Forget about trying to bring more jobs to the Sunshine State or focusing on Florida's high rate of foreclosures, state Sen. Audrey Gibson thinks what the state really needs is for people to take an anger management course before they can purchase ammunition. Yes, really:
The bill filed Saturday by state Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, would require a three-day waiting period for the sale of any firearm and the sale of ammunition to anyone who has not completed anger management courses. The proposal would require ammo buyers to take the anger management courses every 10 years. “This is not about guns," Gibson said.
"This is about ammunition and not only for the safety of the general community, but also for the safety of law enforcement.”
When Executive Director of Florida Carry Sean Caranna first heard about the bill he thought it had to be a joke. “They’re trying to say that anyone who owns a gun or shoots a gun or has ammunition for it needs counseling and obviously has some anger problems.”
The bill states, “[Selling] ammunition to another person who does not present certification that he or she has successfully completed an anger-management program consisting of at least 2 hours of online or fact-to-face instruction in anger-management techniques”—violation of which results in a second-degree misdemeanor charge.
However, attorney Jon Gutmacher says it’s very likely the bill would be found unconstitutional. “It has no reasonable relationship to anything,” he said. “There has to be a reasonable basis to believe that a person had a substantial anger problem that could cause public harm.”
Perhaps Gibson should be required to take a course on the U.S. Constitution before filing another bill.
Gun-rights advocates will be excited about this one: Colion Noir will be joining NRA News as its newest contributor.
If you’re part of the Youtube gun community at all you’ve certainly seen some of Noir’s videos where he breaks down gun arguments into easy to understand terms and cut through stereotypes.
Noir has over 82,000 subscribers on Youtube and over 6.7 million views on his videos.
We could not think of a better spokesman for the NRA to have right now.
Noir’s ability to cut through the BS and identify with younger gun enthusiasts should make him invaluable in the fight for our rights.
If you aren't familiar with Noir, take a minute to watch this introductory video--you'll be glad you did:
When it comes to gun laws, California is vying to have the strictest in the nation. It comes as no surprise, then, that the state is not a particularly business-friendly environment for those in the gun industry.
And so Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s wishes are beginning to come true:
Shield Tactical, a California retailer and firearms training provider, has decided to ‘get the heck out of Dodge’ — and move to Texas
John W. Harrington founded Shield Tactical in 2008, but with California’s hard-line stance on gun control, he decided the state was no longer a good place for his business. Harrington, originally from Texas, said it was finally “time to go home.”
“The state of California treats all businesses as necessary evils,” he told Red Alert. “They treat those of us in the gun business as just evil. They make it very clear that they don’t want us there. It’s just that simple.”
As new gun control measures are being advanced in state legislatures across the nation, Gov. Perry has been trying to lure gun and ammunition manufacturers to set up shop in the Lone Star State—even making a recruitment trip out to California to do so. Although Shield Tactical didn’t make the decision based on the governor’s efforts alone, Harrington said, “it didn’t hurt.”
Harrington hasn’t calculated the total cost of the relocation — which will not include their training division — but he expects it to be “in the tens of thousands.” He considers the investment “well worth it,” if only for the attention it has brought to the cause of gun rights advocates.
Meanwhile, Beretta and Magpul are also considering parting ways with Maryland and Colorado, respectively.
H/T: Red Alert Politics
In the wake of the Newtown massacre, New York became the first state to pass new control laws. Gov. Cuomo wanted to do something—and quickly. So, one month after the tragedy in Connecticut, New Yorkers found their Second Amendment rights further constrained by a slew of new laws. But as the saying goes, haste makes waste. First they forgot to exempt law enforcement from their new ban on high-capacity magazines, and now, Cuomo realized he forgot about his Hollywood friends. The state is seeking to provide a special exemption to ensure “movie and TV producers can stage running gun battles on Manhattan streets.” Why, you ask?
Movie and TV productions have long been courted by New York and other states with tax breaks in exchange for the jobs and glamour of the industry. Hollywood is also a major campaign fundraising stop for New York politicians.
"We spend a lot of money in the state bringing movie production here, post-production here, so obviously we would want to facilitate that," said Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who wants to expand the film and TV tax credit.
He said movies and TV may use fake guns that wouldn't be subject to the new law but the industry wants "certainty." The revised law would allow them to use real weapons without real ammunition.
"There's no reason not to make a change like that to give an industry comfort, especially when it's an industry we want to do business in the state," the governor said.
First of all, Hollywood elites are being lured with tax breaks, yet it’s precisely these individuals and their progressive friends who continue to extol the virtues of higher taxes, as John Hanlon discussed in his feature on the issue in Townhall Magazine.
Secondly, it’s nice to know that Cuomo wants to go out of his way to give the industry comfort as they produce more violence-laden films. Don’t forget, media violence was one of the other topics discussed in the “national conversation” that unfolded in the wake of the Newtown tragedy, which somehow fell by the wayside in favor of more gun legislation.
And finally, what about considering an exception for law-abiding New Yorkers? My colleague Erika Johnsen over at Hot Air weighs in:
Gee, I don’t suppose that next they’ll consider an exemption for law-abiding New Yorkers who want to use firearms for self-defense, perhaps? Oh no, never — because Hollywood’s motives are certainly well-intentioned, while 99.99 percent of gun owners, well… we just can’t be sure, can we?
About that last point—looks like the gun control debate in New York isn't over yet:
The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.
New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.
It turns out wasteful government spending on lavish conferences didn’t end with the GSA’s Las Vegas bash in 2010. According to a new congressional report, 894 conferences were held in 2012 costing taxpayers a whopping $340 million. Worse yet, these figures only include “big-ticket” conferences, or those with a price tag of $100,000 or more.
The numbers, released in conjunction with a hearing Wednesday on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, come as the federal government braces for automatic spending cuts set to hit Friday. Some lawmakers have claimed that Washington could offset the impact by trimming the waste -- be it low-priority hires, needless government studies, or conferences.
While trimming government waste certainly isn’t the only means by which we can bring our out-of-control spending in line, it's certainly the best first step, and people like Sen. Rand Paul are setting a fine example of fiscal prudence for others to follow. It’s absurd to think that most American families have to cut back every day just to balance the budget yet government bureaucrats think the slightest cuts are unfair. What’s particularly troubling, however, is that a few agencies held more than 100—in one year.
But the Defense Department, which is also the biggest department in Washington, held nearly 300 conferences at a cost of $89 million.
The Department of Veterans Affairs held 127 at a cost of $72.7 million; the Justice Department held 107 at a cost of $58.7 million; and the Department of Health and Human Services held 140, at a cost of $56.1 million.
And for what? “A lot of them are essentially sessions to make people feel good,” Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Darrell Issa says.
Washington bureaucrats could stand to learn a thing or two from Neal Boortz’s Dollar Bill Savings Plan.
It’s no surprise that the ebb and flow of gun and ammunition production closely follows the changing political landscape in America. The most significant peaks in production are seen leading up to the 1994 “Assault Weapons Ban,” and after the election of President Obama. Although he didn’t advance a gun control agenda in his first term, production has been on a steady and dramatic rise throughout his presidency—reaching an all-time high.
Source: Sources National Shooting Sports Foundation; IBISWorld
Frank Pompa, Janet Loehrke and Denny Gainer, USA TODAY
Since the administration’s push for gun control in the wake of Newtown, however, supply has not been able to keep up with demand. Stag Arms, for example, is so overwhelmed they’ve actually stopped taking orders and the company’s president Mark Malkowski says they’re not alone—“It’s like this across the industry.” While it’s good for business for now, if new gun legislation comes to fruition that could all change.
"This administration represents the most serious threat to the industry since the 1990s," said Larry Keane, the National Shooting Sports Foundation's general counsel, referring to Congress' enactment of the decade-long assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. "The stakes are very high."
From manufacturing to sales, the overall firearms industry employs nearly 100,000 people in the U.S, providing roughly $4 billion in wages.
ABC news is defending their decision to selectively edit Michelle Obama’s claim during Good Morning America today that an “automatic weapon” was used in the murder of Hadiya Pendleton, the 15-year-old who was killed shortly after performing at President Obama’s inaugural celebration. The “sole” reason, they argue, was for time.
Via the Washington Examiner, the first lady’s quote in full is below, showing the portions removed:
She was standing out in a park with her friends in a neighborhood blocks away from where my kids grow – grew – up, where our house is.
She had just taken a chemistry test.And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need.I just don’t want to keep disappointing our kids in this country. I want them to know that we put them first.
Those 10 words, or 17 in total, do not take enough time to warrant an edit on that basis alone in my opinion. The fact is that the first lady made a false claim that the weapon was automatic when it wasn’t. The Associated Press reported police said a man “opened fire with a handgun before fleeing in a waiting car.” If she didn’t actually know what kind of weapon was used, however, wouldn’t it have been more natural to have just said, “Because some kids had some guns they didn’t need”? Probably. But even if she meant to say, “assault weapon,” she was definitely attempting to use the gun-control agenda buzzwords. Either way, the edit (er, not in the web version) assured that she didn't make an erroneous claim on the show and/or look ignorant on the issue.
If, however, she truly doesn’t know the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons, Emily Miller breaks it down for her:
Automatic weapons have been highly regulated for civilian owners since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Owning one means going through an extensive process and background checks with the ATF. It is hard to believe that Mrs. Obama, a Harvard Law School grad, is not aware of the national firearms laws.
They have been banned from manufacture and import since 1986, so the low demand has made them very expensive, often more than $20,000. The last known crimes from automatic firearms were by law enforcement in the 1980s. Street criminals can’t get them, but confusing the public into believing that gang members are using weapons of war helps perpetuate myths to push a gun-control agenda.
Any way you want to look at what the first lady said, she was completely wrong on the most important point: Hadiya Pendleton’s life was taken because of someone’s decision to pull a trigger--and that has nothing to do with what type of weapon was used.
Thought you’d make it through the Oscars without your daily dose of the Obamas? In an unprecedented move, Michelle Obama appeared last night via Satellite to announce the winner of Best Picture.
"These nine movies took us back in time and all around the world. They made us laugh, they made us weep, and they made us grip our armrests just a little tighter. They taught us that love can endure against all odds and transform our lives in the most surprising ways. They reminded us that we can overcome any obstacle if we dig deep enough and fight hard enough and find the courage to believe in ourselves. These lessons apply to all of us no matter who we are, or what we look like, or where we come from, or who we love, but they are especially important for our young people..."
And so the Obamas leave no cultural stone unturned. The Drudge Report’s first headline of the story, “Hollywood, DC” seems most fitting as there seems to be no separation of
church media and state these days. After Hollywood doing everything it could to re-elect the Obama, however, and the president’s celebrity status—this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
But whose idea was this?
It was Harvey Weinstein's daughter's idea.
According to Academy president Hawk Koch, the plan came from Weinstein and his daughter, Lily. Koch and Oscar show producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron loved the idea. And when it was pitched to the first lady, Zadan told The Hollywood Reporter that her response was, "Yes, I think it's a great idea. We watch movies all the time at the White House. Let's do it." […]
The Obama appearance was treated like a state secret, known to only a few of those working on the show. It was intentionally kept off the show's run sheets, so it wouldn't leak. On the Friday before the show, the Academy issued a release announcing that Nicholson and Dustin Hoffman would be serving as presenters.
And no—Reagan’s greeting to the audience at the Oscars is not a justification for this move—he was actually in the industry once upon a time.
Surprise, surprise—thanks to Obamacare, Florida now faces a growing shortage of doctors. The Florida Medical Association is also warning that the problem will worsen if the Florida legislature follows through with Gov. Scott’s recommendation to support Medicaid expansion—a dramatic policy reversal that would offer coverage to an additional 1 million Floridians.
"Florida needs more doctors and it needs more nurses, and it needs them working together in teams," said Rebecca O'Hara, a lobbyist for the FMA.
About 15 million Floridians have health insurance today, and Obamacare, which requires most adults to have coverage by January, could add as many as 2.5 million more. One million would come through a potential expansion of the federal-state Medicaid program that Scott announced this week he was backing. The others would be the result of new mandates requiring employers and individuals to have insurance or be fined.
Currently, the state has 44,804 doctors, but about 5,600 of them are expected to retire in the next five years. And even though Florida has opened three new medical schools in the past dozen years, the state isn't producing as many doctors as it needs. Scott's budget this year has $80 million to fund programs to train 700 new residents a year, in hopes they'll remain in the state.
Of all patients, people covered by Medicaid may have the hardest time finding a doctor; only 59 percent of the state's physicians are taking new Medicaid patients, according to a Kaiser Health News study.
So the supply of doctors (particularly specialists) is running low just as the demand is about to peak with the influx of newly-insured patients and an aging baby boomer generation. This problem is not unique to Florida, however. California is also facing shortages and it seems to be a nationwide trend. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that by 2020, the U.S. could face a shortage of more than 130,000 physicians. The outcome, of course, will be longer waits, much higher health care costs, fewer doctor-owned practices and the strong possibility that quality of care could be diminished as physicians are stretched thinner and lawmakers propose solutions that include redefining who qualifies as a doctor.
In the meantime, however, House and Senate leaders in Florida will soon begin budget deliberations—including whether or not to expand Medicaid. Although Gov. Perry’s has now agreed to the expansion, it’s the Republican-controlled legislature that will have the final say and Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford has already expressed his skepticism. In the end, this just may be Gov. Scott trying to have his cake and eat it too:
Tia Mitchell, who covers health care goings-on in Florida’s capital for the Tampa Bay Times, told MSNBC last weekend that she thinks that Gov. Scott is “getting the best of both worlds” by stating that he favors the expansion, while not pushing hard for the legislature to authorize it.
“Number one,” said Mitchell, “he is not saying Florida will [expand Medicaid, but that] Florida should. He is being very careful to say, if the legislature does this, this is what I would sign. And that’s an important distinction…He gets to look pragmatic and you know that he’s moderating himself; he is running for reelection in about a year. However, he’s not saying he’s going to advocate for this, or, that it’s even going to make it more likely that it actually happens in Florida.”
Executive Director of Armed Citizens Project Kyle Coplen is determined to figure out if more guns really lead to less crime. To do this, the organization is seeking to arm individuals in a few “mid to high crime” Houston neighborhoods to determine whether there’s a statistically significant relationship—or even a causal link—between an ‘increase in the presence of firearms and the level of crime.’
“We’re not just tossing a bunch of shotguns into a community and walking away,” Coplen told Fox 26.
Interested individuals must clear a background check, pass the organization’s safety, legal and tactical training and have lived in their current home for more than one year. Participants will receive “one break action 20 gauge shotgun, that holds one shell at a time,” the website states, adding that this weapon is ideal because it’s inexpensive, easy to use and most importantly, “it is of little to no value to criminals.”
Gun-control advocates often argue that an increase in guns in an area will lead to an increase in crime, while gun-rights advocates often believe that fewer guns result in more crime. While both sides often argue that their opponents policies will result in more crime, gun-control proponents have largely been the victors when it comes to policy implementation. Pro-gun activists have largely been content to simply fend off new potential gun control laws. It is my opinion that gun-rights activists must take the offensive, and actively encourage the increased presence of defensive weapons in society. Both sides believe that their policies will result in less crime, and it is about time that our side begins to act with the conviction and courage that it will take to win the debate.
Must Watch: Senator Explains Why He Changed From Being a Democrat to Being a Republican | Katie Pavlich