TresSugar

Gun Question to Potential Appointees Might Explode Debate

CitizenSugar — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:30:00 -0800

Barack Obama is firing away seven pages of detailed questions to wannabe presidential appointees, but one inquiry has gun rights activists upset. The question states:

“Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Politico reports that the Obama team says it just wants to verify legal ownership of firearms, but others accuse Obama of potentially denying employment based on an applicant's gun ownership.

Do you think Obama is putting Second Amendment rights in the line of fire or just trying to avoid embarrassing situations (think Dick Cheney shooting a man in the face)?

Source

The Democrats Are Coming! Boom in Gun Sales After Election

LibertySugar — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 10:00:01 -0800

Making sure to exercise their Second Amendment rights before it's too late, firearm fans have gone on a shopping spree. Gun shop owners report record sales since Tuesday, suspecting that customers fear a Democratic federal government could curtail the right to bear arms with new gun control laws. In fact in October, there were 15 percent more background checks issued for new purchases.

Barack Obama's stance on gun control shouldn't cause too much panic in the gun-carrying community. The president-elect has said that he "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." He also believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, just as the Supreme Court decided earlier this year. Even so, Obama does support national legislation against carrying concealed firearms, and he may reinstate the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

If you're a gun enthusiast, do you feel like your rights will come under fire from the new Democratic leadership, or are you comforted by the fact that a lot of other problems might push gun control to the bottom of the agenda?

Source

Do Teachers With Guns Make a Secluded School Safe?

LibertySugar — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 15:45:25 -0700

Teachers in a 110-student Texas school district can soon carry guns at school. Those advocating the new policy argue that teachers and students feel unprotected because the school is 30 minutes from the closest sheriff.

Staff that want to carry a gun must have a Texas concealed gun license, be approved by the district, receive crisis-management training, and use ammunition designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

The district's superintendent thinks the guns are a great idea:

When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog.

While it's important for school staff to take the possibility of violence seriously, having multiple guns on campus sounds like it could present a danger in itself.

Source

Shot Through the Heart! Spy Gives Gun Control a Bad Name

LibertySugar — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:00:02 -0700

Get this: a gun-control activist, who sat on the board of two anti-violence groups, might have been a spy for the NRA all along! Mary Lou McFate (or Mary Lou Sapone) has worked for gun control for over a decade, but her organizations have just kicked her out so they can start checking her offices for bugs. Using her maiden name "McFare," Mary allegedly posed as a gun-control activist at the behest of the National Rifle Association. As an alleged mole for the NRA, McFate met with members of Congress, attended rallies, and participated in strategy sessions on behalf of gun control.

This isn't the first time McFate has acted as a freelance spy. During the 1980s she infiltrated an animal-rights group for US Surgical, a company accused of using dogs for research and training. She has also worked as a flight attendant and a sex therapist.

Even though McFate had access to every major legislative strategy of the gun-control lobby, some say they have nothing to hide from the NRA. In fact, a few gun-control activists feel flattered that the gun lobby sees them as a threat.

Source

Pulling Trigger, Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Right to Arms

CitizenSugar — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 07:48:48 -0700

The Supreme Court has just ruled that Americans do have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting. It's the justices' first huge ruling on gun rights in US history, with the justices charged with deciding whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right, or whether it only extends to militias as a collective right.

In the 5-4 ruling, the court struck down Washington DC's 32-year-old ban (one of the strictest in the nation) on handguns as being at odds with gun rights spelled out in the Second Amendment. The court has not meaningfully interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." To see details on the decision, read more.

In the opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the majority ruled that individuals have the right to own firearms making the DC ban, unconstitutional. Though DC has an ongoing problem with violent crime, the constitution trumped the local law in this decision, though it still allows for "common sense gun control laws." The court essentially eliminated the extremes on both freedom and restrictions. Dana Perino, White House press secretary said that the administration is "pleased" with the ruling.

For a minute-by-minute recap of the decision, SCOTUSblog has a great live blog. Do you agree with the decision?

Source

Seattle's Schizophrenic Shooter Had Valid Gun Permit

LibertySugar — Thu, 29 May 2008 06:00:19 -0700

A mentally ill man who shot three people at a music festival in the Pacific Northwest last week had obtained his weapon with a valid concealed weapon permit. A bullet from his Glock 19 handgun hit three victims last Saturday while Grainger was fighting another man. The bullet passed through a man's nose, another's wrist, finally ending up in a woman's leg.

22-year-old Clinton C. Grainger suffers from anxiety and schizophrenia and has been receiving treatment for a meth addiction since he was 18. Grainger's issues did show up as disqualifying conditions when he applied for a gun permit in January 2007. A mental illness diagnosis alone is not enough to restrict a citizen's right to bear arms under Washington state and US federal law.

To find out what federal law is regarding mental illness and gun permits, read more.

Federal law requires that an individual be involuntarily committed to a mental institution, found not guilty by insanity, or deemed by a judge as a "mental defective" and a danger to himself or others, before second amendment rights are restricted. Nevertheless, it appears that if background checks were more sophisticated, at least Grainger's narcotic addiction would have prevented him from obtaining the permit. Yet, as with the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech, crucial disqualifying information located in different systems were not properly shared.

Are nominal and negligent background checks to blame for victims' injuries? Should we make it harder for those with a mental health diagnosis to obtain a gun? Considering that many Americans are treated for anxiety and depression, what mental illness should cause a citizen to lose the right to bear arms?

Source

Nothing Goes Together Better Than Guns and Alcohol

TresSugar — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 06:00:00 -0700

As of yesterday, patrons of alcohol serving establishments in Arizona and Tennessee can exercise their second amendment rights while downing a cold one. How . . . American.

The new laws allowing registered gun owners to carry concealed guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol are part of a trend of loosened gun control laws. Ironically, right after the election last November, gun shop owners reported record sales, suspecting that customers feared that a Democratic federal government could curtail the right to bear arms.

Complaints by Arizona and Tennessee's business owners that the new law would hurt business went unaddressed. (Hurt how you ask? You know, when "1 or 2% of would-be Dirty Harrys," as one restaurant owner plaintiff put it, decided to mete out vigilante justice.) As for critics who point to recent public shootings, proponents of the new laws say that the violence shows the need for private citizens to protect themselves with firearms.

Que Pasa? Understanding California's Prop 8 Hearings

CitizenSugar — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:44:40 -0800

Crowds gathered outside San Francisco's Supreme Court today while inside the court argued the hair-splitting details of the California Constitution and what it takes to change it.

The court has 90 days to make two major decisions: First, whether Prop 8, which eliminated the right to same-sex marriage, should be upheld or overturned. And second, whether the 18,000 same-sex marriages that already took place should remain valid.

It comes down to two words, really - amend and revise. The court needs to decide whether Prop 8 amends the constitution or revises it. The difference? A revision is a fundamental change that no ballot proposition can pass. It requires support from two-thirds of the state legislature and a follow-up majority vote by the people. Because same-sex marriage was deemed an "inalienable right" by the court last year, gay-rights proponents see it as a revision. On the other hand, an amendment is a routine change that simply requires a majority vote, like Prop 8 got with its 52 percent, and no legislative approval.

So while we wait till June for a decision, a new question emerges: Should it be harder to change a constitution?

Source

View 5 Photos ›

Court to Decide If Individuals Have Right to Bear Arms

LibertySugar — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:00:27 -0700

The groundbreaking lawsuit challenging Washington DC's strict gun-control laws will go before the US Supreme Court this week. District of Columbia v. Heller, funded by a rich libertarian lawyer, is a shot in the dark for Second Amendment activists. The Supreme Court will have the extremely rare opportunity to rule on a provision of the Constitution that never has gone directly before the Supreme Court - the Second Amendment.

DC has the nation's strictest gun-control law, and effectively bans the private possession of handguns. The law states that rifles and shotguns must be kept unloaded and disassembled, or trigger locked, at home. DC argues that the law is a logical decision to make in a dangerous city, although the other party maintains that crime and homicide rates have not been reduced. To see how the Bush administration is making a case for the restrictions, read more.

The Constitutional question is whether the Second Amendment provides an individual right, or whether it only extends to militias as a collective right. In fact the Bush Administration has helped the district, arguing that while the Second Amendment conveys an individual right, such a right is subject to reasonable government restrictions. The government's official position has infuriated gun activists, including Dick Cheney. Check out some exerpts from the briefs filed with the court by interested parties.

We'll have to wait a while to get the court's decision on one of the most important cases in American history. The opinion should be released this summer. And here's an extra twist - liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments, like those protecting the rights of criminal defendants, logically should embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment, a blow to liberal gun control.

Do you think gun rights belong to the individual? If so, when do restrictions stop being reasonable?

Source

You Asked: I Feel Guilty For Moving On

DearSugar — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:30:00 -0800

Dear Sugar,

I recently got out of an eight-year relationship with someone who was my best friend. At the end he cheated on me numerous times and we both felt that we needed a break before either of us could work on our relationship. When we were separating, I instated a policy that neither of us would date other people for the first six months, but he wanted to be more "free."

After the split I went to therapy as I was heartbroken by his actions. During this time, I met a really great guy who I've since fallen in love with. The problem is that my ex has confessed that he still loves me. He told me that this break has given him time to grow. He's owned up to how badly he treated me and he wants a second chance. I know I don't want to get back together with him; however, I feel incredibly guilty that I have moved on while he has not. What should I do? How should I tell him that it's over, forever? - Starting a New Life Laurie

To see DearSugar's answer read more.

Dear Starting a New Life Laurie,

I understand that you feel badly because you broke the policy you instated, but you can't put your life on hold because your ex - who cheated on you - feels ready to make amends. Since he was the one who wanted to be more "free," how were you supposed to know that he wouldn't meet someone before you?

If you truly feel that your relationship with your ex has run its course, you should be honest with him so that he can close this chapter in his life and move on. Your guilt will subside, but in the meantime, enjoy the new man in your life - the beginning is the best part!

Source