Another act of lawless deception by President Obama...

The President is now using an executive order to attempt a back door method of gun control by banning "green tipped" .223 bullets commonly used in the AR-15 rifles for target practice.  His reasoning is that there have been variations of the AR created recently which are pistol versions of the firearm, that these "pistols" fire the Green tipped bullets which are "armor piercing" and will penetrate police body armor killing cops.  As any AR-15 target shooter knows, the Green tip signifies that the bullet is 62 grains rather than the lower weight 55 grain version.  These bullets are lead filled and not of the solid core, armor piercing variety as claimed by the President.  Further, every high powered handgun or long gun (rifle) is capable of piercing most of the lower grade types of body armor worn by police while on every day patrol.

This is just another example of the most outrageous of lies being fed to the pulp fiction supporters of President Obama. IE...those who are so willing to accept anything he says without another thought that they become zombies to his anti-American agenda.

Let's examine the facts of Obama's claim...Police officer murders. The best method of examining this claim is to review the actual number of police officer murders.  We can then review the actual ability of pretty much any centerfire rifle and even most high powered handguns to shoot through soft body armor generally worn by police. 

The best resource for understanding the threat to police officers is the annual FBI report on Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. A look that this report shows that in 2013 (the most recent data available), 27 police officers were murdered in the United States with firearms. Of those, the table of types of weapon used shows that ALL RIFLES COMBINED accounted for 5 murders. Eighteen officers were murdered with handguns, and three with shotguns. In the other case the type of firearm was not listed.

Of the five officers murdered with rifles, two were murdered with .223 rifles of any type. 

Table 41 of the report reveals exactly zero deaths occurred in 2013 because the victim's body armor was penetrated. To reiterate, not a single officer died in 2013 from having her/his vest penetrated by any caliber firearm. Regardless of the fact that the vast majority of officers wear Class III or lower grade body armor which won’t stop a bullet fired at close range from a large caliber handgun.

In fact, the same table shows that only 3 officers have been killed since 2004 by any .223 or 5.56x45mm round penetrating any type of vest. One death occurred in 2004, one in 2008, and one in 2011. There is no indication that any of those involved M855 or higher than class III, rifle-resistant armor. During the same period between 2004 and 2013, 7 police were murdered through their vests from hunting caliber rifle shots (.30-30 Winchester, 7mm, .308, or .30-06), 5 were murdered through their vests using 7.62x39mm the caliber used in the AK-47 Russian military rifle, and 385 were murdered with ordinary pistols and revolvers, almost all of which involved hits to unprotected areas of police who were not wearing body armor. 

After actually analyzing the data, it is obvious that the number of annual police officer deaths that would be averted by banning M855 "Green Tipped" ammo is zero. The .223 round is rarely used to murder police officers, and in the rare event it is, it rarely involves vest penetration, ie... where the body armor of any kind is worn.

The consideration is to look at murder in general. The best source for this information is the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, particularly Table 20, Murder by State and Type of Weapon. According to the UCR, there were 12,253 murders reported to the FBI in 2013 across the entire United States. According to Table 20, all rifles combined accounted for 285 of these murders. That is less than 3% of the total number of murders, and it includes all the cops murdered.  It also includes all the murders committed with the AR-15 type rifles as a part of the whole.  So considering that the number of police officers murdered by a rifle is a subset of the 3% of those murdered by rifle and that the AR-15 type rifle is a subset of the number of murders by rifle and that the number of AR-15 rifles firing “green tipped” bullets at during the commission of a police homicide is a subset of the police killed by AR-15 type firearms and we then apply this small subset to Obamas claim of AR-15 pistol conversions being used to kill cops, the odds of a police officer being killed by a “Green Tipped” .223 bullet shot from an AR-15 type firearm converted to a pistol are about as long as that same police officer winning the Powerball lottery.

Bottom line, this is just another case of an outlaw president believing he is above the law and pushing his illegal usurpation of his office to the extreme.  If we, the American people don't push back in the most strenuous terms, he will continue to take our freedom until we have none left.  At least some in the legislature understand this and are standing up for the Patriots, the rule of law and the good of America!

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=884434358246018&fref=nf

McDonald vs. Chicago

This case is based upon the 1982 law in which Chicago enacted a handgun ban, along with other firearms regulations, because “the convenient availability of firearms and ammunition has increased firearm related deaths and injuries” and handguns “play a major role in the commission of homicide, aggravated assaults and armed robbery.” Chicago City Council, Journal of Proceedings, Mar. 19, 1982, at 10049. Under Chicago’s ordinance, “[n]o person shall . . . possess . . . any firearm unless such person is the holder of a valid registration certificate for such firearm,” and no person may possess “any firearm which is unregisterable.” Unregisterable firearms include most handguns, but rifles and shotguns that are not sawed-off, short-barreled, or assault weapons are registerable. Registerable firearms must be registered before being possessed in Chicago and registration must be renewed annually. Failure to renew “shall cause the firearm to become unregisterable.”

The case has been narrowed to a question of whether the 14th amendment “privileges and immunities” and “due process” clauses incorporate the 2nd amendment. At it’s core, the issue is whether the states rights overrule the Federal regulations. The Slaughter-house decision of 1873 is very prominent. The point in the Slaughter-house decision is: “the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state is clearly recognized and established” The Petitioners counsel argues “SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all-but-universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.”

The Petitioners case is based upon the incorporation of the 2nd amendment into the 14th amendment. They claim that “the right should be deemed a privilege or immunity of national citizenship even under the test set forth in The Slaughter-House Cases. Thus, even if the Court declines to incorporate the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it should still incorporate it through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Their argument is centered upon the rights of the individual as seemingly incorporated across the history of the United States.

Many, myself included, are opposed to giving the Federal government the power to impose regulatory oversight on the States, for the same reasons that I would oppose giving the United Nations the power to impose regulatory standards on the U.S. I believe that states should be able to determine what is best for the individuals living within the state regardless of the desire of the Federal Government. This presents opposition to Gura’s argument based upon the 14th amendment and I would rather see the argument made based upon the merits of the 2nd amendment alone.


The respondents case is focused on the first sentence of the 14th amendment. "All persons born and naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State where they reside" The question is whether the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment. The Respondents claim that “neither the Court’s selective incorporation doctrine under the Due Process Clause nor the Privileges or Immunities Clause provides a basis for imposing the Second Amendment on the States and establishing a national rule limiting arms regulation.” Respondents claim “local differences are to be cherished as elements of liberty rather than extirpated in order to produce a single, nationally applicable rule,” and “[f]ederalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon.”

They infer that the terms incorporate severance rather than inclusivity. In other words, the states have the right to infer regulations which are more or less restrictive than Federal regulations. Neither argument, in my opinion, considers the rights of the individual wqhich is the basis for the decision o in DC vs. Heller.

In DC vs. Heller, which only 2 years ago ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment, the question of whether the states have the right to restrict gun ownership was left unanswered. This is the question which McDonald is seeking to answer. Perhaps it will require the incorporation of the 14th amendment to make the case. If so, I hope that the ruling is limited to the priviledges and immunity clause rather than including the due process clause as well. This will identify the right to “keep and bear arms” as a right of the individual and not a right bestowed by the Federal or State government to the people. I worry that expanding the decision to include the “Due Process” clause will open the door to Federal expansion and limit both the rights of the state and of the individual.

The justices were surprisingly animated and seemed skeptical of any attempt to restrict the rights of the individual. They seemed to wonder, based upon their questions, why they should reconsider their finding in DC vs. Heller, that the rights granted in the 2nd amendment flowed to the individual. It will be interesting to see how the opinion comes down, but my guess is that there will probably be another five/four vote to reverse the decision of the Chicago court and affirm the individual right to own firearms without addressing the question of the 14th amendment Due Process and priviledges clauses