#through thinly veiled animal rights legislation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

oldguardaudio · 6 years

Text

NRA News -> US House of Representatives to Vote on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Next Week

Concealed Carry – HoaxAndChange.com

Concealed Carry News at Hoax and Change

Donald Trump NRA @ Hoax and Change

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2017

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

In a huge win for Second Amendment supporters, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday held a mark-up of H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and favorably reported an amended version of the bill to the full House. Anti-gun Democrats on the Committee offered a lengthy list of amendments to weaken or gut the bill, all of which were defeated.

The last 30 years have seen a continual expansion of the right to carry concealed handguns for self-defense within the United States, even as the national violent crime rate has plummeted during the same period.

Every U.S. state now has a legal mechanism whereby its residents may carry concealed handguns, and 42 states and the District of Columbia broadly recognize a right of law-abiding citizens to do so.

Ask Your U.S. Representative to Vote for H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to vote YES on H.R.38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. You can call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to be connected to your representative’s office.

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

The remaining eight states, however, treat the right to carry for self-defense as a privilege reserved for the elite, the connected, or those who can “prove” extraordinary circumstances to the licensing officials.

How this minority approach works in places like New York City, for example, is that movie stars such as Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel can get permits, but a bus driver or waitress who wants to carry in his or her own high-crime neighborhood cannot, no matter how spotless the person’s background. It has also led to allegations of corruption, with “expediters” said to have paid licensing officials thousands of dollars to process permit applications for their clients – including those with histories of domestic violence – without any background checks whatsoever.

Needless to say, these states also refuse to recognize permits from other states or even, in some cases, to issue their own permits to otherwise eligible out-of-state residents.

Anti-gun members of the committee – most of whom have never met an exercise of federal authority they didn’t love – hypocritically tried to portray H.R. 38 as an attack on “states’ rights” and desperately tried to steer the debate to the differences between state licensing laws.

A majority of the committee, however, saw past the charade and recognized that what was really at stake was not the safety of residents in anti-gun states but whether upstanding Americans get to exercise their fundamental right to carry over the wishes of politicians who seek to deny it entirely.

Indeed, anti-gun committee members made many revealing arguments during the lengthy proceedings, displaying both their ignorance and their refusal to accept the bearing of arms as a constitutional right.

Multiple committee members began their attack on the bill by falsely claiming it would prevent police officers from doing their jobs, or even from verifying permits, and that the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) opposed it. When Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) corrected the record to explain the FOP does not, in fact, oppose the bill, the anti-gun members pivoted to the argument that groups representing the executive and political classes of law enforcement still did.

They were clearly stung, however, by the fact that the largest national organization of officers working the streets – the very same officers most directly impacted by the legislation – had no opposition to it. And when it comes to support by law enforcement executives, the anti-gun opponents of the bill were dealt another blow when 24 state attorneys general, the chief law-enforcement officers of their respective states, signed onto a letter in support of H.R. 38.

Rep. John Rutherford (R-FL) – who rose through the ranks of the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office from patrolman to captain – also offered an NRA-supported amendment to make clear what was already implicit in the bill’s language: officers may conduct constitutionally permissible investigative stops. That amendment was adopted by a voice vote, but the bill’s critics remained undeterred.

Ask Your U.S. Representative to Vote for H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), one of the bill’s most vocal and animated opponents, offered a novel interpretation of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. He allowed it protects the ownership of handguns for self-defense but insisted it only applies to rifles and shotguns used for “hunting” and “recreation.” Raskin denied, moreover, that the bill would protect any constitutional rights and even wasted the committee’s time by offering a childish amendment to change the Act’s short title to reflect his own view of its effect and purpose.

Another telling moment came when Rep. Darrell Issa (R-49) offered an amendment to include federal judges within the protection of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which since 2004 has allowed qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms interstate. Anti-gun committee members immediately launched attacks against the amendment, with their arguments devolving into thinly-veiled attacks on the character and reliability of the judiciary.

Ranking member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) elaborated at length on the supposed risks federal judges pose of drunk driving, domestic violence, and senility. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) echoed his concerns, focusing on their potential for instability, domestic violence, and “abuse of dating partners.”

When Rep. Issa offered to clarify that the rule would apply only to judges who are not federally prohibited from receiving a firearm and explained that police officers are already covered by similar provisions, Nadler responded that he doesn’t agree with LEOSA as it applies to police officers, either.

A sizeable majority of the committee, however, apparently holds the federal judiciary in greater esteem than Nadler and Lofgren and voted to include them in LEOSA by a margin of 18-6.

Yet perhaps the most eye-popping claim came from none other than Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who claimed, “if there is a domestic violence case, and there is a gun – 500% chance of there being a homicide.” Lest anybody thinks she misspoke, Lee repeated the assertion later in the hearing, “if it’s a domestic violence situation, and you have a gun, it’s a 500% chance it’ll end in homicide.”

While these gaffes may be humorous, the situation the bill seeks to prevent is not. Decent, law-abiding Americans – people like Brian Fletcher, Shaneen Allen, Raymond Hughes, Meredith Graves, Ryan Jerome, Jamie Kiklis – have been arrested and thrown into jail for innocent mistakes over concealed carry reciprocity. Other travelers who have been victims of violent attacks were rendered defenseless because of the prohibitive anti-gun laws in a small handful of states.

H.R. 38 simply seeks to shift the law to the side of those who obey the rules so they – and not just the criminals – can exercise what the U.S. Supreme Court called “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” in any state where their travels may take them.

TAKE ACTION TODAY!

Consideration of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act by the full House will likely occur next week. Please contact your member of Congress using the Write Your Representatives feature on our website and respectfully urge him or her to vote “yes” on this vital legislation. You can also call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask to speak to your representative.

After years of sustained effort by your NRA to see national reciprocity become law, its passage may now be closer than ever.

NRA News -> US House of Representatives to Vote on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Next Week NRA News -> US House of Representatives to Vote on H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, Next Week…

0 notes

pinkxsheets-blog · 7 years

Text

Radical politics in Britain? Yes, and don’t you forget it (A commentary on radical political groups and their role for marginalised groups in society)

It is probably best, but definitely hysterical, to think of British general elections as civil wars. Like all civil wars – including our own nearly four centuries ago – you have the big players, those who capture the ‘story’ of the battle. But on the fringes, there are always those strange, little-known groups who come out from the shade in search of their time in the spotlight. In the English Civil War, it was the Diggers and the Ranters who filled this role; the former engaged in agrarian communitarianism, the latter a heretical flux of anti-establishment Pantheists. The radical tradition in British politics is a poorly understood one, as well as rarely noticed, even by those who claim to operate in radical circles. Indeed, in many supposedly ‘progressive’ movements it has become a rite of passage to disparage anything characterised as ‘British’ and/or ‘English’ as backwards or irredeemably regressive. It is a strange badge of honour for many on the Left to turn up their noses and dismiss British politics as a waste-pit of conservative narrow-mindedness. In fact, the opposite is true. The history of radicalism in Britain is vast and rich, that can be traced back to 15th century religious resistances and the Putney Debates of 1647, through to Whiggish radicals like Charles James Fox, the Independent Labour Party of the early 20th century and the Bennite faction of the 1980s. Many contemporary commentators note that radical politics has come back to Britain, with many citing the rise of Corbyn. However, there is a major point which all these commentators (who are scattered across the political spectrum) miss; radical politics has not gone anywhere. Instead, it is choice of the elites – media, political, economic – as to whether these radicals are framed as ‘rising’.

The ‘snap’ general election (the first since 1974) on June 8th offers another chance for these radical groups to re-enter the political fore. This election is being strategically narrated as the ‘Brexit’ referendum, largely as a result of the consciously-known fragile political ground which the May administration occupies. Behind this thinly concealed veil however, lies a multi-turf conflict on which the future of the Union, our dominant economic paradigm, regional autonomy, health policy, industrial strategy and multiple other areas will be contested. The salience of single-issue debates has become an increasingly noted phenomena in British politics, from ‘Brexit’ itself, to climate change, animal rights and women’s issues.

The latter, hopes the Women’s Equality Party (WEP), will play favourably in their aim to unseat Philip Davies, a longstanding Tory rebel, infamous for his obsession of seeking to block, through filibustering (the act of prolonging debates by speaking extensively), many vital pieces of legislation including the Preventing and Combatting Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence Act. In the constituency of Shipley in West Yorkshire, where Davies has been MP since 2005, the WEP are fielding their leader, Sophie Walker, in an effort to both oust Davies and raise awareness of their newly-founded party (Est. 2015).

At a purely strategic level the move is ill-conceived. Walker is likely the only known figure in the party and she would likely fare far better in a more ‘liberally-inclined’ constituency like Hampstead, or Brighton. Nonetheless, this small battle embodies the continuation of the tradition of radical politics in Britain; the success of previous movements, groups and figures has begun as seemingly insignificant acts in the face of established interests. Davies has been specifically targeted because of his widely-derided views, which have been variously described as misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and disablist. In this regard then, he is an unsurprising target for the WEP – it gives them a good platform from which to build upon and paints a very favourable story of ‘progressive’ vs. ‘regressive’. The fortunes of the WEP has also increased through an electoral pact struck up with the Green Party, another party that has enjoyed some considerable success in recent years and one that has adopted a co-leader structure in marked contrast to the major parties. Perhaps unfortunately, the contest between Davies and Walker will go largely unnoticed in this general election, which will have many other similarly strange skirmishes, aside from the major issues. Nonetheless, the fact that such a battle is happening gives some hope to those fatigued by the rigid and small ‘c’ conservative nature of the British party system, which thrives on squeezing out weaker or newer parties. This small battle in a corner of Yorkshire represents just one of many instances of radical politics in Britain that heroically refuse to go away.

This election will likely produce a large Tory majority of potentially 100 seats, and a Prime Minister in Theresa May who is the most popular in four decades. The result of this will likely be a newly emboldened Conservative Party, comprised of a bulky cohort ‘lobby fodder’ (the term for new MPs who are blindly loyal) and hellbent on introducing a jarring mix of nostalgic politics and damaging economics. The major achievement of the party, should it emerge victorious, will be that it has managed to overcome the post-traumatic stress that New Labour left for it after 13 years in government. It has, for now, come through largely unscathed. The picture overall then, is bleak. However, it must be remembered that, out there and beyond the confines of Westminster, are genuine radical movements equally set on success and equally set on cementing their positions. It is this alone that can give the Left some kind of hope. What is most important in all of this however, is that the contemporary British Left remember its deep and extensive roots, and the very-alive traditions which have enabled it to exist and move forward today.

-Callum Leavey-Wilson

0 notes