The Associated Press via WHBF noted:

“McDonald applied Monday and says he plans to buy a .45-caliber handgun. He says he’s already completed the four hours of classroom training and an hour on a firing range needed to get the permit.”

The Chicago Tribune put its own spin on things:

“The process took only 20 minutes, but McDonald said some of the requirements to obtain the permit seemed excessive. And though a gun permit was worth any price for him, he said he is concerned that the $100 fee could deter some law-abiding citizens from buying a handgun.”

Interesting that the Tribune goes to great lengths to show some bias… noting that the “process took only 20 minutes.” It doesn’t mention the “four hours of classroom training” or the “hour on a firing range.” Interesting way that was spun for the readers, because if you didn’t read multiple versions of the story you’d never know about the training time required. Isn’t the media sneaky sometimes?

It is too early to celebrate now. Despite the Heller ruling, the District of Columbia is being accused of not honoring the mandate set by The Court. But all freedom loving Americans can feel good that their rights can’t be trampled on by rogue politicians who manipulate voter’s emotions for their own gain. It’s not surprising to learn that the cities with the strictest gun laws have the highest gun violence. Today, the highest court in the land is restoring law abiding citizens something most people of the world can’t enjoy. Thank God for America.

Aposhian claims money, not lack of training, is behind the ban. Utah only charges $35 for gun licenses while New Mexico charges $100. There have been reports of New Mexico gun trainers urging clients to get Utah permits to save $65 in fees.

Aposhian notes that 35 states accept Utah gun permits but only 21 states accept New Mexico’s permits. Aposhian also says that Utah does background checks every 24 hours while New Mexico only checks permits every four years.

Reasonable permit costs should be charged to cover the costs of doing a background check. But states shouldn’t use high fees as a way to keep law abiding citizens from exercising their 2^nd Amendment Rights. Nor should states uses permits of any kind as a cash cow meant to fill budget deficits.

“RCMP officers who guard Parliament Hill are being equipped with submachine guns to give them more stopping power should a gunman attack the heart of Canada’s government.

“Security, which has already been significantly beefed up after a high-profile breach last December, will get another boost in the coming months when Mounties patrolling the Hill get the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun.”

This is a very interesting turn of events, and as one who has regularly seen these types of weapons in New York City since 9/11 – as well as police snipers carrying M-14s, it just suggests that the world isn’t really as safe as many would like to believe. Of course this won’t give any anti-gun zealot pause – they’ll continue to believe the police need MP5 submachine-guns because there are too many gun owners out there.

And for the sporting shooter and hunter, there is the National Gun Daily Show with 2,000+ tables just down the hall. Both shows are taking place this week at the Kentucky Fair and Expo Center in Louisville.

Show of Shows (SOS) – Thursday to Saturday, February 19-21
National Gun Day – Saturday and Sunday, February 21-22

The story noted not only that attendance of the gun show was up, but called out a few highly desirable pieces, “including a musket carried by a soldier in a New Hampshire regiment in the Revolutionary War.”

 Kudos to The Time Argus. It is nice to see news in the mainstream media that calls out the importance of historical firearms. 

The career politician are shaking in their boots, some, like Sen Chris Dodd, have given notice and are bailing on a Kamikaze-like democratic party that’s all about ideology and not about America.

Talk to your representatives, both democrat and republican and give them your thoughts, your opinions on foolish, wasteful anti-gun initiatives that slow or restrict an honest Americans right to own a firearm. Have them explain how restrictive firearms laws prevent criminals from purchasing guns? Ask them if they would feel safe walking the streets of Port Au Prince Haiti without armed security?

Gun control has proved a waste of time and resources. Perhaps its time to give Obama and his friends a chance an opportunity to move to the center on something!

When after two years or so, the predicted carnage didn’t follow; I began to wonder why I had so readily agreed with them on their predictions. My willingness to ask myself this question and to understand, as best as I could, why I had thought this, began a multi-year odyssey. It wasn’t any easy journey and my experience is that few people are willing to look closely at their own judgments. It has been a life altering experience.  

I first began reading as much as I could about the issue of gun control from both sides of the issue, both opinion pieces and books. One of the first books I read, because it was generating much controversy was a book by economist John Lott, entitled The Bias Against Guns.  Lott has been vilified for his original book More Guns; Less Crime. Those within the gun control movement as well as most in the traditional media vilified him.

The essence of his work was he looked at crime data from every county in the nation. No one had ever done this before. He used an algorithm to filter out as many extraneous factors as he could. That is income level, educational factors, etc. His results were truly startling. What he found, was that the only single factor that could account for the level of violent crimes in a given area was the legal ownership of firearms. Not as had been previously claimed, that the ready availability of firearms led to more crime, but the exact opposite.

This controversial conclusion really upset those in the gun control community, including the media and some criminologists. I then read other books that either supported gun control or tried to look at the issue from both sides. I found their arguments to be unscientific and emotionally based or without any real substance.

The next books which really “rocked my world” was a book called Armed by Gary Kleck and Don Kates. Gary Kleck is a criminologist with the University of Florida, with no ties to the NRA or other gun organizations and a member of the ACLU. Don Kates was a civil rights attorney living in San Francisco. This book was very scholarly with numerous citations. It went into great detail investigating numerous issues, including how the media demonizes gun owners, revealing the myth that ordinary people commit murder, etc. The second factor I found very interesting, in that, I too believed the myth that anyone under the right circumstances could commit murder (i.e., a heated argument, large consumption of alcohol, etc). What numerous years of research by a number of criminologists are that people who commit murder have a long history of anti-social and risky behavior, with numerous arrests and usually a minimum of two felony convictions.

Few people know that our nation is at a 35 year low for violent crime. The rates experienced today are similar to those in the early seventies when statistics were first compiled. Since tens of millions of firearms are sold every year, this completely disproves the claim that the “proliferation of firearms” leads to increased violent crime rate. Another fact which is unconventional with common held belief is that so called “assault rifles or weapons” are used in very few crimes. Somewhere between 1 to 2 percent and that the assault weapons ban had no effect whatsoever on the violent crime are. Numerous studies including one by the pro-Clinton CDC found no provable relationship between the end of the ban and increased crime or any lowering during the ban itself.

Probably the most shocking contrast that I found was the lack of honesty of the gun-control movement. It can be demonstrated that they often misrepresent the facts without any challenge by the media. Yet the NRA and other similar organizations go to great lengths to document their conclusions and statements. My own experience is that whenever I write a op-ed piece or letter to the editor a different standard is used in qualifying what I write.

But don’t take my word for it. Do your own research. Read what is written on different web sites both pro and con and read whatever books you can get your hands on. Have the courage to examine your own beliefs and why you think the way you do.

“The law (A-4361) provides limited exemptions for certain persons to lawfully purchase more than one handgun within a 30-day period, specifically persons who wish to purchase multiple handguns from an estate or inheritance, collectors of firearms, and persons who use firearms for competitive and recreational purposes. Under the law, a person who seeks an exemption will apply to the State Police superintendent. The superintendent will be authorized to approve the purchase of more than one handgun within a 30-day period if the applicant demonstrates the request meets the requirements of one of the bill’s specified exemptions.”

While we still agree that there shouldn’t be any limit on the number of firearms a law-abiding citizen can buy, this is at least a move that will make it easier for collectors and hobbyists.