Although Newsom’s liberal bona fides were not in question, analysts observed that his calculated risk to wade into the debate made sense in the context of California’s current political climate. “High-profile ballot measure campaigns can help bolster a candidate’s visibility,” as the Los Angeles Times noted. “And because of dismal voter turnout in the last California election, the threshold to qualify measures has been dropped to 365,000 petition signatures, much lower than the previous standard.”

Guns in the crosshairs

Newsom didn’t hesitate to cast himself as a champion of the anti-gun movement, capable of going head to head against the nation’s strongest firearms rights lobbies. “The NRA doesn’t own me, they haven’t bought me — and they never will. They’ve already come after us,” he said in remarks to Capital New York, a Politico publication, “and it’s going to intensify.”

Calling the National Rifle Association “extraordinarily effective at stifling the legislative process,” Newsom vowed “to fight a different fight — that is, direct democracy. We’re going directly to voters. Because the public is with us, including the NRA members themselves.”

Uncertain terrain

To an extent, Newsom has public opinion on his side in the Golden State. “A poll last month by the Public Policy Institute of California found that two-thirds of adults believe California’s gun control laws should be stricter than they are now,” USA Today reported. “It found that 57 percent of adults said controlling gun ownership is more important than protecting the right of Americans to own guns, while 40 percent said protecting gun ownership is more important.”

But Newsom was cagey on the subject of Gov. Jerry Brown, who has torpedoed California gun legislation in the recent past. His proposed initiative, the Sacramento Bee noted, incorporates “provisions of bills that have stalled at the state Capitol or were vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in recent years.” In addition to compelling sellers of bullets to be licensed in the same manner as sellers of guns, the Bee continued, Newsom’s initiative would “establish a process to seize guns from people prohibited from owning them because of their criminal records, mandate that lost or stolen guns be reported to law enforcement, and require the California Department of Justice to notify federal authorities when someone is added to the state database of prohibited firearms owners.”

Twin ordinances

“The court on Monday let stand court rulings in favor of a city measure that requires handgun owners to secure weapons in their homes by storing them in a locker, keeping them on their bodies or applying trigger locks,” the Associated Press reported. “A second ordinance bans the sale of ammunition that expands on impact, has ‘no sporting purpose’ and is commonly referred to as hollow-point bullets.” The first ordinance passed in 2007; the second, in 1994.

The NRA and gun rights advocates had expected that the court’s 2008 decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller gave them a strong chance at overcoming the regulations. “Gun owners challenged both ordinances after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to possess guns at home for self-defense, then ruled in 2010 that state and local laws that substantially burdened that right were invalid,” observed the San Francisco Chronicle. “Gun groups are also relying on those rulings to challenge California’s licensing requirements for concealed weapons, and ordinances in San Francisco and Sunnyvale that ban the possession of high-capacity gun magazines.”

Failure on appeal

As Bloomberg reported, plaintiffs were convinced “that the San Francisco law was similar to the Washington, D.C., trigger-lock requirement invalidated in the high court’s 2008 decision.” But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal ruled against them, teeing up a showdown at the Supreme Court. “The Ninth Circuit Court held that the city had a legitimate purpose in applying laws that reduce the danger of guns,” Al Jazeera America recounted, “and that while it did burden the rights of gun owners, it didn’t burden them so much they couldn’t exercise the rights to self-defense enshrined in the Second Amendment.”

“‘The record contains ample evidence that storing handguns in a locked container reduces the risk of both accidental and intentional handgun-related deaths, including suicide,’ Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta wrote in the court’s opinion in March of last year.”

Among Supreme Court Justices, however, only Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas signaled their willingness to take the case.

“In a six-page dissent, Thomas, joined by Scalia wrote that the San Francisco gun laws are ‘in serious tension with Heller‘ and that the prior court rulings had ‘failed to protect’ the Second Amendment,” National Public Radio noted. “San Francisco’s law allows residents to use their handguns for the purpose of self-defense, but it prohibits them from keeping those handguns operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense when not carried on the person,” according to Justice Thomas.

Mixed messages

Although some legal experts immediately noted that the court’s decision raised questions about just how much protection the Second Amendment now could afford, others noted the court’s recent decision to side with the NRA in a different case.

Just last month, the court drew acclaim from the NRA for its unanimous ruling that convicted felons could sell firearms confiscated by law enforcement.

“The decision came in response to a case involving former U.S. Border Patrol agent Tony Henderson,” Western Journalism reported, “whose 19 guns were confiscated by the FBI upon his arrest on drug charges.”

“Following his guilty plea, Henderson was a felon prohibited from possessing firearms; however, he did not want to simply lose the roughly $3,500 his gun collection was worth. He petitioned a lower court in an effort to allow a third party to take possession of the guns and attempt to sell them on his behalf. That effort was unsuccessful at every stage of appeal up to the Supreme Court level.”

AB 711, by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood, would make California the first state in the nation to prohibit the use of all lead ammunition for hunting.  According to Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California, extensive research has shown that traditional lead ammunition does not pose a health hazard for hunters. And a recent study found that, despite 99 percent hunter compliance, a ban on using lead ammunition in certain areas of the state under AB 821 of 2008 failed to reduce lead poisoning in condors.

AB 180, by Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, would repeal state firearms preemption in Oakland by allowing the city to enact ordinances more restrictive than state laws on the registering and licensing of firearms. AB 180 would allow the city of Oakland to create anti-gun policies much more strict than the rest of the state. Criminals still could get guns in other California cities, or in Nevada.

AB 231, by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would expand the law pertaining to the storage of firearms.  This bill would make it a crime if a child gets access to an unlocked firearm. According to Gun Owners of California, AB 231 is a misguided proposal that imposes unprecedented liability on legal gun owners.

Senate anti-gun bills

SB 475, by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, would allow San Francisco officials to ban gun shows in the Cow Palace at the Fairgrounds, one of the last remaining legal gun venues in the city.

SB 374, by Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, would ban the sale of all semiautomatic centerfire rifles with a detachable magazine, even with bullet buttons attached. And it redefines these firearms as “assault weapons.”  This legislation would ban most common hunting rifles, including the Marlin Camp Carbines (.45acp and 9mm), Remington M81 “Woodmaster,”  Winchester M1905, BAR MK II, BAR Short Trac, Ruger Mini 14, Ruger Ranch Rifle, M1 Carbine.  SB 374 would also require registration of currently owned detachable magazine rifles.

SB 396, by Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, is one of the most repressive gun control bills. The bill would retroactively confiscate guns lawfully purchased and owned. SB 396 would ban the possession of all standard capacity magazines over 10 rounds, which generally means any detachable ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

However, a 2001 study from the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found “no evidence of reductions in multiple-victim gun homicides or multiple-gunshot wound victimizations” as a result of the federal ban on standard capacity magazines.

SB 567, by Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, would redefine the meaning of a shotgun. SB 567  would remove from the Penal Code the requirement that a shotgun be fired from the shoulder, change the definition to include rifled bores, and make any weapon for which shotshell-type ammunition exists a “shotgun.”

SB 567 would also ban the sale of shotguns that have a revolving cylinder and requires registration of these currently owned shotguns.

SB 683, by Sen. Marty Block, D-Los Angeles, expands California’s handgun safety certificate requirement to apply to all firearms, and would prohibit anyone from purchasing or transferring any firearm without a firearm safety certificate.

SB 755, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee recently sent four anti-gun bills to the suspense file, but those can be heard at any time.

Bullets make guns deadly

One of the bills on the suspense file is Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner’s AB 48, which would ban the sale of magazine parts kits that can hold more than 10 cartridges, and require mandatory reporting of law-abiding citizens who purchase more than 3,000 rounds of ammunition within a five-day period.

AB 48 requires the reporting of ammunition sales, requires the licensing of ammunition dealers, and establishes other controls on ammunition sales similar to current controls on firearms sales.

And AB 48 makes it illegal for gun owners to purchase parts that allow them to convert their guns into assault-style weapons that can fire more than 10 rounds of bullets without reloading.

Skinner, D-Berkeley, says it’s easier to buy bullets than to buy alcohol, cigarettes or certain cold medicines. “Sales of some cold medicines are reported to the Department of Justice but not ammunition sales,” Skinner said at a hearing in April. “We expect to show ID to buy alcohol or tobacco, but there is no such requirement for bullets.”

But Skinner is putting the target on lawful gun owners, who purchase ammunition and gun kits legally from gun stores. Criminals don’t shop for legal gun merchandise at gun stores.

Mounting evidence

If history is right, more gun control laws always means more crime and government control. American cities with the strictest gun ownership laws, such as Chicago, also have the highest crime and murder rates.

Interestingly, according to safety expert Steve Curtis, “criminals are generally in favor of more stringent gun controls because it makes their criminal activities safer.”

“Rather than following the progressive model of gun control, where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and only criminals possess firearms that worked so well in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Australia and Britain, Americans should be looking at the immense success of “universal” gun ownership in places like Switzerland or Kennesaw, GA,” Curtis said. In Kennesaw, all citizens are required to own at least one firearm and keep ammunition, resulting in the lowest crime rate of any city its size in America. ”

Crime statistics show the downward trend is positive, as word of the “armed city” spreads.

By prohibiting the use of all lead ammunition for hunting in California, coupled with the federal government’s attempt to ban non-lead ammo, hunters could be left out in the woods with an empty weapon.

According to Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California, if the state and federal bans are actually passed, the only alternative ammunition available would be pure gold bullets. That might be advantageous for the assassin Francisco Scaremonger, in the “Man with the Golden Gun,” but it’s bad for Californians.

Hunting is being attacked as part of a campaign to ban the use of traditional ammunition, which is comprised of lead core components.

Anti-gun activists become anti-ammo activists

In addition to the many anti-gun bills proposed by California Democrats, they’ve discovered the way around these unpopular bills is by banning lead ammunition. Assembly Bill 711,  by freshman Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Southgate, would effectively ban hunting under the guise of “protecting the environment.”

AB 711 is just one of many bills in the Legislature this year which seek to weaken the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Why can’t hunters just use non-lead ammo?  The problem is that the federal government is on the brink of banning non-lead ammo, according to Assemblyman Brian Jones. In California this would mean there would be no ammunition available for hunting.

The bill has been held in suspense in the Senate Appropriations Committee, ostensibly because of the negative financial impact it would have on the Fish and Game Commission.

According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife:

* “The annual spending by America’s 14 million hunters amounts to $61 billion. 

* “Hunting supported 704,600 million jobs, or nearly 1 percent of America’s entire civilian labor force, in all sectors of the American economy.

* “Hunting created household income (salaries and wages) totaling $416.1 billion, which is roughly equivalent to 25 percent of America’s entire military payroll.

* “Hunting added $1.4 billion to state tax revenues, or nearly 1 percent of all annual state tax revenues combined.

* “Hunting contributed $1.7 billion in federal income taxes, which equates to almost half of the entire federal budget for commerce.”

Many expect the committee will pass AB 711, under pressure from the anti-gun lobby, environmentalists, the Audubon Society and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. If so, the economic impact to California would be significant.

The department, formerly named the Department of Fish and Game when it was more friendly to hunters, has tried for several years to ban lead ammunition in California, claiming the California Condor has been dying off because of lead bullets. Unable to mandate the ban, the agency turned to the Legislature. But charges of phony science plague the attempted ban.

Faulty science

“Without such a ban, extinction of the California condor is inevitable, according to a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences,” Yale Environment 360 claims.

“Many of the scientific papers used by anti-lead ammunition proponents to support lead ammunition bans have consistently been critiqued for questionable scientific practices,” according to Huntfortruth.org. “These researchers have used flawed scientific methodology and have selectively cherry picked data to support their preconceived conclusions, while routinely ignoring alternative sources of lead in the environment.”

According to Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California, this isn’t the first attempt to falsely claim California Condors are being poisoned by hunters. Paredes said in 2007 the proponents of one of the nation’s first lead ammunition bans, AB 821, claimed that California condors were being poisoned by consuming hunters’ lead ammunition. They promised that, if hunters stopped using lead ammunition in the condor range, the lead poisoning would cease.

But Paredes said blood-lead levels in California condors have not declined because condors are exposed to alternative sources of bioavailable lead, including documented evidence of lead paint chip and lead-contaminated microtrash ingestion.  The AB 821 lead ammunition ban (the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act) has done nothing to prevent the alternative sources of lead in the condor zone.

North Dakota study refutes enviros

In May 2008, the North Dakota Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a study measuring the risk, if any, of eating wild game harvested with lead bullets.

The study was designed to determine whether people who eat wild game have higher blood lead levels than people who don’t.

The study found no elevated levels of lead in the families of hunters, who regularly eat wild game.

“The geometric mean of the CDC study of 1.17 micrograms per deciliter was lower than the geometric mean of lead in the overall U.S. population (1.60 micrograms per deciliter),” the NRA reported. “More than 86 percent of the people in the CDC test reported eating more than one type of wild game.”

Yet the North Dakota Department of Health reported their findings a little differently, clearly under pressure from special interest groups:

“Based on the results of the CDC blood lead level study and a Minnesota bullet study, the North Dakota Department of Health has developed the following recommendations to minimize the risk of harm to people who are most vulnerable to the effects of lead:

* “Pregnant women and children younger than 6 should not eat any venison harvested with lead bullets.

* “Older children and other adults should take steps to minimize their potential exposure to lead, and use their judgment about consuming game that was taken using lead-based ammunition.

* “The most certain way of avoiding lead bullet fragments in wild game is to hunt with non-lead bullets.

* “Hunters and processors should follow the processing recommendations developed by the North Dakota Department of Agriculture.”

Their new “recommendations” were hardly evidence of serious lead poisoning problems.

Hunters have eaten venison taken with lead bullets for hundreds of years. Yet according to the NRA and Huntfortruth.org, there is not one documented case of lead poisoning from eating deer meat. Doctors are required to report all cases of lead poisoning to the Centers for Disease Control, yet according CDC Public Health adviser Kimball Credle, no cases have ever been traced to wild game meat.

Federal law

“Federal law allows the U.S. Attorney General through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make a finding or determination that an alternative ammunition projectile or projectile core is intended to be used for a ‘sporting purpose,’ Jones explained.

“To date the ATF has received approximately 19 petitions filed by ammunition manufacturers seeking a ‘sporting purpose’ exemption for alternative ammunition for the hunting market nationwide, and at this point in time the ATF has failed to rule on any of the petitions. Some of these petitions are reported to have been pending since August of 2011.”

By Katy Grimes

The recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is the motivation behind the overwhelming number of gun-control measures moving rapidly through the state Legislature.

One of these bills, AB 760, would charge 5 cents on every round of ammunition sold in California. At a hearing Monday in the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee, the bill’s author, Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento, said the bill would raise an estimated $50 million ostensibly to restore a mental health program for children.

AB 760 is one of eight bills introduced this year that increase regulation on just the ammunition.

Dickinson said that the 5 cent tax on each round of ammunition “is just that simple.” Then he shifted to talking about the benefits of the tax revenue. “It’s dedicated to restoring funding for the pre-existing early mental health program EMHI,” Dickinson said. “It aims at our very young children, in grades one to three, and helps them with diagnosis and then subsequent treatment.”

Dickinson explained that Gov. Jerry Brown cut funding for the Early Mental Health Initiative from last year’s state budget.

At a press conference prior to the hearing, Dickinson said he is not worried that the more than 20 gun control bills in the Legislature would hurt the chances of his legislation being passed, KQED reported.

Dickinson said he’s hoping the hefty ammo tax would diminish ammunition purchases. He added that the FBI says murders with guns amount to 68 percent of all murders in California. “There were 600,000 guns sold in California last year,” Dickinson said. “These are the costs we all must bear as a result of gun violence. Taxing ammo can provide a steady source of revenue.”

Opposing AB 760 are Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association and its state affiliate, the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

“Bulletproofing Communities” or tying their hands?

The Assembly Public Safety Committee has also approved the “Bulletproofing Communities” bill, Assembly Bill 48, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, which aims for tighter controls of all ammunition sales in the state:

* It requires the sale or transfer of all bullets done only by licensed dealers.

* All buyers must present identification.

* Sales records will be transmitted to the California Department of Justice, which will notify law enforcement of anyone purchasing more than 3,000 rounds within five days.

* AB 48 would also ban conversion kits, which allow guns to fire more bullets without reloading.

No nexus between mental health and ammo tax

Dickinson noted, “There is no correlation between mental health and gun violence.” Yet his bill would fund the mental health program. Under state law, tax bills require a nexus between the tax and the program funded by the revenue.

AB 760 brought a challenge from Sam Paredes of Gun Owners of California, who said there is a Constitutional problem with Dickison’s bill. Paredes pointed to 1983 court case, the Minnesota Star Tribune vs. the Minnesota Commissioner. The U.S. Supreme Court found that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently than any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. Therefore, this tax was in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press.

By analogy, the court decision then would ban a special tax violating the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms.” In other words, a sales tax increase on all sporting goods, for example, might be allowed; but one only on bullets would not be.

A representative from the NRA held up an empty box of small caliber bullets and said the box retails for $1.50. Dickinson’s 5 cent ammo tax would add $2.50 to the purchase. “The tax costs more than the product,” he said.

Craig DeLuz with the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees pointed out a section in Dickinson’s bill which clearly states retailers cannot offer to pay the tax for purchasers, the way furniture stores often do as a promotion.

Because Dickinson’s bill is a tax increase, it will require support from two-thirds of the Legislature. The bill was sent to the suspense file.

By Dave Roberts

On Monday, two men in their late 20s attempted to break into a home in Vallejo. They fled when the homeowner grabbed a firearm and shot at them, according to the Vallejo Times-Herald. Nothing was taken from the home and police are searching for the suspects.

Vallejo’s 115,000 residents have good reason to arm themselves. The year before this Bay Area city entered bankruptcy in May 2008, it had 145 police officers. Three years later, when it exited bankruptcy, there were just 91 officers left on the force, according to city-data.com. Perhaps not coincidentally, Vallejo suffers nearly double the rate of crime as the rest of the state and country.

Vallejo was also the scene of a lively 2½-hour gun control debate Wednesday night. It was sponsored by Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena (pictured nearby), who was appointed by Nancy Pelosi to head the Congressional Gun Violence Prevention Task Force.

Thompson likes to tout his firearms bona fides: hunter, gun owner and a tour in Vietnam with an assault rifle. But the National Rifle Association doesn’t consider Thompson a gun rights supporter, scoring him just 17 percent on gun rights votes in 2012. There’s also not a lot of gun rights support on the rest of the task force — eight of its 12 members received scores of zero by the NRA.

As a result, it’s likely that the task force’s recommendations will be in line with liberal orthodoxy, similar to what the NRA experienced in its meeting with Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday.

“We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe, and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment,” said the NRA in a press release. “While claiming that no policy proposals would be ‘prejudged,’ this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners — honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen.”

Thompson’s task force will probably not recommend beefing up school security, as recommended by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who observed, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Thompson response

Thompson pretty much confirmed that in a press release response to the NRA:

“Everyone agrees our schools, movie theaters, shopping malls, streets and communities need to be safer. But we need a comprehensive approach that goes beyond just arming more people with more guns to make this happen. Closing holes in our mental health system, addressing our culture’s glorification of violence, improving background checks for everyone who buys firearms, and reinstating the ban on assault weapons and assault magazines all must be part of a comprehensive approach to reduce and prevent gun violence.”

At the town hall meeting, Thompson reaffirmed his hostility to increasing security in schools and public venues. Tom Powell, a Vallejo businessman and gun owner, advocated ensuring that one or two teachers in classrooms along every school corridor should have weapons training and an ability to access a firearm if need be.

“Just like we have marshalls on airplanes to keep them from getting highjacked,” Powell said. “The kids don’t have to know who they are. If people know there’s one or two teachers in a hallway that have a weapon and can defend the kids, they might be deterred from doing what they are doing. You’re not going to take away guns. And these things are going to keep happening, because there are crazy people out there and it’s not going to stop. You have to arm the teachers, the ones that want to do it. They can be very well trained. And maybe that will stop a few problems.”

Thompson replied, “Isn’t that responding to the last tragedy? So what do you do next? If your theory is correct, then we would arm the popcorn vendor in the theater, we would arm the salespeople in the mall. And if there’s a shootout at the football game, then we would arm the referees. Where do you stop?”

Powell responded, “We should make it OK for real citizens to get a concealed permit so that more people are armed out there. So that [would-be killers] will worry about, ‘Well, that guy might have a gun. I might not do this because he might have one, and she might have one.’ I’m not saying everybody should have a gun. I’m saying if there’s a few out there it might help.”

Thompson ended the exchange, saying, “Just for the record, I wouldn’t go to the movie if I thought eight or 10 people in there had guns.”

Applause

Powell received strong applause for his remarks. Despite the meeting being in a Bay Area city, the standing-room-only crowd packed into the Vallejo City Council chambers was split about evenly between gun rights supporters and opponents.

Thompson attempted to play both sides in his opening remarks:

“I support the Second Amendment and want to make sure that lawful individuals with clear mental health background are able to own and use firearms today and want to make sure their children and grandchildren are able to do so in the out years. But gun owners must come forward and say enough is enough. We need to stem gun violence and do it in a comprehensive manner. It’s not just guns. Guns are a very small part of it. It’s mental health issues, the culture of violence, who gets these guns and providing appropriate background checks.

“We have a lot of work to do. It’s not an easy task. It won’t be a cheap task. I want to make sure everybody is at the table and every issue is at the table. That’s why we are having these town hall meetings. We need constructive input on how to deal with this. The Second Amendment is alive and well. This is not an issue about how Americans who are law abiding and mentally stable are going to lose their guns. This is about gun safety and what we can do.”

Despite that assurance, it’s unlikely that beefed up security in schools and public venues and making it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain concealed-weapon carry permits will be among his task force’s recommendations.

Thompson’s task force plans to issue its recommendations in early February.

By Katy Grimes

The mainstream news reports about the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting on Thursday night is the worst reporting and irresponsible commentary I’ve ever seen. And once again, guns are the bad guy.

As American liberals have stepped up preaching that everyone deserves high self-esteem, personal responsibility has taken a back seat, and inanimate objects are to blame for bad behavior.

“Death by Xbox.”

“Drugs kill mother of three.”

“Speeding SUV kills five!” the headlines read. “An SUV ran through a restaurant window, killing seven…” a reporter announced. “SUV kills kindergartner waiting for bus,” another headline read.

“Assault rifle opened fire, leaves seven dead, 15 wounded,” a headline stated.

There is stupid, and there is really stupid reporting.

There are people behind the wheel of the SUV’s, and holding the guns. And somewhere, there are parents of a dead kid, who allowed him to play Xbox games.

Along with the cries for gun bans, why not ban the deadly SUV’s, or dangerous Xbox games?

Why Liberals don’t like guns

Guns and people have lived together for centuries. It is liberals who don’t like guns, or gun owners. And when liberals don’t like something, they want it banned.

But pinning down anti-gun people is challenging. They never specify what it is about guns they don’t like. Because guns don’t kill people any more than SUV’s run people down, or golf balls break windows on their own.

The objection anti-gun liberals must have is that it’s the people who own guns that offend.

Media stories kill

The morning after the theater shooting, ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross reported that James Holmes, the Aurora, Colorado shooter could be a Tea Party member.

“There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea Party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year,” Ross said on “Good Morning America.” “Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.”

Ross isn’t just some pretty talking head on a local news channel — he is billed as the ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent. But his reporting lacked any real investigating.

It took Breitbart.com to debunk ABC’s outrageous accusation:

“On Good Morning America, ABC News’ Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos suggested that the Tea Party might be connected to the mass shootings early this morning in an Aurora, CO theater during a screening of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The mainstream media attempted to blame the Tea Party for the Tuscon shootings in January 2011, shortly after Republicans swept the midterm elections. Now, in the critical 2012 elections, the mainstream media seems poised to do the same–and ABC News has led the way.”

This is the exchange between Brian Ross and George Stephanolpoulos:

Stephanolpoulos: I’m going to go to Brian Ross. You’ve been investigating the background of Jim Holmes here. You found something that might be significant.

Ross: There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

Stephanolpoulos: Okay, we’ll keep looking at that. Brian Ross, thanks very much.

The result of ABC’s irresponsible journalism made older Jim Holmes’ life a media circus.

The suspect, now in custody, is a 24-year-old man with the same name.

“What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” Holmes told The Daily Caller. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

In a joint statement, Colorado Tea Party Patriots and the Tea Party Patriots denounced the report as “shameless and reprehensible.” It was not just irresponsible and shameless to report this, it was a lie that ABC was willing to extend.

Ross and Stephanolpoulos should be fired.

Gun owners and the law

The law is on the side of gun owners. In fact, gun owners have adjusted well to all of the roadblocks imposed on gun ownership, including waiting periods to take possession of a gun after purchase, some ammunition bans, and bans on certain types of guns. Gun owners follow the law.

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, stating that it very clearly protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Heller vs. DC deemed that a gun ban deprived legal citizens the right to keep and bear arms, which prevented them from defending hearth and home against armed criminals. And the decision stated that a gun ban went against thousands of years of the right of self defense, as well as the defense of others.

Oyez, the Supreme Court news reported, “For the first time in seventy years, the Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

“In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.”

Guns bans don’t work

In 2003, the Washington Times reported, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a study last week that states there is no evidence to prove gun-control laws are effective in preventing violence. No kidding. There always has been substance to the cliche that guns don’t kill people, people do. Correlative to that rule is that the criminals who use guns to kill usually possess their weapons illegally. These serial lawbreakers are not deterred by statutes prohibiting or regulating gun ownership. They will continue to use guns to commit violent crimes even if the rest of the population of sitting ducks are disarmed.”

The task force also concluded that “firearms-related injuries in the United States have declined since 1993” despite the fact that “approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year.”

Expensive government studies to convince us that gun-control laws don’t make communities safer are a waste of taxpayer money. Taking away law-abiding citizens’ rights to defend themselves results only in making criminals more safe.

However, thugs will think twice before victimizing someone who might be packing heat.

If the Colorado movie theater had been filled with citizens who may have been carrying, chances are that the gunman would have been cut down after his first shot, if he even got that far.

Liberal Democrats Hate Gun Owners

Liberals don’t hate guns, they hate gun owners.

Gun owners tend to be more conservative, believe in personal responsibility, and are more likely to vote conservatively.

Gun owners support the military, and join the military.

Gun owners supported the cold war and America’s efforts to fight Communism. Gun owners voluntarily enlisted during the Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars and the Iraq War.

However, these traits are what liberals despise. They hate people who refuse to rely on the government for protection.

Gun Control for Political Power

People unfamiliar with guns have an understandable aversion to them, but many ignorantly support strict gun control regulations. Liberals use this issue and people who fear guns to win elections.

But Gun control is just another control issue. The best example of this is the irrational ban on assault weapons, solely based on how the guns look. Gun owners familiar with assault weapons say that bayonet lugs and flash suppressors do not make semi-automatic guns more deadly or more suitable for criminal use. However, the assault weapon ban is the ideal wedge to use in a heated political debate.

Liberals despise the Constitution

The Constitution protects the rights of individuals, and it protects individuals from the government.  Because liberals believe they know what’s best for the rest of us, they despise the Constitution.

John R. Lott published research demonstrating that an increase in gun ownership results in a reduction in crime, because guns save more lives through deterrence and self-defense than they kill. His 1999 book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” became the authority on gun issues.

“Criminals are deterred by higher penalties,” Lott said in an interview. “Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.”

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.”

Lott also observed how large newspapers and major media outlets consistently underreported the defensive use of guns to save lives. He found that factual accounts of the defensive use of guns would be reported in small rural newspapers but omitted from stories in larger papers, and stories that appeared days or weeks later.

Lott also debunked the oft repeated liberal notion that most murders are done by someone the victim knows.  According to Lott, the “acquaintance murder” number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. “Acquaintance” inaccurately covers a wide range of relationships according to Lott. But the vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Is mainstream news media the enemy?

The news media has gotten really sloppy over the years; poor grammar, unprofessional attire, stumbling over proper names, incorrect pronunciations of the names of cities, slanted reporting, and ridiculously stupid commentary on serious news stories.

But the manipulation of real news, as is the case with gun crime reporting, is just a lie. When the mainstream media lies, has it become the enemy? It certainly is no longer a mainstream media.

Facts are stubborn things.