Amendment which he used to end the citizens' Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.
- It took a hundred years of rebellion, some violent, before the Civil Right Act was signed 50 years ago this week.
Yes, people rebelled, were severely injured, died - and are not forgotten by the Republican Congress. My family has 'heroes' in EVERY war since the early 1700s. Yours?
Yeah, it was a lot 'fiery' but there was no fairy.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

There was no rebellion to abolish slavery Ann.

Peninsula Pundit

Leave us not forget the rebellion it took to get corporations to treat workers like humans. With the Pinkertons providing the corporate firepower.
We got a weekend, a 40 hour work week and OT after 40 hours.
How CONveniently that is forgotten.
What we have to avoid is rebellion in the manner the Ukraine has carried it out. Some were against govt corruption, some were against this, some against that. After the revolution, it was easy to re-fracture this alliance of convenience and other parties took control of the govt.
So we can't have some in the streets against Obama, some against the congress, some against the lobbyists and corporations, etc.
Rebellion is great as long as the populace is of one general mind.


First Amendment 'speech' includes open call to rebellion. Yeah, that's what Madison et al intended.

Dr. Information

I will use your same logic and say that the founding fathers 2nd amendment didn't intend that one had to give a Sheriff a logical explanation as to why he wanted to carry as a law abiding citizen.


George Washington requested the Second Amendment after Shay's Rebellion because the Constitution provided no standing army.
He utilized the 2nd Amendment in 1791 to call forth the 'well-regulated' militias of four states to put down the CITIZEN Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania.
Actually, the intent of the 'founding fathers' in the Second Amendment was that ALL guns would be recorded so the Commander-in-Chief - and his commanders would know who was in the 'well-regulated' militia.
The Militia leaders at Lexington and Concord (pre-Declaration, even) knew the location of every firearm in their villages.
Gun control and legislation (formal and informal) are part of the fabric of the American tradition.


Pure rubbish, point and name ONE LAW in US history that forbade ownership of arms for all citizens.
There were laws that did forbid BLACKS from owning guns and it was YOUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY ANN that made those laws!

The other Anti Gun Laws were for the American Indian, then the Japanese in WW2, ALL DEMOCRATIC DICTATED LAWS, and ask the Blacks,Indians and Japanese how they fared with such laws, and Ann wants this for the entire country whose EVERY move is recorded now with NSA and other agencies.


You might want to re-read the Bill of Rights. You know, just so you know what it REALLY says?


"He utilized the 2nd Amendment in 1791 to call forth the 'well-regulated' militias of four states to put down the CITIZEN Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania."

Actually, that would be an act contrary to the intent of the Amendment, since, directly from the Convention debate, one of the concerns that spurred the amendment was that the federal government might use the militia of one state against another.

"The Militia leaders at Lexington and Concord (pre-Declaration, even) knew the location of every firearm in their villages."

No, they didn't - nor did they care. The only militia records kept were of able bodied men. Some brought their own weapons and some were provided weapons from the community magazine. The battles fought at those villages were to stop gun confiscation by the British, aka the lawful government at the time.


From Claypool's Daily Advertiser of 11 August 1794 after the Whiskey Rebellion resulted in rioting and injuries beginning in 1791.

"On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British — under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising."

This was the first use of the MILITIA LAW OF 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state WITH TROOPS RAISED IN OTHER STATES.
Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states.


What's your point? You've cited LEGISLATION, which is irrelevant. TONS of legislation has been overturned as unconstitutional, including on the basis of violating the 2nd Amendment. You don't seem to grasp that citing historical actions does not address their legitimacy.


LOL. Right out of revisionist history books.

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Ann , you got to stop with the nonsense.

Peninsula Pundit

There was a bill pending in the statehouse addressing this very point in the last few months.
I wonder what happened to it?


"open call to rebellion. Yeah, that's what Madison et al intended"

Well, yes, since they had just finished calling for a rebellion and it turned out pretty well.


See the above to learn the precedent Prs. Washington established to deal with the 'open rebellion' in Western Pennsylvania.

And there is that 'open rebellion' thing 150 years ago that we've been celebrating the last four years. Ask the 700,000 Americans who killed each other how THAT turned out.

Name ONE call for open rebellion that was not put down by the Federal Government...

If anyone dishonors the men and women - and children - who have fought to preserve our freedoms, it is those on here and elsewhere who call for open rebellion. BECAUSE of those battles and those who did and didn't return from them (including several of my ancestors and a brother) YOU have the right and protection to say/write the things you do.


"See the above to learn the precedent Prs. Washington established to deal with the 'open rebellion' in Western Pennsylvania."

See above for what Jefferson, one of the founders who actually did the intellectual heavy lifting, had to say. You ignore the fact that all the founders were keenly aware that this nation's very esistence was the result of armed insurrection against the lawful authority of the time (that being George III and the British Parliament.)

"And there is that 'open rebellion' thing 150 years ago that we've been celebrating the last four years. Ask the 700,000 Americans who killed each other how THAT turned out."

How it turned out doesn't address in any way the legitimacy of any of the decisions and actions undertaken. The net result of the Civil War is that the USA ceased to be a republic bound by mutual consent and became instead an empire bound by force. There is no ethical or ontological difference between the Union forces and the Redcoats 85 years earlier.
"Name ONE call for open rebellion that was not put down by the Federal Government..."

.....and your point there would be? That really proves nothing except that the oligarchy has successfully serviced its penchant for self-preservation. By the twisted logic implicit in your response, the killings in Tianenman Square morally vindicate the Chinese government.

"If anyone dishonors the men and women - and children - who have fought to preserve our freedoms, it is those on here and elsewhere who call for open rebellion. "

Now you're sounding like those statist simpletons who value the institution over the principles it claims to embody. You probably think what made the USA historically unique at its birth was democracy. You probably don't care that Lincoln did more damage to the Constitution than any other president, or even realize that he executed an armed coup against the other two branches of government.

From the Grave

There won't be any rebellions in this country. Too many potheads, drunks, and heroin addicts.


Working for the people when the majority doesn't want it? Goes to show your "work ethnic" Dog. Majority of gun crimes in America are committed by those with a liberal view. You think all those Chicago killers are voting republican?


If the majority doesn't want it, why do they keep voting for it?

Dr. Information

Its not even close. The liberals have tried to poll Americans on their stance on carry conceal and the right to bear arms. Overwhelmingly over and over Americans have said yes to both.

When any government wants to limit a citizens access or right to bear arms, that is a major sign of governmental overstep and should upset any American.


...and overwhelmingly Americans have said yes to registration and regulation and background checks. Missed that part?
..."figures don't lie, but...."


Ann, you fail to simply understand that this COUNTRY that you know very little about is NOT A DEMOCRACY but a REPUBLIC. This means that laws based on the CONSTITUTION isn't voted on based upon the MAJORITY

Because were a REPUBLIC this allows the MINORITY to have a say and to be protected. Of course you being a liberal Democrat hate the fact that the MINORITY has a say and the Constitution PROTECTS them from your parties abuse of 'protecting' us. Your party took minorities guns away and look what you gave them, RAPE of their women, midnight visits of whippings and hangings, burning of homes, burning of tents, slaughter of their food supply such as buffalo, murders by hanging, fire, whipping or separation of limbs, you took away their land and to make them even more powerful you made peaceful demonstrations illegal. And NOW you want us to think we can trust YOU and your socialism?


How did doing all you mention, including outlawing peaceful demonstration "make them even more powerful"?

Actually, the Constitution INTENDS we be a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. However, most of our 'representatives' of both parties represent only those who vote for them an put them in office.

Who is the 'minority' in Ohio?

And the atrocities of which you speak to the Native Americans post-Civil War were under mostly Republican presidents and Congresses. General Custer served under President Grant. The Wounded Knee Masssacre was under Ohio's Pres. Benjamin Harrison.
NOTE: Democrats have had 14 presidents who have served a total of 85 years (out of 225 years of American history).


Except that they haven't. Every member of Congress knows that to push for more gun control is a career ending move.


"If the majority doesn't want it, why do they keep voting for it?"

They don't. That's the reason most in Congress treat it like a third rail.

Dr. Information

Carry Conceal should have resiprocity throughout all 50 states with one license. Eventually, it will get there just give it time. The way it is set up makes for eventual mistakes by good, law abiding carrying citizens.

Every citizen who can pass the test and background check should be able to carry a concealed weapon and should not have to give an explanation to a Sheriff as to why one wants to carry. Its absolutely none of their business at all. Legally, the Sheriff had no reason for his reasoning, hence the reason why he was overruled.

The 2nd amendment right is an important one for all. I am all for background checks at any BUSINESS OR TRADER selling firearms. This will not curb any violence as people will turn to other means.


Gun show vendors should be required to run background checks?

Question: If I feel threatened by the guy sitting in front of me at a HS football game who leans forward and 'unconceals' his weapon, can I rightfully stand my ground?
Question: Why does that guy with his kids on the park playground equipment need to carry?
Question: The guy I saw walking through WalMart last week, he reached to get something off a shelf and hiked his shirt, revealing the gun tucked in his belt. What keeps me from coming up behind him and taking the gun and....?

Dr. Information

1. No you don't. Stand your ground is a law put in place when your life is being threatened and cannot retreat. Exposing a holster and one using stand your ground, would result in prison. Recent example is Treyvon Martin.

2. Who would of thought that people would have been killed in a movie theater or let alone a church in the past couple years? You never know when some nut job will show up. The idea behind a CC permit is to have it on you in that super rare case where you would need it. I'd be willing to say that over 99% of CC permit owners will never have to fire a bullet out of their gun towards another person, however, that does not legally illustrate that they do not need to carry then.

3. Nothing keeps you from coming and taking his gun however you do realize that guns in most holsters have safety features to prevent just what you explained. I would assume a struggle would ensue and your face would be visiting the ER and then the police department and possibly prison after that.

getit right be4...

" Gun show vendors should be required to run background checks? "

Background checks do not keep guns out of the hand of those that wish to do harm. Background checks only put more restrictions on law abiding citizens.

" Question: If I feel threatened by the guy sitting in front of me at a HS football game who leans forward and 'unconceals' his weapon, can I rightfully stand my ground? "

What are you standing your ground against? How is the presents of a properly holstered firearm a threat? In Ohio it is perfectly legal to open carry. It is illegal to attack a person for doing so and will proudly get you killed.

" Question: Why does that guy with his kids on the park playground equipment need to carry? "

I carry everywhere I take my family including the park. It is my job to look out for the safety of my family and myself. I carry a firearm because it is the best tool that I can think of to insure the I can do this job properly.

What tool do you use? A cell phone to call the police? Good luck with that. Im sure they will get there in time to make out a report.

" Question: The guy I saw walking through WalMart last week, he reached to get something off a shelf and hiked his shirt, revealing the gun tucked in his belt. What keeps me from coming up behind him and taking the gun and....? "

Nothing. Give it a try next time you see the opportunity.


...and then of course there's the guy in Walmart a few weeks ago whose gun shot him in the ass...




3. Please, please try next time. It should be educational.


Background checks only work when all agencies file the proper information - like mental health issues, credit standing, health issues - all of which would be allowable when one consents to the background check.
Most employers now require a criminal background check as a condition - sometimes a pre-condition - of employment.


I agree with you that crazies (that's the clinical term, I'm sure) shouldn't be able to get their hands on a gun. But what does CREDIT standing have to do with it? Or HEALTH issues? Do you suggest that an older man with a heart condition should have to RUN when his home is invaded? Do you think I paraplegic COULD run when his home is invaded?

You just don't want anybody to have a gun but the police (because they never, never, EVER accidentally hit the wrong person, or miss the right person, or shoot to kill an innocent). Admit that, and THEN we can debate the merits (you won't have any, but at least you'll have taken some kind of a stand). Right now, you're too busy dodging the issue with misdirection and red herrings. "Oh, look, a chicken!"


"Most employers now require a criminal background check as a condition - sometimes a pre-condition - of employment."

You need to get out more. The EEOC has issued new guidelines that essentially forbid most employment background checks because they have a racially disparate impact.

The Big Dog's back

Federal law does not prohibit employers from asking about your criminal history. But, federal EEO laws do prohibit employers from discriminating when they use criminal history information. Using criminal history information to make employment decisions may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII).

Another right wingnut with reading comprehension issues.


LMAO, so now a background check should include running a credit report? Are you an idiot or are you just pretending to be? Sounds rather discriminatory to use a credit check for a gun, since that would keep the poor from being able to defend themselves. Only a liberal could come up with something so ridiculous. As for an employer requiring a criminal background check, the big difference here is a job is not a Constitutional right, the bearing of arms is.

The Big Dog's back

So what about 4th Amendment rights? So Companies don't have to follow the Constitution?


No, they don't. Only the government is explicitly prohibited from infringing unalienable rights. In the case of a job interview and a request that you submit to a background check, you can refuse a corporation. (Of course, you also won't get the job.)

Do I think this is okay? No. Is it unconstitutional? No.


Hold on just a minute: I can't get "permission" to exercise an unalienable right in California unless I can prove I'm threatened. I can't prove I'm threatened (obviously) until I've BEEN threatened. So what good does it do me to take steps to protect myself once I've been assaulted or killed? Of course, that kind of "logic" makes sense to progressives, I guess...

Of all of our unalienable rights, the one that stands above all of the others is the right to self defense. After all, it's tough to exercise any of the others if you're dead, isn't it?

Meanwhile, for everybody who DOESN'T think we ought to be able to protect ourselves from aggression, have at it! DON'T carry concealed. DON'T own a firearm. DON'T lock your doors. It's entirely up to you to pick and choose what risks you find acceptable, and what risks you don't. But how dare you presume to choose between harm and safety, life and death for OTHERS?


"Unalienable rights" are in, uh, the Declaration of Independence from horrible King George III - NOT the Constitution.

The Constitution defined "alienable" rights - vote, racial discrimination, taxation, election of Senators by the state legislatures, slavery, 3/5 Rule, no liquor, yes liquor, presidential term limits, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.


Really? Huh. And to think in all the reading I've done, I never knew the Bill of Rights was part and parcel of the Declaration of Independence! Learn something new every day. < /sarcasm OFF>

The Big Dog's back

Do you know the difference sam?


Most of what you mention has nothing to do with rights.

Dr. Information

California and NY and Ill are some of the toughest gun control states and they wonder why they have so many gun problems. Its an open invitation to criminals who do not abide by the laws.

SAM is right. CC permit owners are not your enemy. They are people who have went through training and are doing things the legal way, fully knowing the laws and what they can and cannot do.

Fear the criminals, not law abiding citizens who want to carry.


I talked to ten of my ten c/c compatriots and realized they have no idea about the basics of laws regarding gun ownership. They went through the classes to get the permit.
So, which ones do you know who "fully know the laws and what they can and cannot do"?
And WHY would you c/c in church?
Oh. Maybe it's that 'compensation' thing you guys have.

getit right be4...

Your the one asking if you can stand your ground if you get a glimpse of a CHL holders firearm and your worried about how little 10 CHL holders know about the law. Thats priceless.


Sort of speaks to the credibility (or lack thereof) of her evaluation of her friends' knowledge, doesn't it?


That's because you are arguing with a teenager. LOL.

Dr. Information

Contrary. Why carry to churn? Well last year a crazed gunman opened fire in a church parking lot killing innocent people. I know you want to protect criminals and make it easier for them to take out people but you need to face reality. Nut job gunmen are targeting areas where they know guns won't possibly be. Church's, schools, college campus's, theater's, are a few big ones most recently that come to mind. Having armed citizens in these areas will not only be a deterrent, but also and most likely will save lives.

Once again, CCW permit holders are there to help protect, not be the criminal. Its obvious you do not understand the difference.


That's what happens when we're letting illegals vote! Especially in a state like California. Obama care is a great example too.


Don't you mean "illegals from Mexico"?
And I think we need proof of such statements as "letting them vote".
Remember, as illegals and disrespecters of our legal system, they may be armed to the teeth and planning their own overthrow of the government - at which time President Obamacare will call forth the Second Amendment's "well-regulated militia" of conceal/carry gunowners to defend President and country.
And they can serve tea.


A person who possesses CCL and carries, is not only protecting himself, and/or his family but the sheep he is surrounded by.

getit right be4...

I carry and will only protect myself and my family. Other than that I will try to be the best witness as I can.


Not the best strategy. Far better to stop the violence before the casualty list expands to include your family.


I see 'from the grave's' post about open overthrow of the government still is present.


I am all for people being able to have weapons , but the NRA is carrying it too far . Trying to get the the age restriction dropped allowing vendors to sell to minors , allowing CC permits for children ? What idiot thinks this is a good thing ? I can see it now , the first time a 12 year old gets mad and throws a fit with flying bullets , people will ask for the persons head who wrote that into law. The NRA is promoting ridiculous legislation and appealing to the paranoid , all to simply sell guns . NRA = weapons manufacture's puppet .


The best firearm salesman on the planet is Obama and his goons.


"Trying to get the the age restriction dropped allowing vendors to sell to minors , allowing CC permits for children ?"

Please cite the authorized NRA spokesperson advocating this.

I won't hold my breath.


Go back and actually read the article , or are one of those people who will just say that the article is lying ?


I read the article - now you and your friend Ann go read a dictionary - pay close attention to the meaning of "minor" and "children" - it doesn't apply to those between the age of 18 and 21, who can vote, get sent off to Afghanistan, and be employed as police officers.


Relax. Under Clinton people foamed @ the mouth about guns. Now this. Besides...ya think yer fire sticks will stop a drone? Breathe in - breathe out.


If the Iranians can shoot one down, so can the Americans.

thinkagain's picture

Carrying a gun is antithetical to what Jesus preached, how he lived, and how he died. Trusting in guns is a failure of trust in God’s plan on how the Christian should approach the world and each other.

Gun advocates use of fear mongering in an attempt to create a society where everyone is armed and in constant fear, is nothing short of paranoid irrationality.


Yet you like the government spying and living in constant fear of a attack of some sort.


Luke 22:36-38 He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied.

Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

But that's really irrelevant, because we're not discussing theology, we're discussing government. You're once again confusing a discussion about Caesar with a discussion about God.

Once again, we see ThinkAgain is just another one of the leftist statists.

thinkagain's picture

You serve Caesar, I’ll serve Jesus.

And really, is it that hard to get my name right?


Except that in four comment threads this week, you've made it clear that you serve Caesar.


"...And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me..."

Do an exegesis on this. Jesus knew the Romans could not execute a Jew for healing and preaching. There had to be a criminal offense. Thus there had to be weapons among his followers for the Romans to be able to build a case. That's why two swords were "enough".
But we ARE talking about government.

Matthew 26:51-52 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who TAKE UP THE SWORD shall PERISH BY THE SWORD."

See, I can use Jesus too. But I've done the research - an entire paper on the scene in the garden.


Interesting, then, that Jesus told his disciples to get swords...

thinkagain's picture

Golly gee golly, thank you guys SO much for the out of context Bible verse. I stand in awe at the overwhelming biblical knowledge both of you possess.

OK…my turn.

Here’s the scripture you left out:

Luke 22:37-38
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Enough? Two swords were enough? Enough for what? Were the two swords enough for an armed rebellion to resist the authorities and to impose the new Jesus movement? Hardly!

Do you think Jesus may have a deeper meaning in mind than the violent use of the swords?

Now pay attention closely, here’s your first clue:

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

The clearest purpose of the two swords is Jesus’ reference to Isaiah’s prophecy (53:12).

On the cross he asked his heavenly Father to forgive the very people who were responsible for his execution.

The book of Acts and other Epistles consistently show the disciples accepting persecution peacefully. None of the Apostles even tried to fight their way out of trials with swords.

Oh by the way, ya might just want to also take a peek at Luke 6:27-36…

I’ll leave the explanation of Matthew 10:34 to our next class. I see some heads starting to nod.


As a former avid hunter and as a current owner of guns , a lover of freedom, self-protection and liberties.....
I do understand the conceptual mentality of CC advocates. However....
I really can't see the overall advantages of CC. I can only imagine a very, very, very small percentage of them ever having the need to use their firearm. As a former NRA member...there have been so few cases where a citizen ever used their weapon to defend themselves or have the need to fire their firearm. I can't provide current evidence to those statements but common sense (and the news media) hasn't drawn any conclusions, ie. proof, where that carrying a gun has been a deterrent to crime. Therefore my conclusion is that the CC empowers people to "feel" they can protect themselves (a mental security blanket?) and that they somehow have the upper hand at all times. I am not against CC (in fact I have considered pursuing it) buy after additional thinking...I see it as pretty much a waste of my time.
Now then...crimes committed with a gun (legal, illegal or CC) should carry EXTREMLY stiff penalties attached!


"there have been so few cases where a citizen ever used their weapon to defend themselves or have the need to fire their firearm. I can't provide current evidence to those statements but common sense (and the news media)"

Your central fallacy there is the assumption that, if it isn't on the 11 o'clock news, that means it didn't happen. The media is not an information source, it is an information filter. There have been two successful legal defensive uses of guns by citizens mentioned in the Register in the last six months or so. Since fewer than 10% of such incidents ever make the news, that implies 40 per year in a small town.


There have actually been millions of incidents involving law-abiding citizens utilizing firearms to protect themselves, their families, and/or their property. In the vast majority of those cases, a shot wasn't even fired. The latest statistics I've heard suggest that there are about two MILLION such cases annually.

Google Gary Kleck (formerly a liberal anti-gun prof at a Florida university).

The Big Dog's back

Gary Kleck? Sorry sam, but we need to do a reality check here. 1992? Really? Did you comprehend how he arrived at those figures?


Actually, yes. I'm also aware of the attempts to disprove his research and how many of the naysayers were subsequently "converted" as a result.


Read more than the wiki piddles. Wiki is just the start on doing decent research.


"The 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut — where a gunman used an assault rifle to kill 20 children and six others — led some cities and states to enact laws banning high-capacity magazines, and the NRA countered with lawsuits."

I may be wrong but hasn't this statement from the article been proven wrong? an "assault weapon" was not used.


It's hard to tell since the media always speaks about guns from a position of ignorance. On multiple occassions after that attack, I saw footage of police finding and clearing a pump shotgun while reporters and the superimposed graphics at the bottom of the screen described the scene as police recovering the "AR-15 assault rifle used in the killings." On the other hand, I've heard the coroner recovered .223 bullets from the bodies. There's been no conclusive information from the media.


I'm actually not opposed to an expansion of background checks if done in a manner that doesn't make it de facto registration. If you listen to the objections, and spend a minute thinking about them, you'd see that there's a simple way to do it:

1. Make the instant check system available to EVERYONE, not just gun dealers, via a toll-free number and the internet. Enter the information on the buyer, and get a pass or fail response, and a confirmation number for a pass.

2. Pass a federal law that, if you sell a gun, and the buyer does something crazy, as long as you can produce a valid confirmation number proving that buyer passed a background check, you will be completely indemnified from any civil liability for what happened afteward.

Everyone who would have complied with a mandatory check system will voluntarily get a check on their buyers. Since anyone can call in a background check on anyone else, for free, those concerned about registration and privacy can call in background checks on their neighbors, the gun hating liberal up the street, their aunt in a nursing home, etc., and flood any resulting registry with enough bogus data to make it useless.

getit right be4...

So if you don't do a background check on a car,baseball bat, hammer, fork, chainsaw, or any other tool and it is used to do others harm you are to be held responsible?

Will the federal government be held responsible for giving the all clear?


There's no affirmative assignment of liability involved, just an indemnification if you do the background check. It's a stong incentive for a seller to do a background check voluntarily if he has any reason to be concerned (you might, at most have 1 or 2 people you know so well that you might feel comfortable skipping the check.) Those who wouldn't run a check with such an incentive probably wouldn't comply with a mandatory check anyway.

You know as well as I do that the federal government never accepts responsibility for ANYTHING bad, EVER. Souvereign immunity would prevail. The point is, "the federal government approved the sale" would be an affirmative defense to civil liability.

As it stands now, there's no way for a private seller to even ACCESS the instant check system. They have to go to an FFL holder, who typically charges a fee just for access.

This way, most private sales would use background checks, the voluntary nature of it avoids 10th amendment issues, and gun owners who object to it becoming a de facto "gun owner list" would be satisfied because they could flood it with enough false entries to render it useless.


Okay...let's all "pretend" for a moment here. What if...everyone who was eligible to carry a firearm did...what, really, has been or hoped to have been achieved? (Just curious.)
On the other hand...what if...2 (or more) CC citizens shot each other in a gun fight for whatever reason? Does that justify the ends to the means? (Just curious)
What if...a CC citizen accidentally shot an innocent bystander? (Just curious)
What if...if CC citizen "went crazy" and shot a LOT of people? (Just curious)
What if...200,000 CC citizens banded together and formed a paramilitary army then stormed the state halls in Columbus to alter laws you think are correct? (Just curious)
What if...that same paramilitary army started a war with Canada or Mexico or...Indiana? (Just curious)
What if...everyone else in the U.S. had guns but you didn't pass the exam? (Just curious)
What shot an "intruder" and they were your son or daughter coming home late? (Just curious)
What if...???

*According to Wikipedia...between 7-8 million Americas now have CC permits. That would mean that 7-8 (million) out of 200 (million) adults have CC permits. That equates into roughly 4% of the adult population now can carry guns. What does that tell us and what does it say about those 8 million? (Just curious)

It is estimated that of the 300 million guns under ownership, 40% of adult Americans own them. Therefore...only 10% of those who own guns have CC permits. What does that tell us? (Just curious)

I really don't have an issue with CC. I just think that "background checks" and an 8 hour "training course" really aren't, on their own, probably aren't ample. Cameras at intersections, stores, etc. are installed "for your safety". "For your safety" isn't much better when it comes to CC but...if it gives you a "feeling" of personal protection (or empowerment)...have at it. BUT...if I or someone I love is shot by some idiot who can't control themselves because of their perceptions of "personal safety"....I'll do what I need to do. That would apply to anyone attempting harmful actions too.
(NOT curious)
* I own guns too and...I am VERY well versed in their use. (wink)


I just love how you question anyone ELSE'S desire to carry a gun, but reserve to yourself the right to go all Charles Bronson vigilante if you personally see a reason.


The "right to keep and bear arms" and Concealed Carry rights ARE difficult to come to terms with. It's just so sad and maddening to see innocent children like the Sandy Hook incident and elsewhere be harmed. What a shame. Then again...
"Are we ever truly safe?"

Dr. Information

Again, the killer was refused a weapon he was trying to purchase, so he stole one from his mother.

Not a CC permit holder either.


"Are we ever truly safe?"

In a free society, no. Freedom is dangerous, and messy. It can be scary for some people. Life consists not of neat little utopian solutions, but of tradeoffs. In a free society with due process, everyone gets at least one chance to hurt someone else before society is allowed to act, but the alternative is far worse.


- What if the boy Patrolman Vitte was teaching to masturbate had access to a gun - or to Vitte's gun?
- What if women being beaten by their spouses/live-ins have legally-permitted guns? And use them? What if the gun isn't hers but his legally-permitted gun?
- When a gun enters the formula, it changes everything.
- How many guns do you need to defend yourself and your home? How many bullets?

swiss cheese kat's picture
swiss cheese kat

Just ignore ContraryAnn. Clearly the person is a shill.


Probably. But even if she's not, I'm not all that worried about her getting a permit for herself. She'd never pass the "mental health" part of any background check.


While I believe we must learn from history, my stand on gun control is based upon more practical arguments. It has also changed dramatically in the past twenty years: from being a staunch supporter of strict regulation of gun ownership to now believing that gun ownership by private citizens is a good thing. This change was driven primarily by three factors:
1. The failure of gun control legislation to control violence.
2. The demonstrated inability of the law enforcement establishment to protect my family and I from violence.
3. The exponential growth of the government and its growing intrusion into the private lives of American citizens.

Let's look at just reason number 2. I was raised in a home without guns and I raised my own children in a home without guns. Now those same children live in homes of their own where there are guns. Instead of expending so much time, energy and money on trying to control this phenomena of exploding gun ownership, we should be asking ourselves why such a large percentage of the citizenry of this nation feel the need to provide self-protection.

Of course, the reason this question is not asked is because our government doesn't want to hear the answer. And this answer is that more and more Americans have lost faith in their government and its ability (or even desire) to act in the best interests of its citizens.

And so, at the end of the day, it is history after all that will determine the fate of this nation. For history is very clear about what happens when the people decide that their leaders are no longer serving their interests.


The most important of your points is Number 2. There's a book published some years ago called "Dial 911 and Die." The author isn't anti-police. He's just realistic enough to know that the police can't be everywhere, and they certainly can't be ANYwhere immediately, Even if you get a police response in a minute or three (and almost all emergency responses take longer than that), 180 seconds is an eternity when you're facing an armed bad guy!

The police will almost certainly protect you if they're there at the moment the crime is occurring. But really, people, how often is THAT the case? No, the police most often arrive in time to take your report (assuming you're in shape to give them one) and to investigate and catch whoever did whatever. That's cold comfort to survivors!


Like so-called "campaign contributions"...we do need some controls when it comes to firearms. I can assure you that without any "controls"...we WILL have anarchy.

I do NOT want children (those under 21 years of age) being able to carry firearms.

I do NOT want people to own fully automatic firearms.

I do NOT want people to own .50 caliber or larger (Scud missiles, RPG's, hand grenades, armor-piercing shells, etc.)firearms.

I do NOT want mentally unstable people owning firearms.

I think....we SHOULD have MUCH longer prison terms for anyone using a firearm illegally. Build more prisons if we must but also use some common sense when it comes to legal gun ownership and those who feel they must have them for personal protection.

*Note; only 10% of those owning firearms have CC permits. Do you still want "majority rule of law"? {10% of 40% of 100% is a pretty darn small percentage (4%) no matter how you slice the pie.}

getit right be4...

My child of 11 years of age has 7 guns

I love to play with full auto firearms and will convert a few to shoot full auto if there is ever a law in Ohio that one must register there firearms ( I won't be registering )

I only break out my 50 Cal around 4 times a year. Man that thing is a blast to shoot.

Man am I glad I don't give a hoot what you want!


Realistically PB&J the younger the child is exposed to responsible gun ownership the better of a gun owner he/she will make. Fully automatic weapons are already illegal without them being federally registered. A .50 cal weapon and above are cost prohibited to the public for crime.They cost too much to shoot for a normal person especially criminals. All the others, Scuds,Hand grenades, RPG's, ect are already illegal. The problem of mentally stability in our society is who is to determine who is mentally stable? The government through the HHS has said that weapons are a health hazard and gun owners have a problem along with the fact that almost everyone has a mental problem of some sort. So that's a very dicey line to draw.
As for more prisons why not enforce the laws on the books before making more? We have a revolving door when it comes to criminals.


I don't want fans of professional wrestling to be able to vote.

I don't want people who can't drive a stick shift to get licenses.

I don't want anyone who can't at least master trigonometry to be allowed to breed.

Like the Rolling Stones said, you can't always get what you want.


Sweet work here is done.

Dr. Information

You never worked, so how can it be done?


Permits, licenses and classes are all fine and a good start but...anyone can snap at any time and then the problems begin again.
I still contend that far more rigorous laws for crimes with a gun must be created. I am for capitol punishment. I would be for public executions. I would even be for loping off triggers fingers IF that stops the insanity. just my thoughts

I have stated before that I am an Independent, moral and consider myself to have my own "Christian" beliefs. (don't even "go there" as no 2 people have exactly the same Christian understandings or values)


"Guns don't kill people...people with loaded guns kill people."

Dr. Information

Gun's cannot kill someone without someone wanting to kill on the other end.

Bubble wrap your kids and family, don't ever drive a car, or heave forbid go into the ocean.

The world is a fun place. Stop fearing everything.