Tag Archives: NRA

Obama goes beyond mere gun control, hints at confiscation

He did promise fundamental transformation.


Breitbart: When President Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that America consider following the path blazed by Australia and Great Britain.

In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession.

Obama referenced the bans thus:

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings.  Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours.  So we know there are ways to prevent it.

And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage.

For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period.

On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.”

Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.

But none of this made any difference to Dan Savage, who responded to the attack on Umpqua Community College by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal. Savage tweeted, “Fk the NRA, fk the gun nuts, f**k the Second Amendment — better yet, repeal the Second Amendment.

Shannon Watts, mouthpiece for Moms Demand Action, tweeted this yesterday: “The father of the gunman who killed 9 in #UCCShooting said this about his son’s actions today on @CNN. #gunsense (with the statement below).

ucc shooter dad response

I have two words for these people:

molon labe


California weighs banning concealed handguns on campuses

What could possibly go wrong?


Sacramento Bee: Already praised by many gun control advocates for having the strictest firearms laws in the country, California is once again considering a move to tighten its restrictions with a ban on the concealed carry of handguns at colleges and schools.

Last year, California was the first in the nation to let families and police act to temporarily remove weapons from those considered at risk of violence. This time, it would follow dozens of other states that previously put similar prohibitions in place – and a growing number moving in the opposite direction to expand gun rights on campuses.

The concealed carry legislation, now on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk, puts California in the midst of a policy debate gaining prominence as gun advocates such as the National Rifle Association, having won significant victories guaranteeing the right of ownership, turn their focus to the right to carry and the status of firearms in public spaces.

“There’s no question that the power of the NRA is at its height today,” said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School who studies the effects of gun laws on public safety. “People who want guns don’t want to have restrictions that impede them going about their daily lives.”

Current California law makes it illegal to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school or on a college campus without permission from administrators, but it includes exemptions for retired law enforcement and concealed carry permits.

Lois Wolk

Lois Wolk

Senate Bill 707, by Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the prohibition on school and college grounds to include concealed weapons, while keeping the same rules in place for the 1,000-foot zone surrounding schools and for law enforcement. On a nearly party-line vote, with Democrats in support and Republicans opposed, lawmakers approved the measure in early September; Brown has until Oct. 11 to act.

The idea for the bill came from university and college police, who say school officials should have more control over campus safety. Concealed handgun permits, which require residents to show “good cause” that they are in immediate danger, are handed out by county sheriffs, who vary in their interpretation of the policy.

Lurking on the periphery are two federal developments that could seriously undermine California’s restrictive law: Legislation proposed in Congress would require states to recognize concealed carry permits issued anywhere, though it has not yet advanced, and a lawsuit now at the appellate level has already seen one judge strike down the “good cause” requirement as unconstitutional. “If the decision of the 9th Circuit affirms the lower court, that will open the floodgates for people to get concealed carry permits,” Donohue said.

In a statement, Wolk said SB 707 “would put California more in line with most states that already forbid concealed firearms on school or college campuses.”

“This is one of the unusual cases where California law is more lax than other states,” she said. “Most people I hear from are astonished that someone could legally carry a concealed firearm on to school grounds.”

The 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech – still one of the deadliest in history with 33 casualties, including the perpetrator, and another 17 wounded – generated intense controversy over gun policy and brought the question of campus carry to the national stage. Eight years later, it continues to echo.

In a national address Thursday, President Barack Obama decried the lack of legislative effort to prevent further mass shootings, like the one that day at Umpqua Community College in Oregon, where a gunman killed nine people before dying in a shootout with police. The Oregon higher education board had previously banned guns from college campuses, but a court overturned that policy in 2011, stating that only the Legislature had the authority to regulate firearms.

California has faced recent incidents like the 2014 Isla Vista rampage that claimed the lives of six UC Santa Barbara students and their killer, and a confrontation at Sacramento City College last month that left one dead.

gun free zone

Much of the fight over campus carry boils down to whether guns make us more or less safe. Advocates argue that students with firearms may be able to help prevent crimes such as mass shootings and rapes.

Shannon Grove gets it

Shannon Grove gets it

Speaking against SB 707 on the Assembly floor, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove said carrying concealed weapons could offer a “sense of protection” to young women. “If I’m walking down the street at night, my Glock puts me on even footing with anybody that would ever try to come and hurt me,” the Bakersfield Republican said. During a Senate deliberation, Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, suggested it could be “a very strong way to curtail some of the nonsense that’s going on” with campus sexual assaults.

Laura Cutilleta

Laura Cutilleta

Gun control supporters counter that throwing firearms onto a campus with young people, alcohol, mental health issues and strongly-held beliefs on controversial topics is a dangerous mix. “It’s a fairly volatile environment,” said Laura Cutilleta, senior staff attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which advocated for SB 707. “To add guns to that is just alarming.”

It’s a debate that’s not likely to be settled any time soon. At least 14 states have introduced legislation to allow guns on campus in each of the past three years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. “We think it’s a really important issue,” NRA spokeswoman Amy Hunter said. “The right to personal safety doesn’t disappear the second you step on a campus.”


Gun control, Chicago style: 5 killed, 27 wounded in weekend shootings

Welcome to Chicago sign

MyFoxChicago: Five people were killed and at least 27 others have been hurt in shootings across Chicago since Friday evening.

The most recent fatal shooting happened early Sunday in the West Side Austin neighborhood. Two males were driving in the 1600 block of North Cicero about 3:50 a.m. when a light-colored vehicle pulled up alongside and someone inside fired shots, police said. One of the males was shot in his head and the other male was shot multiple times in his body, police said. Their ages were not immediately available. Both were taken to Stroger Hospital, where they were pronounced dead, police said. The Cook County medical examiner’s office could not immediately confirm the fatalities.

Early Saturday, a 17-year-old boy was shot dead in the Bridgeport neighborhood on the South Side. Richard Edwards and an 18-year-old man had left a party about 2:15 a.m. after they were “involved in an altercation,” according to police and the medical examiner’s office. As they were driving in a van in the 700 block of West 35th Street, a light-colored SUV pulled up and someone inside opened fire, police said. Edwards, of the 3900 block of South Lake Park, was shot in the armpit and was pronounced dead at the scene, authorities said. The other man was shot in the hand and shoulder and taken to Stroger Hospital, where his condition stabilized, police said.


As police investigated, a woman who said she was the teen’s mother was a half block away on Halsted, crying and pleading with officers to let her see her son’s body, which was covered by a sheet. “I just want my child,” she said. “I need to touch him. I need to hold him. I need to feel him.”

Late Friday, a 27-year-old man was discovered fatally shot in the Little Village neighborhood on the Southwest Side. Juan Ugalde was found unresponsive with a gunshot wound to the side of his face just before 10 p.m. in the 2300 block of South Washtenaw, authorities said. Ugalde, of the 2800 block of West 21st Street, was pronounced dead at the scene.

The weekend’s first shooting left 34-year-old Laurance Boyd dead Friday evening in the West Pullman neighborhood, authorities said. Boyd was sitting in a parked vehicle about 6 p.m. in the 1300 block of West 122nd Street when a gunman walked up and fired multiple shots, police said. The shooter then ran off eastbound.

Edwards, of the 12700 of South May in Calumet Park, was shot twice in the back and taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn, where he later died, officials said.

Early Saturday, five people were shot when gunfire erupted outside an Austin neighborhood party on the West Side. They were outside the party in the 0-100 block of North Lorel about 3 a.m. when a gunman approached from a gangway and opened fire, police said.

A 33-year-old woman was shot in the “neck or face” and taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in serious condition, police said. A 37-year-old woman was shot in the buttocks and a 38-year-old woman in the hand. They were also taken to Mount Sinai, where their conditions stabilized, police said. Two men — ages 23 and 26 — were each shot in the leg and taken to Stroger Hospital, where their conditions stabilized.

The weekend’s most recent nonfatal shooting happened Sunday morning in Englewood. A 38-year-old man was sitting in a vehicle in the 5700 block of South Lowe a few minutes after 5 a.m. when someone fired shots, police said.

He was shot in the left leg and someone drove him to Christ Medical Center, where his condition stabilized, police said.

At least 20 other people have been shot in separate attacks since Friday 7:45 p.m. Friday.

Pfleger, who has his head buried in the sand

Pfleger, who has his head buried in the sand

Meanwhile, instead of facing the real cause of these criminal acts, Reverend Michael Pfleger listed recent shootings in heavily gun-controlled Chicago then said the NRA “will pay pay for the murder of our children.”

See also:


Right to Bear Arms? Gun grabbing sweeping the nation

second amendment2

Fox News: Cherished family heirlooms were among the 21 firearms Michael Roberts surrendered to the Torrance Police Department in 2010, after his doctor filed a restraining order against him.

The court order was the result of a dispute Roberts had with a member of the doctor’s staff and, after Roberts pleaded no contest, the matter was resolved. Yet, even though he filed the proper Law Enforcement Gun Release paperwork on four separate occasions, obtained clearance from the California Department of Justice and had two court orders commanding the return of his guns, police refused to hand them over.

With the backing of the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association, Roberts filed a federal lawsuit in May 2014, over the $15,500 worth of firearms. In the end he got the money, but not the guns. The police had had them destroyed.

Eric_Holder_is_a_ThugSecond Amendment lawyers say his case is not rare. “NRA and CRPA constantly get calls from law abiding people having problems getting their guns back,” said Chuck Michel of Long Beach based Michel & Associates, who represented Roberts in the case. “The state Department of Justice wrongly tells police not to give guns back unless the person can document ownership of the gun and it is registered in the state DOJ’s database. But the law doesn’t require this.”

Gun owners can’t comply anyway, Michel said, because police themselves routinely fail to enter the firearms into the DOJ’s database, and most people don’t have receipts for the guns they own.

While Americans have the constitutional rights to keep and bear arms – and protect their property from government’s unlawful seizure – it is not just in California where guns are seized and destroyed illegally, attorneys charge.

“This kind of below-the-radar bureaucratic gun confiscation is a growing Second Amendment and property rights violation problem, particularly in strict gun control states like California, New Jersey and Massachusetts,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. “People can’t afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees to get back a $500 firearm.”

The Second Amendment Foundation’s most recent case involves Rick Bailey, a 56-year-old Navy veteran from Glendale, Ariz., whose entire collection of 28 firearms valued at $25,000 was seized by authorities because of an ongoing dispute with a neighbor.

After Bailey complained over several months to the city of Glendale that his neighbor frequently parked his landscaping company’s dump trucks in front of Bailey’s home — and toxic chemical odors were coming from his neighbor’s property — the neighbor obtained a harassment order against Bailey. Police showed up and seized Bailey’s gun collection.

“Mr. Bailey is devastated by this situation. We seem to live in an environment when someone’s life can be turned upside down on an allegation that should have been thoroughly investigated before any action was ordered by a court,” Gottlieb said. “We’re helping Bailey in his appeal of the judge’s order so he can not only reclaim his valuable firearms, but also some of his dignity as well.”

Convicted felon, gun grabber, and Obama supporter Ray Nagin

Convicted felon, gun grabber, and Obama supporter Ray Nagin

Probably the most notorious gun confiscation case happened after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans in 2005 when the city’s then-mayor, Ray Nagin, ordered all legally owned firearms seized. The Second Amendment Foundation successfully sued on behalf of thousands of law abiding gun owners to stop, or reverse, the confiscations. But hundreds more gun owners without legal representation or ownership paperwork had to abandon their guns. Those firearms still have not been destroyed, Gottlieb said.

In Massachusetts, residents who had their guns taken because of restraining orders or other reasons must pay a fee to a private storage company when their legal issues are resolved, regardless of their own culpability. The fees can run in the thousands of dollars, often exceeding the value of the guns. Instead of paying the fee, they often forfeit the firearms and the company auctions them off, Gottlieb said.

In Kentucky, a law passed in 2014 that allows law enforcement to take firearms from those accused – not convicted – of domestic violence crimes. Similar laws are in place in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Louisiana.

In Lakewood, Ohio, in August 2011, police seized 13 firearms valued at $15,000 from U.S. Army veteran Francesca Rice while she wasn’t home, according to Cleveland Scene. Police reportedly had an employee of the condominium complex let them in. The firearms collection of Rice, who served her country in Iraq, included handguns, shotguns, a vintage Chinese SKS M21 semi-automatic carbine and a semi-automatic rifle.

The seizure was based on a “situation involving the gun owner’s absence from a VA hospital where she had been receiving treatment…. However, no charges were ever filed, and a year later, Rice’s requests to have her guns returned had gone unanswered,” the Ohio-based Buckeye Institute reported, noting after the lawsuit was settled, the police were ordered to return her firearms.

These tactics are a way for police departments or the government to make it more costly to own guns, said John Lott, an economist, leading expert on guns, and author at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Lott believes the illegal policies most hurt poor gun owners, who not only are less likely to afford to get their property back, but also typically live in neighborhoods where they are more vulnerable to crime.

Seizing legally owned guns can also be a way for law enforcement agencies to boost their revenue if, as in some cases, they sell the firearms rather than destroying them, Lott said.

In the Roberts’ case in California, police blamed a letter from the California Department of Justice that required gun owners to produce documentation showing it was their firearm that was seized and ordered them to register all firearms that previously had been exempt. The receipt the police department issued when confiscating the firearms wasn’t sufficient proof, the DOJ said, and most firearms owners don’t have other proof of purchase, especially for firearms passed down from generation to generation.

The case was settled for $30,000 and the department changed its policy, but Roberts suffered through three years of aggravation and lost family heirlooms as a result of the department’s actions.

In 2012, California civil rights attorney Donald Kilmer represented the Second Amendment Foundation and CalGuns Foundation in the first legal challenge in California for wrongful retention of firearms and won, leading San Francisco and Oakland to change their policies.

But remarkably, the situation in California in some respects is getting worse. “The legislature has never met a gun regulation they didn’t like and the state is populated with millions of people who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” said Kilmer.


The problem now is that the State Bureau of Firearms is issuing letters that misstate the law with regard to what documentation gun owners must produce to get their property back, Kilmer said.

In the past, if firearms were seized in California from a home because of psychiatric issues, domestic violence allegations, restraining orders or other issues, the firearms were returned after the case was resolved through a court order. However, under a new law, Kilmer said a background check is required to ensure the property is not stolen, the owner has to prove ownership, and then the owners get a letter clearing them to pick up their property.

“It makes sense on its face, but it is taking longer to issue letters,” Kilmer said, adding most gun owners can’t meet other requirements because they don’t have paperwork to show title, many legally owned guns are not registered, the federal government is forbidden from keeping firearms ownership records with the exception of for specialty guns, and California just started its database in 1996 exclusively for handguns.

“People keep forgetting the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment, is protected by the U.S. constitution, and private property is protected under the Fifth Amendment,” Kilmer said. “Government cannot take property without just compensation and due process. The great thing is that when it comes to guns, you get protection under both amendments.”



Gun Control! Obama to ban bullets by executive action

The Piece of Sh*t occupying the White House is running amuck.

Already, he has issued more executive orders and memoranda than any U.S. president in history, the recent two amnesty executive memos being especially egregious examples. See:

Now that the Sandy Hook hoax failed to achieve its purpose of nation-wide gun control, Obama is switching his tactics by employing his executive power to ban 5.56 mm bullets used in AR-15 rifles — the most popular rifle in America.


Paul Bedard reports for The Washington Examiner, Feb. 26, 2015:

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

“The Obama administration was unable to ban America’s most popular sporting rifle through the legislative process, so now it’s trying to ban commonly owned and used ammunition through regulation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA, the group’s policy and lobby shop. “The NRA and our tens of millions of supporters across the country will fight to stop President Obama’s latest attack on our Second Amendment freedoms.”

At issue is so-called “armor-piercing” ammunition, an exemption for those bullets mostly used for sport by AR-15 owners, and the recent popularity of pistol-style ARs that use the ammo.

The inexpensive 5.56 M885 ammo, commonly called green tips, have been exempt for years, as have higher-caliber ammunition that also easily pierces the type of soft armor worn by police, because it’s mostly used by target shooters, not criminals. The agency proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt.

But now BATFE says that since the bullets can be used in semi-automatic handguns they pose a threat to police and must be banned from production, sale and use. But, as Goodlatte noted, the agency offered no proof.

Federal agencies will still be allowed to buy the ammo.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15. Millions upon millions of M855 rounds have been sold and used in the U.S., yet ATF has not even alleged — much less offered evidence — that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer,” said Goodlatte’s letter.

Even some police don’t buy the administration’s claim. “Criminals aren’t going to go out and buy a $1,000 AR pistol,” Brent Ball, owner of 417 Guns in Springfield, Mo., and a 17-year veteran police officer told the Springfield News-Leader. “As a police officer I’m not worried about AR pistols because you can see them. It’s the small gun in a guy’s hand you can’t see that kills you.”

Many see the bullet ban as an assault on the AR-15 and Obama’s back-door bid to end production and sale.

“We are concerned,” said Justin Anderson with Hyatt Gun Shop in Charlotte, N.C., one of the nation’s top sellers of AR-15 style rifles. “Frankly, we’re always concerned when the government uses back-door methods to impose quasi-gun control.”

Groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation suggest that under BATFE’s new rule, other calibers like popular deer hunting .308 bullets could be banned because they also are used in AR-15s, some of which can be turned into pistol-style guns. “This will have a detrimental effect on hunting nationwide,” said the group.

not for hunting

For all the posts FOTM has published on the Sandy Hook hoax, go here.


VA wants personal information in exchange for free gun locks

here to help you

Fox News: The Veterans Administration is offering free gun locks to former military members — but wants some key personal information in exchange.

Veterans have received forms recently from the VA with an enticing offer of up to four gun locks. The only catch…they need to return a completed form listing their name, address and the number of guns in the home, according to the Washington Times.

“Dear Veteran, a letter sent from the VA’s Philadelphia office reads, “As your partner in health care, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe. If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock. As a Veteran, you already know about the importance of firearm safety.”

The Washington Times spoke with one veteran who received the letter and called it “a gun registry in disguise.”

“Young soldiers are already notoriously reluctant to admit any problems with post-traumatic stress disorder,” the veteran, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the paper. “Imagine the effect if the average 23-year-old private … back from Iraq, already reluctant to ask for help … is now hearing rumors that if he seeks help from the VA for sleeplessness, PTSD, nightmares, etc., Big Brother is going take his guns away? Now young veterans will really avoid asking for help.

According to reports, officials for the VA hospital in Philadelphia have been instructed by the administration not to keep on file any information about veterans who own guns.

You know you're laughing.

You know you’re laughing.

“They have been instructed to offer these gun locks to veterans and family members and to keep no gun registries or other information related to the gun lock distribution,” a spokesperson told The Blaze.

It’s not clear if the directive is a part of any written policy at the VA.

“The NRA is opposed to any and all forms of a gun registry,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told FoxNews.com. “The VA initiative raises concerns because veterans are not offered any written assurances that the information they provide the government regarding their firearms will not be kept on file and used for other purposes.”

The gun locks are distributed under a program started under the Bush Administration in 2008 that was modeled after a similar program called Project ChildSafe. The VA has been distributing the gun locks for the past seven years, but it was not immediately clear if the forms are a recent change in protocol.

According to a 2013 report, it is estimated that 22 veterans take their own lives with a gun every day. The program was started with the hopes of lowering that high suicide rate.

The VA has been distributing the locks in a program with local police departments and a firearms trade group.


If you haven’t already, cancel your subscription to Runner’s World

Loves his Second Amendment Right, for hunting....or something.

Loves his Second Amendment Right, for hunting….or something.

Runner’s World Promotes Handgun Ban alongside Shoe Reviews, Training Recipes

NRA-ILA: One of the regrettable consequences of the political class’s obsession with gun control legislation (despite the American public not considering guns a significant problem) is that it encourages people and publications that otherwise aren’t political into sharing their oblivious opinions on the matter.  Such is the case with a November 5th column on the website of Runner’s World magazine.  Nestled on a front page that includes an article on “How Pumpkins Can Help Your Running” and a video titled “Power Yoga for Runners” is a piece by track athlete Nick Symmonds calling for a ban on handguns and popular semi-automatic rifles.

Attempting to pander to those who actually value their rights, Symmonds starts off the column by boasting, “I love my Second Amendment right.”  Symmonds then spends the remainder of the paragraph channeling Bill Clinton and John Kerry by listing his hunting bona fides as pro-Second Amendment credentials.

Later on, Symmonds proposes a legislative “compromise” that would “[b]an assault rifles and handguns for everyone except police and military personnel.”  Under his proposal, Symmonds would graciously “allow responsible citizens to own rifles and shotguns,” as “[r]ifles are for big-game animals, [and] shotguns are for birds.”  Nowhere does Symmonds entertain the notion that firearms have legitimate, constitutionally protected, self-defense applications.

The Second Amendment has never been limited to hunting.  Politicians and others often use hunting to veil or defend their anti-Second Amendment agenda, but with the benefit of the Heller and McDonald decisions, this tactic is more transparent than ever.

Authoring the majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which renders any federal attempts at a handgun ban (like the one Symmonds promotes) illegal, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia makes clear that self-defense is the “central component” of the Second Amendment right.  Writing the majority opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, Justice Samuel Alito reiterates the court’s position in Heller regarding self-defense, and incorporates the Second Amendment to the states, barring state and local handgun bans.

Currently, there is litigation being pursued in multiple states to clarify that these decisions also protect Americans from bans on popular semi-automatic firearms. Briefs offered in these cases cite the Supreme Court’s emphasis on self-defense, and note that the opinions make clear the Second Amendment protects the right to own the types of firearms “in common use” at a given time, which clearly include the overwhelmingly popular semi-automatic rifles targeted by gun control advocates as “assault rifles.”

Disregarding any Second Amendment rights argument, Symmonds proposal still makes little sense. Rifles of any kind are rarely used in violent crime. Data from the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services Division shows that in every year from 2007-2011, the number of murders perpetrated with the use of knives, blunt objects, and personal weapons (such as hands, fists, or feet), all greatly outweighed those committed with any type of rifle.

As for a total handgun ban, polls show Symmonds won’t win Runner’s World many new fans with this policy.  An October 25th Gallup poll reports that 74 percent of Americans oppose a ban on handguns.  This level of opposition for a handgun ban is near the highest observed since Gallup began asking the question in 1959.

The overwhelmingly negative response Symmonds received in comments to the online version of the article and on its Facebook page also demonstrates that his musings on gun control do not resonate with his current readers.  A typical response implored him to “to put down your pen and stick to running,” while another observed that a “free state, and a free person is not preserved from deer, turkey, or pheasants.”

The entire column begs the question as to why Runner’s World is publishing politically divisive materials advocating radical policies in a magazine meant for those who enjoy jogging and 5Ks.  Let’s hope this Runner’s World piece is the furthest afield we see these types of stale gun control arguments, lest we be subjected to a Cat Fancy endorsement of microstamping, or a Cooking Light column on “junk guns.”