Congressman Brian Mast says ban assault weapons

Republican, veteran and gun rights supporter Brian Mast says assault weapons should be banned
Tampa Bay Times
Alex Leary
February 25, 2018

We "must unite with one mission: that no one will ever be murdered in school again," Mast says

WASHINGTON – Congressman Brian Mast, R-Palm City, has as much authority on guns as anyone, having served in the Army and losing both legs in Afghanistan. He says assault weapons such as the AR-15 should be banned.

"I cannot support the primary weapon I used to defend our people being used to kill children I swore to defend," Mast, who represents a swing district and faces a tough re-election, writes in an op/ed for the New York Times.

"The Second Amendment is unimpeachable. It guarantees the right of citizens to defend themselves. I accept, however, that it does not guarantee that every civilian can bear any and all arms.

"For example, the purchase of fully automatic firearms is largely banned already, and I cannot purchase an AT-4 rocket, grenades, a Bradley fighting vehicle or an Abrams tank. I know that no single action can prevent a truly determined person from committing mass murder, and I am aware of other ways to commit mass murder, such as bombings and mass vehicular slaughter. Not being able to control everything, however, should not prevent us from doing something."
read more here

West Virginia student arrested for wearing NRA T-shirt?

A lot of people find the heads of the NRA repulsive, especially when they are acting like idiots instead of trying to do something to stop what is going on. The majority of NRA members believe something has to be done and the measures they support are the ones the heads of the NRA fight against. That said, this story is also repulsive. Unless there is a lot more to this story that is not in this article, an 8th grade student was suspended and then arrested for wearing a T-shirt.

Instead of just sending the kid home to get changed if he broke some kind of school dress code, he was arrested!

W. Va. Student Suspended for Wearing NRA T-shirt
Apr 22, 2013
UPI

A 14-year-old West Virginia student was suspended from school, arrested and faces charges for wearing a T-shirt to school supporting the NRA, his family said.

Jared Marcum, an eighth-grader at Logan Middle School in Logan, W. Va., said school officials asked him to remove his shirt, and when he didn't, suspended him from school.

"What they're doing is trying to take away my rights, my freedom of speech and my Second Amendment," Jared told WOWK-TV, Charleston, W. Va., Friday.
read more here

Father of slain 6 year old Sandy Hook student heckled by gun activists

Neil Heslin, Father Of Newtown Victim, Heckled By Pro-Gun Activists
(VIDEO, PHOTOS)
Huffington Post
Posted: 01/29/2013

Neil Heslin, the father of a 6-year-old boy who was slain in the Sandy Hook massacre in Newtown, Conn., on Dec. 14, stoically faced down pro-gun activists last night.

More than 1,000 people attended a hearing before the Gun Violence Prevention Working Group at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford on Monday to share their views on gun control, USA Today reported. Among them was Heslin, who held a large framed picture of himself and his son Jesse as he urged officials to consider strengthening gun laws in Connecticut.

But as he gave his emotional testimony, pleading with lawmakers to improve mental health options and to ban assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used to murder his child and 25 other people, his speech was interrupted by dozens of audience members, The Connecticut Post reported.

“I still can't see why any civilian, anybody in this room in fact, needs weapons of that sort. You're not going to use them for hunting, even for home protection," Heslin said.

Pro-gun activists responded by calling out: "Second Amendment!"
read more here

A newspaper exposes the addresses of its local gun owners

This country has gone gun crazy! Gun owners ran to the store to buy assault weapons because they were "afraid" they would stop selling them. Did that makes sense? Why would anyone want one so badly that it didn't matter what it was designed for and how it has been used way too many times? Then the NRA pushes for teachers to take guns to school? They think more guns is the answer but didn't say much about people shopping at a mall, going to a movie and responding to put out a fire. Well, no I have to take that back since they also thought the answer for those murders was more guns too. Since when was it mandatory to have to have a gun to be a teacher or administrator?

On the flip side we have a newspaper treating legal gun owners like criminals when the names and addresses of gun owners was published and taken from the county clerk's office. In other words, the legal gun owners were outed but they didn't do a damn thing about illegal gun owners. Since when is it a crime to own a gun?

Like I keep pointing out, I know a lot of gun owners and feel safe with them because they know how to use them and respect them. That is the way most gun owners are. Now legal gun owners are being treated like criminals? This is bad all the way around.

Even this bleeding-heart liberal believes gun owners have a right to privacy
A newspaper exposes the addresses of its local gun owners — which violates our rights as much as shoddy gun laws
BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS
Salon.com
DEC 28, 2012

In the two weeks since the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, much has been written and said about our national obsession with guns – and what do about it. But a suburban New York newspaper’s unorthodox take on the issue has created a brand-new controversy over guns, rights and privacy.

Earlier this week, the White Plains Journal News ran a story with the provocative title “The Gun Owner Next Door: What You Don’t Know About the Weapons in Your Neighborhood.” The story, written by Dwight R. Worley, made few bones about its slant, opening with the chilling details of the shooting murder of a Katona woman last spring.

But it wasn’t the story that raised eyebrows. It was the revelation that after a Freedom of Information request, “Westchester provided the names and addresses of the county’s 16,616 active permit holders” to the paper. And, even worse, its online version featured an interactive map of all the “pistol permits registered with the Westchester County Clerk’s Office,” along with the invitation to “zoom in and out for more information and click on a dot to see details of a permit.” The Journal did also mention, in an editor’s note, that writer Dwight R. Worley owns a .357 Magnum. It didn’t, however, include his New York City address.

The map, thickly dotted with pins, is certainly a stunner to anyone who’s opposed to guns. And of course, inevitably, an irate blogger — and gun owner — swiftly retaliated by publishing the home addresses of the newspaper’s staff. He told CNN Thursday, “I felt they were using this to harass gun owners. So I harassed them back.” The map has also generated a deluge of polarizing responses. On Facebook, one commenter called it “disgusting, just disgusting — and you hacks should be ashamed of what you pass for ‘journalism,’” while another argued, “If someone has a right to a gun, do we not have a right to know if someone has a gun?” Well, do we? And just because a newspaper can do something, does it mean that it should?
read more here

Ammunition easier to get than guns

Everyone seems to be focusing on assault weapons but no one seems interested in the fact the weapon isn't doing the killing by itself. They all need bullets. There are guns owned legally and some are illegal but the bullets are a lot easier for everyone to get their hands on. How about we start to include bullets in the debate?

Why not require a license to buy bullets and that way illegal gun owners can't get bullets as easy as they do now. If they are involved in some kind of sport where they use an assault weapon, give them a special license to buy the bullets for them.

To Purchase Ammunition Online
Federal law requires that you must be at least 18 years old to purchase shotgun ammunition and 21 years or older to purchase handgun and rifle ammunition.

You do not need an FFL to purchase ammunition online.
All ammunition will be shipped UPS ground.
We can ship ammunition to your door via UPS.
When you are checking out, you must select UPS Ground if you are purchasing ammunition.
Ammunition cannot be shipped air freight, due to shipping regulations.
Ammunition and firearms must be purchased separately.
For safety reasons, we do not accept returns on ammunition.
Always make sure you use the correct ammunition for your specific firearm.
Check your local laws for any other regulations before ordering.

NRA Press Conference: Wayne LaPierre Calls For Armed Police Officers At Every School
Posted: 12/21/2012
By PHILIP ELLIOTT
The ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- The nation's largest gun-rights lobby is calling for armed police officers to be posted in every American school to stop the next killer "waiting in the wings."

The National Rifle Association broke its silence Friday on last week's shooting rampage at a Connecticut elementary school that left 26 children and staff dead.

The group's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, said at a Washington news conference that "the next Adam Lanza," the man responsible for last week's mayhem, is planning an attack on another school.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," LaPierre said.

He blamed video games, movies and music videos for exposing children to a violent culture day in and day out.

"In a race to the bottom, many conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate, and offend every standard of civilized society, by bringing an even more toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty right into our homes," LaPierre said.
read more here

Week after Sandy Hook mass murder, NRA says "more guns" is answer

NRA to talk about Sandy Hook as mourning continues
By CNN Staff
updated 10:45 AM EST, Fri December 21, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
NEW: NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre will speak at a news conference at 10:45 a.m.
NEW: Across the nation Friday morning, church bells rang in remembrance of the victims
The Obama administration has started debate on gun control
More funerals of the victims will take place Friday

(CNN) -- The National Rifle Association, the powerful gun rights group that has kept largely quiet since last week's deadly school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, will break its silence Friday.

NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre will speak at a news conference at 10:45 a.m. After the shooting, a debate over gun control has surged from the public and in Washington. The NRA, an important voice that has been missing thus far, will join the conversation.

On Tuesday, the group released its only statement on the shooting, saying in part that "the NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
read more here

He blamed the media, video games, the President and then called for more people to be armed. This is why regular, responsible gun owners need to protest the NRA. They are making all gun owners look like unfeeling jerks. This is just a week after the Sandy Hook mass murder with children still being buried!

Newtown Victims' Lawsuits Curbed By NRA-Backed Law

I just got off the phone with a friend. He is a gun owner and I have no problem with that at all. I know a lot of them. I told him that there is no excuse to have an assault weapon, reminded him that real life is not like the movies. A gun owner with a handgun will not face off with someone shooting an assault weapon all the time. They are more likely to try if the shooter only has a handgun and there is an equal chance of the shooter being stopped as the hero trying to stop him. Again, a good time to remind people is we cannot assume everyone with a gun is able to shoot another person. While it is nice to live in fantasy land assuming everyone can do it, they won't.

The other point I brought up was that gun owners should have to be licensed and have to renew their license along with being insured. He said that shouldn't happen because that means more money. I said "tough shit" because look at the money it is costing these 26 families to bury their dead when all they did was show up for a day of classes at an elementary school.

Guns are dangerous and should never be taken lightly so if gun owners are serious about how valuable they are to have then let them prove it with getting a permit to learn how to use one, getting a license after they prove they know how to use it before they are able to buy it and having to renew it. Let them have to get insurance on it just like they do if they drive a car or motorcycle. Responsible gun owners should support and assault weapons ban because there is no evidence they are used for anything other than being able to shoot many bullets in a short time like the less than ten minutes it took for the shooter to kill 26 people with multiple bullets entering their bodies.

Newtown Victims' Lawsuits Curbed By NRA-Backed Law
Huffington Post
Ben Hallman
Posted: 12/18/2012

The massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut may yield new laws to limit the availability of military-style assault weapons. But one thing the latest tragedy will likely not produce: lawsuits against the company that manufactured the gun used in the killings.

Under a controversial law Congress passed seven years ago at the urging of the National Rifle Association, gun manufacturers are explicitly shielded from lawsuits that would seek to hold them liable for crimes committed with weapons they sold.

The 2005 law has drawn attacks from gun control advocates and constitutional scholars, who portray it as a powerful insulator for gun manufacturers, protecting them from the consequences of their lethal products. Why should gun manufacturers, they ask, enjoy a special liability protection not available to other companies that make potentially lethal products?

"Gun companies should be treated the same as any other company. There is no reason to give them special exemption from litigation," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine School of Law. "It is an outrageous piece of legislation."
read more here

UPDATE

Connecticut Concealed Carry Permit
Requirements:
1. Is twenty-one years of age;
2. Is a legal resident of the United States;
3. Has a residence or business in the jurisdiction in which they are applying;
4. Intends to use the handgun for only lawful purposes;
5. Is a “suitable person” to receive a permit;
6. Has successfully completed an approved handgun safety course;
7. Has not been convicted of a felony or a violation of;

a. Criminal possession of a narcotic substance;
b. Criminally negligent homicide;
c. Assault in the third degree;
d. Reckless endangerment in the firstdegree;
e. Unlawful restraint in the second degree;
f. Riot in the first degree;
g. Stalking in the second degree;

8. Has not been convicted as a delinquent for the commission of a serious juvenile offense;
9. Has not been discharged from custody within the preceding twenty years after having been found not guilty of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect;
10. Is not subject to a restraining or p[protective order issued by a court in a case involving the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person;
11. Is not subject to a firearms seizure order issued for posing a risk of personal injury to self or others after a hearing; or
12. Is not prohibited from possessing a firearm for having been adjudicated as a mentally incompetent under federal law.

Retired Generals and Admirals want gun law changed to prevent military suicides

Aside from this, what became obvious many years ago is that guns are not the only problem. They find other ways of doing it. The issue here should not be just about how they do it but more about why they do it!

They are not getting proper help for PTSD and their families are still clueless what it is or what they can do to help. The reason they commit suicide should be a hell of a lot more important. After 40 years of research on PTSD, hundreds of millions spent on programs that don't work they ended up with higher suicide rates yet instead of discussing who should have been held accountable, they battle on the how instead of the why.

Retired military officers’ letter seeks to amend gun law to help battle suicides
By Steve Vogel
Published: December 2

A group of senior retired generals and admirals are calling for Congress to amend a recent law that they say “dangerously interferes” with the ability of commanders to battle the epidemic of suicides among members of the military.

Legislation added to the 2011 defense authorization bill at the urging of gun-rights advocates prohibits commanders from collecting any information about weapons privately owned by troops.

Critics say the law prevents commanders from being able to talk to service members about their privately owned weapons — such as encouraging the use of a gunlock or temporary storage away from their homes — even in cases when the commanding officer thinks the service member is at risk for suicide.

“The law is directly prohibiting conversations that are needed to save lives,” states a letter sent last week to members of Congress by a dozen retired officers, including former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis J. Reimer and former surgeons general for the Army, Air Force and Navy.

“It unnecessarily hampers a commander from taking all possible practical steps for preventing suicide,” one of the signers, Army Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik, said Saturday.

Dubik commanded the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq in 2007 and 2008.
read more here

Taking away guns won't stop military suicides

More than half of the military suicides are committed by pulling a trigger, but that is not the trigger that should concern congress. The trigger is the not giving them the proper help to heal. I wish I could say taking away guns would stop them from taking their own lives, but as this article also points out, they use medications as well as other means. Sometimes it is a car or motorcycle crashed into a tree. Sometimes it is a rope and sometimes, no one knows for sure.

Wounded Times has tracked these reports for over five years. The answer is not in how they do it, but in discovering why they do it.

As Military Suicides Rise, Focus Is on Private Weapons
By JAMES DAO
Published: October 7, 2012

With nearly half of all suicides in the military having been committed with privately owned firearms, the Pentagon and Congress are moving to establish policies intended to separate at-risk service members from their personal weapons. The issue is a thorny one for the Pentagon. Gun rights advocates and many service members fiercely oppose any policies that could be construed as limiting the private ownership of firearms.

But as suicides continue to rise this year, senior Defense Department officials are developing a suicide prevention campaign that will encourage friends and families of potentially suicidal service members to safely store or voluntarily remove personal firearms from their homes.

“This is not about authoritarian regulation,” said Dr. Jonathan Woodson, the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs. “It is about the spouse understanding warning signs and, if there are firearms in the home, responsibly separating the individual at risk from the firearm.”

Dr. Woodson, who declined to provide details, said the campaign would also include measures to encourage service members, their friends and their relatives to remove possibly dangerous prescription drugs from the homes of potentially suicidal troops.

In another step considered significant by suicide-prevention advocates, Congress appears poised to enact legislation that would allow military mental health counselors and commanders to talk to troops about their private firearms. The measure, which is being promoted by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, would amend a law enacted last year that prohibited the Defense Department from collecting information from service members about lawfully owned firearms kept at home.
read more here

Military Suicides leave DOD and NRA at odds

Why would this happen? The number one choice of suicides connected to military service is a firearm. Does the NRA care about any of this? No one is talking about taking away their guns. As I've pointed out a thousand times I'd rather see a veteran with a gun and getting help than not getting help. Besides, if you take away their guns they use the next in line for ways to commit suicide. Still what is wrong with talking to them about all this? If the DOD wanted to prevent suicides then they would drop the BS program called "resiliency" and finally open up their ears to hear what they can do. This is about to get a lot worse the long troops are in Afghanistan and still not getting the right kind of help. The NRA should be more involved in saving their lives than stopping the commanders from even talking to them!

Amid suicide 'epidemic,' military at odds with NRA over law
Published: July 28, 2012


To help combat suicide in the military, leaders would like greater leeway in talking to a servicemember about it and whether they personally own a firearm. Standing in their way, is a new law backed by the National Rifle Association that is frustrating things.

Some U.S. military commanders are at odds with the National Rifle Association over a relatively new law that bars them from talking to a servicemember about their personal firearms if the individual lives off base, according to a Christian Science Monitor article.

The NRA-backed law, which went into effect in early 2011, includes language that prohibits them from talking to their charges about weapons and safety, particularly when they live off base. The article relied heavily on Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the Army's former vice chief of staff.
read more here

Think Progress needs to start thinking

I usually like to read things from Think Progress when they are addressing veterans issues. This time their clear, thoughtful writing is missing in action. The easy way out on gun rights and veterans is to say they shouldn't have them or blame the NRA for them using guns to commit suicide. The honest, harder to grasp answer is, without guns, they find other ways. If we want to save lives, we need to take away the reason they commit suicide and not just take away their guns.

Given the choice of having their guns and getting help or losing their guns for seeking help, they'll keep their guns. It is as simple as that. When they don't have a gun to use to kill themselves, they use pills, which they have plenty of considering the VA and the DOD would rather hand out medications than treat them with therapy. They hang themselves. They drive their cars and motorcycles into trees and off cliffs. There are plenty of ways for them to end their pain but fewer ways for them to live with it. If we want to save lives, we need to take away the reason they commit suicide before anything else will work.

NRA Won’t Back Down From Supporting Law That Increases Military Suicides
By Marie Diamond on Nov 7, 2011 at 4:40 pm

In 2010, for the second year in a row, the U.S. military lost more troops to suicide than in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. Half took place with personally owned weapons. Yet military commanders who want to intervene have their hands tied by an NRA-backed law that bars them from discussing gun ownership with at-risk troops.

A new report recommends that Congress repeal this rule, setting the stage for a fight between the National Rifle Association and troop advocates trying to stop the suicide epidemic:
America is losing the battle against service member and veteran suicides, a new report warned Monday, which could set up a political showdown between two perhaps unlikely opponents: Troop advocates and the national gun-rights lobby.

The report, issued by the Center for a New American Security, recommends that Congress repeal a provision in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act that bars military commanders from talking with troops about troops’ personally owned firearms — a factor in nearly half of soldier suicides last year. [...]

The National Rifle Association pushed for the ban on personal gun restrictions earlier this year after learning these kinds of rules were being put in place locally at posts around the U.S. Chris Cox, director of the NRA’s lobbying arm, said in a message to members earlier this year that it was “preposterous” that commanders at Fort Riley, Kan., wanted troops to register privately owned weapons kept on and off base.
read more here

Gun rule is hurting veterans

First, no, President Obama does not want to take away your rights to have a gun. He was a Constitutional Professor after all and believes in the what the Founding Fathers laid down. This ruling came down before he was President and has done more harm to PTSD veterans than protecting them.

After presentations to veterans I have a question and answer session. This is the most asked question of all. It is preventing them from getting help for PTSD from the VA because they are afraid they will have to give up their guns. Imagine a combat veteran depending on his weapon for his life while deployed into combat, then telling them they are no longer responsible enough to have a fire arm. Some of them also need their guns because they are in law enforcement. Did anyone think of them?

PTSD comes in different levels and when you have a veteran that is no treat to himself or others, add this concern into the mix, no matter how the wording in this bill went, you have a huge problem. Would you rather have a PTSD with a gun getting help or a PTSD veteran with a gun, getting no help? Easy answer on this one.

This issue needs to be fixed and fast. It was not a wise move even though it sounded that way. It's kept veteran from getting help.

Senator Coburn was in a fight over this on the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act, which did make changes in the way the VA responded. Here is part of the fight he had.

Coburn Cites Defense of the 2nd Amendment
The junior senator of Oklahoma has taken on a new cause however, quite possibly his most controversial of all. United States Senators are allowed to place a hold on legislation thus blocking it from coming to the floor if they have serious reservations about such legislation. Tom Coburn has had a hold on the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act of 2006 for nearly six months now. The bill is meant to dramatically increase funding to prevent what has been proven to be the sky rocketing suicide rate among veterans of both those who have served in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Now Coburn objects to the bill because it mandates that veterans receive a mental health screen when they come back from duty. Apparently Coburn is afraid that the gun rights of veterans will be trampled upon if they admit to owning a firearm during the health screening.

Coburn Cites Defense of the 2nd Amendment

Now you know what is behind all of this. The words our elected use should always be thought of very carefully to know if what they think they are saying will help or hurt. In this case, it ended up hurting the veterans they wanted to help.

Gun Rights Lobby Prepares To Weigh In On Sotomayor
By Greg Vadala, CQ Staff
With congressional Democrats divided on gun issues and the Obama administration steering clear of the topic, gun rights advocates have bagged new legislative trophies this year and are taking aim at additional targets.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America have an ambitious to-do list. They are preparing to:

•Weigh in on Obama’s nomination of federal appellate court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

•Advance a proposal by Sen. Richard M. Burr , R-N.C., to ensure that veterans are not wrongfully denied the right to bear arms.

On the legislative front, both groups support Burr’s legislation (S 669) on veterans’ gun rights. Under current law, the Department of Veterans Affairs is required to report to the FBI’s criminal background-check database — the system firearms dealers use to determine who can buy guns — any information on veterans determined to be mentally “defective” and unable to manage their own finances. Burr’s bill, co-sponsored by Jim Webb , D-Va., would prohibit the VA from sending the names of those veterans to the database unless a judicial authority rules them a danger to themselves or others.

The Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, on which Burr is ranking member, approved the measure in May. Burr is looking to attach it to another piece of legislation because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., is otherwise unlikely to bring it to the floor.

go here for more

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003136873