AUSTRALIANS may pride themselves on “telling it like it is”, but when it comes to gun laws, straight-shooting all too often takes a back seat to a determined effort at silencing debate.
Twenty years ago a deranged individual murdered 35 people at Port Arthur using firearms. In response, Australia passed some of the most restrictive gun laws in the western world. These included bans on self-loading rifles and shotguns, and pump-action shotguns, plus a taxpayer- funded gun confiscation program costing over a billion dollars. All legally owned firearms are now registered, costing the states tens of millions of dollars a year to manage.
For that price, any civilised liberal democracy should expect to have a decent debate about the efficacy of its policies. Instead, all we hear are anti-gun activists telling the rest of the world that Australia’s model of firearms management has been a resounding success. “We saved lives!” they claim. “We stopped mass shootings!” they say.
The fact is, serious debate about gun laws has been all but silenced. Not a single inquiry or inquest was ever held into the Port Arthur massacre, unlike the two inquiries and one inquest into the Lindt Café siege in which two innocent people died.
Simplistic comparisons are drawn with the US, which has periodic massacres, with more relaxed gun laws blamed. We hear it said repeatedly that there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996, which supposedly demonstrates the effectiveness of our gun laws.
The truth is quite different. There have been eight shootings in Australia with three or more victims during that time.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/the-port-arthur-gun-ban-hasnt-saved-lives/news-story/4e5634b54a47dd188edc5195baf92b90
Chelsea Clinton speaking on her mother:
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.”
“So if you listen to Moms Demand Action and the Brady Campaign and the major efforts pushing for smart, sensible and enforceable gun control across our country, disclosure, have endorsed my mom, they say they believe the next time the Court rules on gun control, it will make a definitive ruling,” Clinton said. “So it matters to me that my mom is the only person running for president who not only constantly makes that connection but also has a strong record on gun control and standing up to the NRA.”
Read the rest of the article: http://louderwithcrowder.com/chelsea-clinton-my-moms-scotus-will-bring-gun-control/
To our readers from California:
8 of the GunMeggedon bills moved out of committee and are heading to their respective Appropriations Committee.
-AB 2510 eliminates uniformity for CCW permits, putting permit holders and law enforcement at greater risk.
-AB 2607 allows your boss, coworker, or professor to strip away your gun rights through the use of gun violence restraining orders.
-SB 880 immediately bans and forces the registration of millions of semi-automatic weapons in common use.
-SB 894 mandates lost and stolen reporting within five days and penalizes individuals for reports that are turned in even a day late.
-SB 1006 allows the University of California to conduct biased gun violence research.
-SB 1235 is a measure that we believe will eventually include mandatory ammo tracking and purchase permits.
-SB 1407 is De Leon’s version of the “Ghost Gun” ban.
-SB 1446 bans all “standard” capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
The Fireams Policy Coalition has a petition that you can fill out to voice your opposition to this legislation:
Demand the GunMeggedon Bills Are Moved To The Suspense File
I’m just going to go ahead and say a firm no.
A $1,000 per gun tax should serve as a “role model” for states, according to the governor of the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, which imposed the $1,000 gun tax earlier this month. An idea first endorsed by Hillary Clinton in 1993, steep gun taxes have now taken hold in Cook County, Ill. the city of Seattle, and now a U.S. territory.
As reported by the Saipan Tribune:
The administration of Gov. Ralph DLG Torres defended the CNMI’s new gun control laws on Friday as a law that could be “a role model” for other U.S. states and jurisdictions facing seemingly uncontrolled and continued gun violence.
The administration was responding to queries regarding its position on recent reports that the a legal challenge to the new law, Public law 19-42, was likely, particularly over a provision that assesses a $1,000 excise tax on pistols.
Read the rest of the article: http://www.atr.org/1000-gun-tax-pushed-role-model-states
Continuing his record of being a leading advocate for the Second Amendment and gun owners’ rights, U.S. Senator Rand Paul today introduced the Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act.
This legislation would give necessary protection to gun owners by ensuring due process rights are upheld if an individual’s eligibility is questioned and reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
“I refuse to stand idly by while the Obama administration unilaterally strips away gun rights from our nation’s veterans and seniors. The Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act will provide necessary protection for gun-owning Americans, and ultimately ensure that the Second Amendment is not infringed upon,” Sen. Paul said.
This legislation has gained support from Gun Owners of America and the National Association of Gun Rights.
The Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act prohibits the sale of a firearm or ammunition to an individual that has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent or committed to a psychiatric hospital. Adjudication requires findings by a judicial officer or court, and the individual receives notice to participate with counsel.
Within 90 days, The Secretary of Veterans Affairs must review and remove from NICS any veteran that has not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will certify that the removal of names has taken place.
This Act prevents the Social Security Administrator from reporting individuals to NICS unless the individual has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent. The Attorney General will conduct a yearly review to certify reported names have necessary documentation.
The Attorney General must certify a state’s report indicating a person has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent prior to inclusion to NICS. All individuals considered to no longer be adjudicated as mentally incompetent will be notified and have their rights restored.