Texas CHL Blog

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Mar 7

The gun control crowd has learned to stop using the term “gun control.” They even credit the National Rife Association (NRA) with making it a vile phrase. Well, they are correct. When one takes the time to look past the rhetoric and evaluate the true motives and goals of those who oppose Second Amendment freedoms, it quickly becomes apparent that the long term plan is to systematically and incrementally disarm American citizens. To conceal this goal, those who would deprive citizens of the means of self-defense use terms that are not readily identified with gun control.

So what words and phrases should raise one’s level of concern, especially when spoken by politicians seeking votes? Phrases like “sensible gun laws,” “common sense gun laws,” “it’s for the children” and “gun safety laws” are all phrases of choice of gun control advocates. The motive for using such phrases is clear; what rational person could oppose anything that is “sensible” and who wouldn’t want to take an action if it truly was “for the children?” And of course, everyone favors increasing “safety” in most activities of life. When those phrases are uttered, warning flags should fly and it’s time to look behind the rhetoric and see what they are really saying.

Although this warning applies to any politician and gun control advocate, the 2008 Presidential race makes Barrack Hussein Obama’s record on gun control of utmost importance. Senator Obama makes no bones about supporting “common-sense gun control laws,” so what precisely does he consider “common-sense gun control laws?” (Oops, he slipped and said “gun control,” but that was in 2003 and he undoubtedly has been working on this for the Presidential campaign.) At least some indication of his view of Second Amendment rights can be seen in his flippant and dismissive comment about National Rifle Association (NRA) members in the same article, the June 26, 2003 issue of the Black Commentator, wherein Mr. Obama said:

Thus, while I may favor common-sense gun control laws, that doesn’t keep me from reaching out to NRA members who are worried about their lack of health insurance.

Obviously, Senator Obama had no desire to discuss NRA members’ desire to protect the Second Amendment, but why did he find it necessary to so publically and flippantly insult NRA members? Could it be that he views NRA members unworthy of even having their concerns addressed?

In addition to pushing for additional Draconian gun control laws, anti-rights advocates used the insidious tactic of filing frivolous law suits against gun manufactures. The admitted goal was to so overburden firearm manufacturers with legal defense costs that it would drive them out of business. This tactic likely would have worked had it not been for passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In spite of dishonest comments to the contrary, this Act prevents only groundless and frivolous suits, it does not prevent suits based upon true products liability theories of recovery. In true gun control advocate form, Senator Obama lashed out against this legislation blatantly lying about the threat to the firearm industry in the process. In a Chicago Tribune article proudly displayed on his own website, Senator Obama bemoaned the impending passage of the Act. Excerpts from his anti-gun diatribe include the following:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has taught law at the University of Chicago, said the courts have done a good job of handling, and disposing of, the suits that have been filed. And, he said, gun manufacturers and dealers are not going bankrupt from those cases.

“There is no crisis,” Obama said. “Guns are plentiful. We have multiple guns for every man, woman and child in this country.”

There is ample evidence to prove that Senator Obama is an enemy of law-abiding gun owners and the Second Amendment. He has a record of voting against gun owners on Second Amendment issues and until he decided to run for President, he openly spoke of his gun control ambitions. So don’t be fooled with his recent tactic of paying lip service to gun owners, hunters and the Second Amendment. It is merely a ploy to conceal his true agenda. As the Boston Globe noted in a February 19, 2008 article:

Last week, the day after the rampage that left six people dead at Northern Illinois University, Barack “Hope” Obama did a classic equivocation as if he knew the National Rifle Association was waiting to nail him in all the “red” states he has won. Obama said, “Today we offer them our thoughts and prayers, but we also have to offer them our determination to do whatever it takes to eradicate this violence from our streets, from our schools, from our neighborhoods and our cities. That is our duty as Americans.”

In the same press conference he reassured gun owners by saying, “I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it’s subject to common-sense regulation.”

There it is again; “subject to common-sense regulation.” Senator Obama, you cannot hide from your record opposing Second Amendment rights and Americans are not going to be fooled by buzz phrases. Your motives are clear, your rhetoric is unconvincing and you owe it to the American public to abandon self-serving, politically expedient buzz phrases. Americans know you support laws that would deprive them of the right to own and use firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes, so be intellectually honest enough to admit it.

Chas.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Mar 6

An article appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wherein columnist Linda Campbell criticized Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for taking the lead in the filing of an amicus brief on supporting citizens’ Second Amendment Rights. Ms. Campbell’s column was rather short-sighted to put it mildly.

The Star-Telegram printed a rebuttal by Mr. Ted Cruz and I complement the Star-Telegram for doing so. Here is an expert from Mr. Cruz’s article and you can the entire article at the Star-Telegram Article.

Thank you Mr. Cruz and thanks also to the Star-Telegram for presenting the opposing view.

Chas.

Working in the best interests of Texans

By TED CRUZ

Special to the Star-Telegram

Last week, columnist Linda Campbell assailed Texas Attorney Greg Abbott for leading 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the Second Amendment. If we stand accused of vigorously protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, we readily plead guilty as charged.

Nonetheless, the Feb. 28 column was wrong on multiple fronts:
. . .

For the rest of the article, please go to the Star-Telegram Article.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Feb 21

For years, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (“Brady”), more accurately known as the Brady Campaign to Ban All Guns, has waged a war against honest, law-abiding Americans who choose to own and lawfully use firearms for sporting and self-defense purposes. In so doing, Brady has not felt constrained by the truth, but this is hardly front-page news. Brady’s weapons of choice have been outright lies, half truths and deception to promote it’s ultimate goal of depriving Americans of the ability to own and use firearms. So the fact that Brady would lie about a new grassroots student organization comes as no surprise, but it is reprehensible nonetheless.

Concealed Handgun License Statutes Have Been Hugely Successful

The passage of a state-wide, uniform concealed weapons law in Florida in 1987 was a watershed event for the entire nation. The obvious success of Florida’s law prompted many other states to enact their own concealed handgun statutes. Currently, thirty-nine states have so-called “shall issue” laws that require states to issue concealed carry licenses to any applicant who meets all statutory requirements, including background checks. Nine states have “may issue” laws that allow state authorities to deny licenses on an arbitrary basis, but only two states deny their citizens the ability to defend themselves against murderous attacks.

The rapid expansion of concealed carry statutes throughout the country did not occur in a vacuum. State by state, legislatures adopted programs modeled after successful ones, often in neighboring states. As time passed, concealed handgun licensees proved themselves to be the most honest, law-abiding segment of the population. This prompted many states, including Texas, to gradually remove locations from the “off-limits” list that were part of the initial legislation. Currently, Texas has relatively few places “off-limits” to its concealed handgun licensees, known as CHLs. In spite of the overwhelming success of concealed handgun license programs throughout the Nation, the Brady Campaign continues spreading lies in a futile attempt to undermine the right of honest citizens to protect themselves from violent attack.

School Shootings and the Needless Death Toll

As noted in the TexasCHLblog article How High Must the Body-Count Go, murderers choose to work their evil at schools and other “gun free zones” because they know their victims will be unarmed and defenseless. They will have a target-rich environment until law enforcement arrives to count the bodies. Whether Brady likes it or not, we have learned a very expensive and tragic lesson; barring concealed handgun licensees from campus doesn’t save lives, it costs lives. In truth, “gun free zones” have been an experiment that has proven the Brady mantra to be an abject failure.

The outcry against the failed policy of “gun free zones” has been deafening and it is growing louder by the day. Parents, students and elected officials demand that concealed handgun licensees be allowed to carry defensive handguns on campus. How much lower would the death toll had been at Virginia Tech, if Seung-Hui Cho had not been able to kill thirty-two students and faculty and wound seventeen more with impunity? We will never know the answer to that question, but a grassroots student organization is working hard to make sure college and university campuses are no longer killing fields for mass murders. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is an organization created by college students who are also concealed handgun licensees. Their membership is growing rapidly and their roster boasts not only students, but faculty and parents as well. SCCC’s message is simple; concealed handgun licensees are trusted to carry their defensive handguns elsewhere in their respective states and they should be allowed to carry their guns in what have become free-fire zones for mass murders.

The Brady Campaign has suffered staggering defeat after defeat at both the federal level and the state level. To compound its problem, the Brady Campaign is faced with a rapidly growing student organization with a clear and compelling message that strikes at the core of Brady’s campaign of lies. So how has the Brady Campaign chosen to respond to this organization; why, it lies about SCCC, of course!

Peter Hamm, a Brady Campaign spokesman, gave an interview to Anna Hipsley of Australia’s ABC News radio on February 19, 2008. During the interview, he falsely claimed the following:

“We know very clearly that they were organized and they are funded by the gun industry, by the companies that are selling the guns. This is not some spontaneous, grassroots organization.”

Not so fast Mr. Hamm. Did you think SCCC was going to take that lie laying down? W. Scott Lewis, a spokesman for SCCC, responded by quickly denying Brady’s lie about the origin of his organization and offering to make SCCC’s financial records public, if the Brady Campaign would do likewise. As Mr. Lewis said:

“In the name of full disclosure, SCCC is willing to make all of its financial records available to the media if the Brady Campaign will do the same. . . . After building SCCC on a foundation of our own sweat equity and financial sacrifices, our members are incensed that the Brady Campaign is accusing us of being well paid pawns.”

But the Brady Campaign tactics are not limited to lies about people and organizations it views as enemies. Making light of legitimate concerns about student safety is apparently another tool Brady’s Mr. Hamm feels is appropriate. During an interview with Foxnew.com, Mr. Hamm dismissed student concerns about mass murders on campus by stating,

“You don’t like the fact that you can’t have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school[.]“

Now that’s a thought Mr. Hamm; if a student doesn’t want to be a helpless victim in a “gun free victim zone,” then they should forget about getting a college education. What arrogance! To make such a callus statement only six months after thirty-two Virginia Tech students and faculty died at the hands of mass-murderer Seung-Hui Cho is despicable. If that is indicative of the intellectual honesty and value with which human life is held at the Brady Campaign, then no one should be surprised that Brady would lie about SCCC, a grassroots student organization it views as a powerful voice for change.

How long Messrs. Hamm and Helmke will the Brady Campaign insult Americans’ intelligence by endless lies, half-truths and deception? One would think they deserve more respect — I certainly do.

Chas.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Feb 14

Michael Sullivan is serving both as the U.S. Attorney in Boston, and as acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. He was nominated by President Bush to be the permanent Director, but his confirmation has been delayed by Republican Senators who are concerned about his support of BATFE’s abusive tactics against Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL).

Among the Senators blocking Sullivan’s confirmation are Louisiana Senator David Vitter and both Idaho Senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. The Boston Globe has reported that Senator Vitter is concerned that “The nominee (Sullivan) seems to support the ATF’s current inadequate policies and exhibits a lack of willingness to address those problems.” Sullivan has been reported to support unreasonably stringent licensing requirements, as well as stiff penalties for clerical errors in paperwork.

A sign that Sullivan is not the person this troubled agency needs is Senator Ted Kennedy’s support of the Sullivan. Senator John Kerry has also shown his support of Sullivan’s nomination stating, “his nomination is now in jeopardy simply because he has responsibly enforced our country’s laws.” Obviously, Sullivan, Kennedy and Kerry all feel that harassment of FFLs is not only business as usual for the BATFE, but conduct that should continue.

While it is good to see Senators taking a position in support of gun owners and honest FFLs who make minor mistakes, in the end it will not make much if any difference. Sullivan will continue to perform the functions of the Director, but with the title of Acting Director. Nevertheless, at least the displeasure with BATFE’s abusive conduct is being highlighted by blocking Sullivan’s nomination. It would not be surprising to see Sullivan nominated again, if the Democrats retake the While House in November.

Chas.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Jan 31

The 2008 Presidential Election will not be a watershed event for gun owners. The contest is rapidly shaping up to be a battle between Republican Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. True, neither of these candidates have yet clinched their Party’s nomination, but it is certainly their’s to loose.

While President George W. Bush didn’t go out of his way to help gun owners, at least he didn’t take affirmative steps to support new gun laws. In January, 2009, eight (8) years of relative peace at the federal level will come to an end. While both Senator McCain and Senator Clinton are trying to convince the public that they have changed their mind about guns, Sen. Clinton is making only a token effort. She knows that such a conversion is not going to sell well, so why waste much time on a transparent sham.

Sen. McCain is somewhat more of a question mark. He’s actively trying to convince people his diatribe against the NRA during Senate floor debate on the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was merely a moment’s loss of perspective. Now, he claims, he has seen the light and no longer supports any further federal gun laws. One must wonder if this includes renunciation of his long-standing call to close the gun show “loophole” and require background checks at gun shows.

Combine a dearth of choices in the Presidential elections with the very real likelihood Democrats will widen their majority in both the U.S. House and Senate and gun owners clearly have a reason to worry. So if eight (8) years of peace are coming to an end, does this mean full blown war is just around the corner? Perhaps it is, but it’s not a foregone conclusion. The Democrats still remember the colossal mistake they made in 1994 with the passage of the so-called assault weapons ban (a/k/a Clinton Gun Ban). Is this enough to keep them from resurrecting gun control in 2009? Perhaps for the short term, but it’s likely that some ultra anti-gunners like Sen. Schumer and Sen. Feinstein or Rep. McCarthy will test the waters. If our opposition to these trial runs is anything other than overwhelming, then yes, we will see a prolonged war over guns.

Chas.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 23

For the first time in decades, people wrongfully placed on the national “no-buy” list used by the National Instant Check System (NICS) will have the ability to get their names removed. H.R. 2640 was filed in response to the tragic shooting at Virginia Tech. For more information, check the NRA website at www.nra.org.