Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

Police Only Allowing Gun Permits 1 Day A Week For Only 4 Hours Proves Need For Constitutional Carry

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Some Scary thoughts

The Doctor Will Ask About Your Gun Now Story by Nancy Walecki

The Doctor Will Ask About Your Gun Now© Illustration by The Atlantic. Sources: Science Photo Library / Getty

Aman comes to Northwell Health’s hospital on Staten Island with a sprained ankle. Any allergies? the doctor asks. How many alcoholic drinks do you have each week? Do you have access to firearms inside or outside the home? When the patient answers yes to that last question, someone from his care team explains that locking up the firearm can make his home safer. She offers him a gun lock and a pamphlet with information on secure storage and firearm-safety classes. And all of this happens during the visit about his ankle.

Northwell Health is part of a growing movement of health-care providers that want to talk with patients about guns like they would diet, exercise, or sex—treating firearm injury as a public-health issue. In the past few years, the White House has declared firearm injury an epidemic, and the CDC and National Institutes of Health have begun offering grants for prevention research. Meanwhile, dozens of medical societies agree that gun injury is a public-health crisis and that health-care providers have to help stop it.

Asking patients about access to firearms and counseling them toward responsible storage could be one part of that. “It’s the same way that we encourage people to wear seat belts and not drive while intoxicated, to exercise,” Emmy Betz, an emergency-medicine physician and the director of the University of Colorado’s Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative, told me. An unsecured gun could be accessible to a child, someone with dementia, or a person with violent intent—and may increase the chance of suicide or accidental injury in the home. Securely storing a gun is fundamental to the National Rifle Association’s safety rules, but as of 2016, only about half of firearm owners reported doing so for all of their guns.

Some evidence shows that when health-care workers counsel patients and give them a locking device, it leads to safer storage habits. Doctors are now trying to figure out the best way to broach the conversation. Physicians talk about sex, drugs, and even (if your earbuds are too loud) rock and roll. But to many firearm owners, guns are different.

Not so long ago, powerful physicians argued that if guns were causing so much harm, people should just quit them. In the 1990s, the director of the CDC’s injury center said that a public-health approach to firearm injury would mean rebranding guns as a dangerous vice, like cigarettes. “It used to be that smoking was a glamor symbol—cool, sexy, macho,” he told The New York Times in 1994. “Now it is dirty, deadly—and banned.” In the 2010s, the American Academy of Pediatrics’ advice was to “NEVER” have a gun in the home, because the presence of one increased a child’s risk of suicide or injury so greatly. (“Do not purchase a gun,” the group warned bluntly.) And when asked in 2016 whom they would go to for safe-storage advice, firearm owners ranked physicians second to last, above only celebrities.

In the past couple of decades, some states have toyed with laws that curtail doctors’ ability to talk with patients about firearms and the information they can collect, to assuage gun owners’ privacy concerns.
Only in Florida did the most restrictive version—what physicians call a “gag law”—pass, in 2011; six years later, a federal court struck it down. But “I think the gag orders, even though they’re not in effect now, really scared people,” Amy Barnhorst, an emergency psychiatrist and firearm-injury-prevention researcher at UC Davis, told me. A smattering of studies have found that doctors—particularly pediatricians—generally think talking with their patients about firearm safety is important, but most of the time, they’re not doing it. As of 2019, only 8 percent of firearm owners said their doctor had ever brought it up.

That year, in California, Barnhorst launched the state-funded BulletPoints Project, a free curriculum that teaches health-care workers how and when to talk about firearms with their patients. The program instructs them to keep politics and personal opinions out of the conversation, and to ask only those patients who have particular reasons for extra caution—including people with children, those experiencing domestic violence, or those living with someone with a cognitive impairment. It also suggests more realistic advice than “Do not purchase a gun.” Maybe a patient has a firearm for self-defense (the most common reason to have one), so they’d balk at the idea of storing a gun unloaded and locked, with the ammunition separate. A health-care worker might recommend a quick-access lockbox instead.

Researchers are now testing whether these firearm conversations have the best outcome if doctors broach them only when there’s a clear reason or if they do it with every patient. Johns Hopkins is trialing a targeted approach, talking about firearms and offering gun locks in cases where pediatric patients have traumatic injuries.

Meanwhile, Northwell Health, which is New York State’s largest health system, asks everyone who comes into select ERs about gun access and offers locks to those who might need them. Both of these efforts are federally funded studies testing whether doctors feel confident enough to actually talk with patients about this, and whether those conversations lead people to store their firearms more securely.

For doctors, universal screening means “there’s no decision point of who you’re going to ask or when you’re going to ask,” Sandeep Kapoor, an assistant professor of emergency medicine who is helping implement the program at Northwell Health, told me.

So far, Northwell’s trial has screened about 45,000 patients, which signals that the approach can be scaled up. Kapoor told me that with this strategy, gun-safety conversations could eventually become as routine for patients as having their blood pressure taken. When she was in primary pediatrics, Katherine Hoops, a core faculty member at Johns Hopkins’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions, worked firearm safety into every checkup, as she would bike helmets and seat belts.

(The American Academy of Pediatrics still maintains that the safest home for a child is one without a gun, but the organization now recommends that pediatricians talk about secure storage with every family, and offers a curriculum on how to have this conversation.)

Universal screening can also find people whom a targeted approach might miss: The team at Northwell recently learned through screening questions that a 13-year-old who came in with appendicitis had been threatened with guns by bullies, and brought in his parents, a team of social workers, and the school to help.

But a patient in the ER for a sprained ankle may understandably wonder why a doctor is asking about firearms. “There’s no context,” Chris Barsotti, an emergency-medicine physician and a co-founder of the American Foundation for Firearm Injury Reduction in Medicine, told me. The firearm community, he said, remembers when “the CDC wanted to stigmatize gun ownership,” so any movement for health care workers to raise these questions needs nuance. To his mind, these should be tailored conversations.

Betz, of the University of Colorado, raises the question only when a patient is at risk, and believes that firearm safety can otherwise be in the background of a practice—for example, in a waiting room where secure-storage brochures are displayed alongside pamphlets on safe sex and posters on diabetes prevention.

About half of firearm-owning patients agree that it’s sometimes appropriate for a doctor to talk with them about firearms, according to a 2016 study by Betz and her colleagues. They’re even more okay with it if they have a child at home. The physicians I asked said that the majority of the time, these conversations go smoothly.

But Betz’s study also found that 45 percent of firearm-owning patients thought doctors should never bring up guns. Paul Hsieh, a radiologist and a co-founder of the group Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine, wrote in an email that gun owners he’s spoken with “find the question about firearms ownership intrusive in a different way than questions about substance use or sexual partners.”

Chethan Sathya, a pediatric trauma surgeon and the director of Northwell Health’s Center for Gun Violence Prevention, pointed out that those topics used to be contentious for physicians to talk about. To treat guns as a public-health issue, “we can’t be uncomfortable having conversations,” he told me.

But doctors have more power in this situation than they do in others. They might tell someone with diabetes to stop having soda three times a day, but they can’t literally take soda away from a patient. With guns, they might be able to. In states with extreme-risk laws, if a health-care provider believes that their patient poses an immediate threat to themselves or others, they can work with law enforcement to petition the court to temporarily remove someone’s firearms; a handful of states allow medical professionals to file these petitions directly. There are many people “across America right now who own guns and won’t come to counseling, because they don’t want their rights taken away for real or imagined reasons,” Jake Wiskerchen, a mental-health counselor in Nevada who advocates for such patients, told me. They worry that if their doctor includes gun-ownership status in their medical record, they could be added to a hypothetical national registry of firearm owners. And if questions about guns were to become truly routine in a doctor’s office—such as on an intake form—he said owners might just lie or decide they “don’t want to go to the doctor anymore.”

Physicians accordingly choose their words carefully. They talk about preventing firearm injury instead of gun violence—both because the majority of gun deaths are suicides, not homicides, and because it’s a less loaded term. Telling a diabetic patient to cut back on soda might work, but people “are not just going to throw their guns in the trash,” Barnhorst, of UC Davis, told me. “There’s a lot more psychological meaning behind firearms for people than there is for sodas.”

Barsotti says a public-health approach to firearm safety requires more engagement with the upwards of 30 percent of American adults who own a firearm. Owners of shooting ranges and gun shops are already “practicing public health without the benefit of medical or public-health expertise,” he told me. They’re running their own storage programs for community members who don’t want their guns around for whatever reason; they’re bringing their friends for mental-health treatment when they might be at risk. Betz’s team collaborated with gun shops, shooting ranges, and law-enforcement agencies in Colorado to create a firearms-storage map of sites willing to hold guns temporarily, and she counsels gun clubs on suicide prevention, as a co-founder of the Colorado Firearm Safety Coalition. Exam-room conversations can be lifesaving, but in curbing gun injury, Betz told me, health-care workers “have one role to play. We’re not the solution.”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

How They’ll Try to Sue Glock Into Oblivion

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops You have to be kidding, right!?!

DOJ Creates New Center to Help Local Officials Apply ‘Red Flag’ Laws Against Certain Gun Owners

by Arjun Singh

 

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced on Saturday the creation of a new entity to train state and local officials on procedures to apply “red flag” laws that temporarily prevent certain individuals from owning a firearm.

The National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center is an entity created under the DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) that will both educate and assist local officials when they initiate legal proceedings to obtain “red flag” orders that rescind an individual’s right to bear arms based on the belief that they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others, according to the DOJ’s press release. The individuals to be trained are “law enforcement officials, prosecutors, attorneys, judges, clinicians, victim service and social service providers, community organizations, and behavioral health professionals.”

“The launch of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center will provide our partners across the country with valuable resources to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said in the press release. “The establishment of the Center is the latest example of the Justice Department’s work to use every tool provided by the landmark Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to protect communities from gun violence.”

Red flag orders, or ERPOs, have previously been supported by gun control advocacy groups.

“Gun violence is a complex issue that requires comprehensive solutions. Extreme risk laws are an evidence-based tool that can help prevent many forms of gun violence tragedies before they ever occur — suicide, interpersonal violence, and mass shootings alike,” Brady: United Against Gun Violence, a non-profit organization that advocates for gun control, wrote on its website.

ERPOs are issued by state courts in civil proceedings to prevent persons from purchasing or possessing firearms should they be deemed likely to use them to harm themselves or others, the press release explains. Twenty-one states along with Washington, D.C. have passed such laws.

“OJP’s investment in ERPO programs demonstrates the Department’s commitment to addressing the gun violence crisis in the United States,” Assistant Attorney General Amy Solomon wrote in the press release. “This crisis cannot be solved at one level of government. We must use all of our resources and collaborate at the federal, state, and local levels to find innovative, evidence-based, and holistic solutions to help keep American communities safe.”

Measures such as ERPOs have been opposed by conservative groups, who argue that they are abused to deprive individuals of rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, which establishes that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“So-called ‘Red Flag’ orders, or Emergency Risk Protection Orders, are designed to empower the government to confiscate Americans’ firearms without due process of law,” the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action wrote in 2022. “Aside from allowing run-of-the-mill malicious actors to indulge personal grudges against law-abiding gun owners, in the current politically-charged environment, these laws enable the government to target those with First Amendment-protected political views the government disfavors.”

– – –

Arjun Singh is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation.
Photo “Merrick Garland” by The United States Department of Justice.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Gun Prohibitionists Show True Colors by What They DON’T Say of Russian Mass Shooting by David Codrea

If the laws they’re demanding are already in place and it doesn’t advance the gun banners’ agenda, they just don’t think a mass shooting is worth mentioning. (Mosreg.ru, CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

New deaths are still occurring following Friday’s massacre at Crocus City Hall just outside Moscow, with the figure at 137 at this writing. That’s almost 2½ times the body count amassed in the Las Vegas shootings, despite Russian gun laws that would merit an “A+” rating from the Giffords Law Center for U.S. states, with infringements including licensing, registration, background checks, psychiatric clearance, and police permission.

Now, despite facts still unfolding and the investigation being completed by a government of questionable credibility, fingers are being pointed with certainty by factions with a dog in the fight.

The official version is that ISIS has claimed responsibility and that an escape plan had been uncovered leading to Ukraine, which in turn points back at Russian President Vladimir Putin using this as an excuse to ramp up aggression. Others are claiming fingerprints all over this belonging to Mossad, MI6, and the CIA, especially after “the State Department warned Russia it was picking up ‘chatter’ about a possible terrorist attack that could occur at a concert.”

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” has never been the long suit of lynch mobs, and the agencies and governments mentioned have only their own past outrages to blame for being suspects. As for the reliability of information yet to be learned, while cutting off a terrorist’s ear, trying to force him to eat it, and plastering his bloodied mug on the front page may have a certain appeal to those looking for creative ways to deter domestic mass shooters looking for their 15 minutes of fame, any intel coerced with torture will have its own credibility issues (along with an Eighth Amendment proscription we allow to be disregarded at our peril). Besides, low-hanging fruits are generally the last to know who the informants and provocateurs in their cells really are or work for.

Plenty of other reports will talk about all this, so let’s look at an aspect of this story not getting any press—and that’s deliberate. Let’s look at what the gun prohibitionists, who are always quick to gin up the mob and demand more infringements before the facts are known, aren’t saying about the Russia concert massacre and why.

We can start with the Drudge Report, undeserving of its phony “conservative” reputation and undeservedly influential (“21,993,168 PAST 24 HOURS 527,508,370 PAST 31 DAYS 7,011,443,587 PAST YEAR” at this writing), with screaming headlines (BLOODBATHSTORMY DANIELS!) that are really thinly disguised in-kind contributions to Democrats.

Where are the extra-large bold font ALL CAPS links to the biggest mass shooting since Beslan?

Forget headlines. Why, on Sunday afternoon following the Friday massacre, must we scroll to find it buried at MSNBC and assigned equal importance as “What to know about the dizzying allegations around Dodgers star Shohei Ohtani’s translator” and “Alabama’s new anti-DEI law could cause a student athlete exodus”?

So much for the “media.” What about “social media”?

@TheDemocrats over at X, the party of citizen disarmament, can’t be bothered. They’re too focused on the competing priorities of Women’s History Month and how “@KamalaHarris  inspires girls and young women everywhere” (let’s hope not!).

Meanwhile, Gungrabber-in-Chief @JoeBiden is “proud to stand with the Latino community today and every day” (a few days after the El Paso border invaders exhibited violence that would have gotten J6 protestors 10 more years) and brags he will “fix broken student loan problems.” Can there be any doubt that had a shooting 1/10th the scale happened here, he’d be demanding more gun bans and telling more lies?

Ditto for Astroturf rice bowl prohibitionists @MomsDemand@Everytown@GIFFORDS_org@BradyBuzz, and @AMarch4OurLives. Not a word from them or from indignant professional pearl-clutcher David Hogg at this writing.

It’s almost like “gun violence” is just a made-up term used to exploit low-information voter emotions, and “gun safety” isn’t really the issue at all with these people. It’s almost like it’s all one big, stupid scam to swindle their countrymen out of their birthrights for reasons they won’t state, and if a story won’t serve those purposes, it’s not worth mentioning. Especially if, as in Russia, the government has already been doing everything they demand here – for years…


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Well I thought it was funny!

If they can find them that is……………..

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Gun Logic from my Buddy Jason

  1. Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it’s time to raise the age of Smart Phone ownership to 21. 

 

  1. (FACT) – If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry!

 

 

  1. The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.

 

  1. Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you’d know it.

 

 

  1. When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle.

 

  1. The NRA (National Rifle Association) murders 0 people and receives (0 $$$$) nothing in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.

 

 

  1. I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we’re at it, let’s do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D., and candidates running for office.

 

  1. Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and probably has a trillion rounds. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that would work out?

 

 

  1. A man who left 300,000 guns for the Taliban is lecturing folks on gun control.

 

Don’t be afraid to share this. There’s more logic and common sense expressed here than probably anything you have seen on the news today.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

Is it not amazing on how one can so quickly end their political career?

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Hawaii Justices “Declare War” on U.S. Supreme Court, to the Cheers of Anti-Gun Media

In Hawaii, a man who was peacefully carrying a pistol for his own self-protection while on a nature hike was arrested and subject to felony prosecution under state laws that generally confine the possession of guns and ammunition to one’s own home or premises.

The man, Christopher Wilson, invoked the Second Amendment and Hawaii’s constitutional right to arms (with wording identical to the Second Amendment) in his defense. Wilson prevailed on these claims in the lower court, and the state appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.

There, the court disparaged Wilson’s federally-guaranteed right to bear arms and denied him standing to challenge the state’s license to carry law, even though the state illegally refused to issue licenses during the relevant time period.

In doing so, the court openly mocked the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence; adopted dissenting language as binding law; and cited a television show and the Aloha Spirit” in its “reasoning.”

The opinion in State v. Wilson thus makes plain the thinly-disguised refusal anti-gun states have shown to complying with the Second Amendment. The anti-gun media is likewise dropping its usual pretense to celebrate this act of judicial rebellion.

We have written extensively about the open defiance anti-gun states have shown to the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of its decisions recognizing and elaborating upon the individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.

To summarize, each time the Supreme Court has issued an opinion upholding this right, anti-gun states have responded by passing laws that make obtaining and lawfully using firearms more difficult, more expensive, and less practical for law-abiding people.

They have also insisted that existing laws passed under the pretext that no individual right existed under the Second Amendment were somehow nevertheless perfectly consistent with that right.

Then, when they add even more burdens to those laws after the individual right is articulated in binding case law, they invoke “public safety” to justify measures that have nothing to do with antisocial behavior.

This charade – as transparent, tiresome, and aggravating as it is – has nevertheless provided one opportunity after another for the U.S. Supreme Court to build upon its Second Amendment rulings.

Since 2008, with the landmark decision of District of Columbia v. Heller, firearm prohibitionist have gone 0 for 4 before the high court. One other case was favorably mooted for their side, but that merely set up an epic loss for them two years later in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.

This has made prohibitionists increasingly furious, vengeful, desperate, and defiant. Yet that defiance has largely operated within the pretext of regular order, in which lip service is paid to complying with the law and to the ultimate authority of the Supreme Court in construing the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.

Wilson is notable not so much for ignoring or misapplying Supreme Court precedent – which is the typical modus operandi of prohibitionist judges – but for the openness of the contempt, disrespect, and rebelliousness it displays to superior judicial authority.

The legal profession is dependent upon norms of professionalism, civility, neutrality, and respect for established hierarchies. It has binding codes of conduct to enforce these norms, among which in Hawaii include the injunction to avoid falsely or recklessly impugning the integrity of judges or other legal officers.

Judges themselves are held to an even higher standard of conduct and must avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” To be sure, the profession does not always live up to the letter or spirit of these norms, but they remain an important safeguard in upholding the legitimacy of the legal system. After all, if a person cannot resort to the judicial system to peacefully adjudicate disputes or violations of vested rights, what options are left?

Ironically, one of the best sources in explaining just how far afield the Wilson opinion is of these norms is an article published by the anti-gun media organ Bloomberg News (the namesake of which, Michael Bloomberg, is a leading funder and advocate of the firearm prohibition cause). That article also abandons the norms that once applied to the profession it represents and unreservedly cheers what it calls the Hawaii Supreme Court’s declaration of “war.”

The article is headlined “Hawaii Rightly Rejects Supreme Court’s Gun Nonsense.” It begins with the assertion, “Blue states are not generally known for attacking the federal government or running rogue programs in defiance of federal law,” an implicit acknowledgement that what is to follow is an example of exactly that.

Yet even as the article manages a disparaging reference to “an insurrectionist who wants to be president,” it takes the side of state justices whose “frustration” with the Supreme Court “flowed like lava from an angry volcano” and who rejected any obligation of “deference” or even “basic respect.”

But it’s not just the opinion’s unusual tone that earns the approval of Bloomberg’s scribe. “Hawaii declared Bruen null and void in the Aloha State,” the article continues, a move it characterizes as “an open display of contempt.” It goes on: “The purpose of the Hawaii opinion … is not merely to shame the passengers of the constitutional clown car in Washington. It’s to declare war on the chaos that they enable.”

The article also indulges in its own swipes at the Supreme Court, criticizing its purported “hackishness” and seething, “The US Supreme Court is perhaps best understood as an old-school ward heeler who dresses Christmas turkeys for the neighborhood partisans in highfalutin words.” It concludes by calling the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence a “game” the “Hawaii Supreme Court seems to be finished playing.”

Temper tantrums may provide a temporary catharsis for weak-minded individuals with low impulse control. Rarely, however, do they prevail where serious people are engaged in the mature business of making consequential decisions. Hopefully Mr. Wilson’s case eventually lands before such a tribunal, for it is his right as an American – and those of his fellow Hawaiians – that are the casualty of those actors in the state and media who believe their indignation is a law unto itself.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Will Gun Laws Change in Louisiana?

https://youtu.be/UmP2kld94vw