“Some people dislike gays. Others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes,” reads one ad
A new campaign cropping up around Washington state is intended to strike a chord with gay and lesbian gun owners by comparing gun control to anti-LGBT discrimination.
The illustrated posters feature slogans like, “We won our right to marry, now it’s time to defend our right! And we sure as hell aren’t going to take shit from homophobes in the process!” and, “Some people dislike gays. Others dislike guns. We should not base our laws on personal dislikes.”
A QR code on the ads directs curious readers to an anti–gun control website that calls armed self-defense a human right and offers quizzes with questions like:
The proper response to an arson is …
1) prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying gasoline.
2) prohibit you and other law-abiding citizens from buying any flammable fluids, matches and lighters.
3) prosecute the perpetrator of the crime.
As the Stranger reports, the campaign’s origins remain something of a mystery:
“Nale Dixon,” who’s credited for drawing the cartoon of the gay couple, returns no search results online. The pro-gun website is run by a dude named Oleg Volk, “An American,” but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s responsible for papering the hill with them. Without someone to credit, it’s impossible to glean the posterer’s intentions.
Laughing Monster: Sick boast in ‘gay slay’
How does someone with six prior arrests, including one for attempted murder in 1998 and others for criminal possession of a weapon have access to guns? How does someone who has served more than nine years in both city and state prisons have access to guns? Thank the NRA for their Lobbying and Political Campaign Contribution Efforts. That is their job and they do it very well.
The homophobic ex-con accused of “executing’’ a gay man in Greenwich Village laughed and boasted about the murder, prosecutors said yesterday.
“Yeah, I shot him in the head,” Elliot Morales, 33, sneered while “laughing on the ground” as cops were handcuffing him for fatally shooting Mark Carson, 32, early Saturday morning, according to prosecutors.
Morales yesterday was held without bail on charges of second-degree murder as a hate crime, menacing and two counts of criminal possession of a weapon.
He is accused of first hissing anti-gay slurs at Carson and a friend while they were walking on Sixth Avenue near West Eighth Street at around midnight Saturday, and then gunning down Carson.
“Look at these faggots,” said Morales, who was accompanied by two friends, according to police.
“What are you, gay wrestlers?” he challenged Carson and his pal, who were wearing boots, cut-off shorts and tank tops.
Carson and his friend kept walking to avoid a confrontation, but Morales — whose friends left him before he turned violent — followed the duo, spewing more hate before snarling, “Do you want to die here?” authorities said.
When the victim’s companion challenged him, Morales seethed to Carson, “Are you with him?”
The victim replied, “Yes.’’
Morales then allegedly whipped out a silver Taurus .38-caliber revolver and blasted Carson in the cheek, “executing him in the street,’’ said Manhattan prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon at Morales’ court arraignment.
Carson died at Beth Israel Hospital.
“The victim did nothing to antagonize or instigate the shooter. It was only done because the shooter believed him to be gay,” Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said yesterday.
In court, Illuzzi-Orbon said authorities have footage of a crazed Morales spewing anti-gay remarks about 20 minutes earlier at the staff of the nearby Annisa restaurant — and threatening to put a bullet through a bartender’s forehead if he called cops.
“Are you afraid?” he barked at the worker after being chided for urinating outside the restaurant. “Do you watch the news? Do you know what happened in Sandy Hook?’’
Police sources said the suspect had two holsters on him, one with a gun in it. Cops later found an assault weapon with a yellow banana-shaped clip that belonged to Morales at the Queens home where he was staying.
The friends he was staying with had been complaining to him about the guns, since there were children in the home, law-enforcement sources said.
Morales had a fake ID on him when he was nabbed in Carson’s murder and refused to tell cops his real name. He was finally identified through facial-recognition technology.
He has six prior arrests, including one for attempted murder in 1998 and others for criminal possession of a weapon. He has served more than nine years in both city and state prisons.
By YASMINE PHILLIPS
Last Updated: 3:45 AM, May 20, 2013
Posted: 1:28 AM, May 20, 2013
And now for Plaxico Burress’ favorite story of the day. A Quebec police officer who reported being shot during a party raid last Saturday appears to have actually shot herself in the leg.
According to Guns.com, the incident occurred around 10 p.m. The officer was running down a hill when she discharged a round from her 9mm pistol into her leg.
Perhaps in an effort to protect her job (she’s only been on the job for three years), the officer didn’t report that she shot herself. Instead, she said a gunman from the party shot her. After an ambulance arrived and rushed the officer to the hospital, a huge and predictably unsuccessful search for the non-existent shooter ensued.
Police spent hours questioning over 30 people who were at the party. At the hospital, doctors became suspicious of the officer’s story when they discovered the bullet was fired down into her leg. Police checked the officer’s gun and, surprise surprise, they found one bullet missing from the magazine.
The Gatineau Police Department released a vague statement on the matter, saying they could not “confirm or deny” any details about the story. Referring to the self-inflicted shot, a police spokesperson said the department is “looking at the possibility that she did that to herself.”
The officer is in the hospital waiting to have a minor surgery performed on the wound. She was said to still be in “shock” and was unavailable for any interviews or comments. Although police haven’t concluded their investigation, you’ve got to think this unlucky officer has some disciplinary action coming her way.
By Jonathan Wolfe, Thu, May 16, 2013
Nelson, Georgia Family Protection Ordinance Approved, Would Make Gun Ownership Mandatory For Some
Council members in Nelson, a city of about 1,300 residents that’s located 50 miles north of Atlanta, voted unanimously to approve the Family Protection Ordinance. The measure requires every head of household to own a gun and ammunition to “provide for the emergency management of the city” and to “provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants.”
Not that every household must go out and purchase a firearm.
The ordinance exempts convicted felons and those who suffer from certain physical or mental disabilities, as well as anyone who objects to gun ownership. The ordinance also doesn’t include any penalty for those who don’t comply.
But backers said they wanted to make a statement about gun rights at a time when President Barack Obama and some states are pushing for more restrictions in the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre in December that left 20 children and six educators dead.
Councilman Duane Cronic, who sponsored the measure, said he knows the ordinance won’t be enforced but he still believes it will make the town safer.
“I likened it to a security sign that people put up in their front yards. Some people have security systems, some people don’t, but they put those signs up,” he said. “I really felt like this ordinance was a security sign for our city. Basically it was a deterrent ordinance to tell potential criminals they might want to go on down the road a little bit.”
The city council’s agenda says another purpose of the measure is “opposition of any future attempt by the federal government to confiscate personal firearms.”
Nelson resident Lamar Kellett was one of five people who spoke during a public comment period and one of two who opposed the ordinance. Among his many objections, he said it dilutes the city’s laws to pass measures that aren’t intended to be enforced.
“Does this mean now 55 miles an hour speed limit means 65, 80, whatever you choose? There’s not a whole lot of difference. A law’s a law,” he said.
Kellett also said the ordinance will have no effect, that it won’t encourage people like him who don’t want a gun to go out and buy one.
The proposal illustrates how the response to the Newtown, Conn., massacre varies widely in different parts of the country.
While lawmakers in generally more liberal states with large urban centers like New York and California have moved to tighten gun control laws, more conservative, rural areas in the American heartland have been going in the opposite direction, seeking to loosen restrictions, arm educators or even require gun ownership.
Among the other efforts to broaden gun rights that have surfaced since the Newtown killings:
_ Earlier Monday, lawmakers in Oklahoma scuttled a bill that would have allowed public school districts to decide whether to let teachers be armed.
_ Spring City, Utah, passed an ordinance this year recommending that residents keep firearms, softening an initial proposal that aimed to require it.
_ Residents of tiny Byron, Maine, rejected a proposal last month that would have required a gun in every home. Even some who initially supported the measure said it should have recommended gun ownership instead of requiring it, and worried that the proposal had made the community a laughingstock. Selectmen of another Maine town, Sabbatus, threw out a similar measure. The state’s attorney general said state law prevents municipalities from passing their own firearms laws anyway.
_ Lawmakers in about two dozen states have considered making it easier for school employees or volunteers to carry guns on campus. South Dakota passed such a measure last month. Individual communities from New Jersey to Colorado have voted to allow administrators or teachers to carry guns in school.
Located in the Appalachian foothills, Nelson is a tiny, hilly town with narrow, twisting roads. It’s a place where most people know one another and leave their doors unlocked.
It used to be a major source of marble, with the local marble company employing many in town. But that industry is mostly gone now, Mayor Mike Haviland said. There are no retail stores in town anymore, and people do their shopping elsewhere. While the town used to have an internally driven economy, just about everyone leaves town for work now, making it a bedroom community for Atlanta, Haviland said.
The mayor said he never dreamed his small city would be the focus of national and international media attention, but he understands it.
“It bumps up against the national issues on guns,” he said.
Nelson resident Lawrence Cooper and his wife, Nanette, sat on their front porch Monday morning, enjoying a pleasant breeze and listening to the radio show of conservative Herman Cain, who unsuccessfully sought the 2012 Republican nomination for president. The Coopers support the ordinance.
“It’s supporting gun rights flat out, and there is so much – not antipathy – but antagonism against gun ownership these days,” Lawrence Cooper said. “And this is a very conservative small town, and they are fully in support of this.”
The couple doesn’t own any guns, but 52-year-old Lawrence Cooper said he grew up with them, and this ordinance might inspire him to go out and buy one. He chuckled as he pulled out a small black-and-white photo from his wallet. It shows him at 3 years of age, in front of a rack of hunting rifles and shotguns.
Police Chief Heath Mitchell noted that the city doesn’t have police officers who work 24 hours a day and is far from the two sheriff’s offices that might send deputies in case of trouble, so response times to emergency calls can be long. So having a gun would help residents take their protection into their own hands, he said.
But the chief – the town’s sole police officer – acknowledged the crime rate is very low. He mostly sees minor property thefts and a burglary every few months. The most recent homicide was more than five years ago, he said.
The proposed ordinance is modeled after a similar one adopted in 1982 by Kennesaw, an Atlanta suburb. City officials there worried at the time that growth in nearby Atlanta might bring crime to the community, which now has about 30,000 residents. Kennesaw police have acknowledged that their ordinance is difficult to enforce, and they haven’t made any attempt to do so.
Leroy Blackwell, 82, has lived in Nelson for about 50 years and owns a hunting rifle that he keeps in a closet. He’d support the ordinance even if it didn’t have exemptions, but he prefers it to be voluntary, he said. He said before the council’s decision that he’d rather see the measure put to a popular vote instead.
“Really, I think it would be more fair to put it to a vote” so everybody could have a say, he said.
The town has gotten an enormous amount of media attention since the council began discussing the ordinance last month. Councilman Jackie Jarrett said the response has been overwhelmingly positive. Most of the concerns have been raised by people worried about the mentally ill or convicted felons being required to own a gun, but he’s quick to point to the proposed exemptions, he said.
Mostly, he’s amazed that anyone outside of Nelson cares about the ordinance.
“It really has surprised me that we’ve gotten so much attention, especially since this isn’t affecting the world,” he said. “It’s just a small town thing.”
And, as it turns out, it may not affect Nelson all that much, even though the ordinance is set to go into effect in 10 days.
“Most everybody around here’s got guns anyway,” Jarrett said.
‘That’s absurd beyond the word absurd’
You know Republican state lawmakers in Texas are pursuing a troubling agenda when “birther” legislation starts to move, and it’snot the most ridiculous proposal worth watching.
Rather, this is (thanks to Anneli Kunze on our Facebook page for the tip).
Perhaps the most controversial of the gun-related items, HB 1076 would ban state agencies from enforcing any new federal gun laws, including background checks. The bill passed the Republican-led House on a largely party line vote Monday, but legal experts say the attempt to “nullify” possible future federal laws likely wouldn’t pass the scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court.
“That’s absurd beyond the word absurd. I like the author personally but that’s just pure political grandstanding,” said state Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Fort Worth).
I know I talk about the problems of the right-wing “nullification” agenda quite a bit, but it’s only because it represents such a hysterical, reactionary radicalism that has no place in modern American politics.
In this case, Texas’ nullification bill effectively hopes to freeze the status quo of federal gun laws in place indefinitely. The state is prepared to honor federal laws as they currently exist, but if policymakers in Washington expanded current laws in any way, Texas would ignore those changes — based on the “because I say so” theory of modern jurisprudence.
It wouldn’t matter if new federal laws are entirely constitutional; it wouldn’t matter if the new laws saved lives; it wouldn’t matter if the new news enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Under the proposal pending in Texas, current laws have reached a ceiling, and any effort to raise that ceiling must be ignored.
This is, of course, crazy. Whether Texas likes it or not, states can’t pick and choose which federal laws they’ll honor and which they’ll ignore.
I can’t say at this point whether the pending bill has a chance of passing, though it seems like the sort of thing Gov. Rick Perry (R) would like to sign. But I can say the bill, if it becomes state law, would not withstand a legal challenge.
By Steve Benen
Repeal Second Amendment, Gun Control Now, Ban High Capacity Gun Magazines, NRA Gun Myths, Guns In America, Regulate Guns, Gun Registration, Mandatory Federal Background Checks, Ban Gun Shows, NRA Policies Kill Americans, Wayne Lapierre, NRA Quotes, NRA Extremism, Support Gun Control, NRA is Propaganda, Wayne Lapierre Draft-Dodger, NRA Fact Check Fail, Pro-Gun Activists Heckle Gun Violence Victims, Gun Crime, Gun Violence, Criminal Guns, NRA Protects Criminals, Straw Purchases, Texas Stupidity,
Maybe The Law Should Be Stricter To Encourage Compliance And Effectively Penalize Straw Purchases
A local Texas CBS news station did an undercover sting in Texas gun stores. What they found was disturbing: some of the employees gave the undercover team advice about how to break the law.
It is illegal for people to purchase guns in order to later transfer those guns over to a known felon. These so-called straw purchases can land shoppers in big trouble, especially if the felon uses the firearm to commit a crime. In some states, straw purchasers are considered to be just as responsible as the person who committed the crime.
The CBS reporters tested the ethics of gun store employees by attempting to lure them into allowing a straw purchase. The reporters entered the stores in pairs. One of the reporters claimed that she might not be able to pass a background check, and asked if it was acceptable for the other person to buy the gun for her.
Fortunately, many of the store clerks flat-out refused. Several of them even explained that purchasing the gun for a known felon was illegal. One of the six clerks who rightly refused the purchase said, “No, we can’t do that. It’s considered a straw purchase.”
Other store clerks, however, didn’t pass the test. One clerk said, “If you wouldn’t have told me that [you’re a felon], maybe yeah.” The implication there is that the store doesn’t have a problem with straw purchases as long as everybody stays quiet. That clerk’s manager later approved of the purchase.
At least four other stores offered to sell the firearms. One said, “But [the ATF and the FBI] don’t really ‘check check’ that hard.” Another simply said, “Sure” to the proposition.
One of the biggest problems with straw purchases is that it creates a conflict of interest for gun distributors. The law states that it is illegal for them to make the sale, but at the end of the day gun stores don’t make any money by denying purchases.
The video demonstrates just how easy it is to make a straw purchase. If a criminal can’t make a purchase at one store, all he has to do is keep trying until he finds a clerk who’s interested in making a quick buck.
By Dabney Bailey, Wed, May 15, 2013
At 7:58 p.m. on Saturday evening, gun control’s newest advocate took to Twitterto call for stricter firearm legislation. “Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy,” wrote News Corp. boss Rupert Murdoch, “but how about some bold leadership action?” Around the same time at Fox News, one of Roger Ailes’s deputies was sending a very different message.
According to sources, David Clark, the executive producer in charge of Fox’s weekend coverage, gave producers instructions not to talk about gun-control policy on air. “This network is not going there,” Clark wrote one producer on Saturday night, according to a source with knowledge of the exchange. The directive created a rift inside the network. According to a source, one political panelist e-mailed Clark that Bloomberg was booked on Meet the Press to talk about gun control. Clark responded, “We haven’t buried the children yet, we’re not discussing it.” During the weekend, one frustrated producer went around Clark to lobby Michael Clemente, Fox’s executive vice-president for news editorial, but Clemente upheld the mandate. “We were expressly forbidden from discussing gun control,” the source said. Clark’s edict wasn’t universal: OnFox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace talked with Democratic Senators Joe Lieberman and Dick Durbin about gun control, and later in the program, panelists Bill Kristol and Fortune editor Nina Easton weighed in on the issue.
Certainly Fox’s decision to avoid widespread policy talk could be seen as an editorial impulse to keep the focus trained on the tragedy’s human dimension. But Fox’s coverage also highlights the growing chasm between Rupert Murdoch and Ailes. Gun culture is alive and well at Fox News. Roger Ailes and Sean Hannity are reportedly licensed to carry concealed handguns in New York City. Fox personality Eric Bolling is a vocal Second Amendment proponent on air. “Not only do they carry guns, they don’t allow an honest debate on TV,” a Fox News insider said. In the past, when Ailes has clashed with Murdoch on politics, Fox News’s outsize profits have helped Ailes prevail. Earlier this fall, Ailes signed a new four-year contract, and he retains complete editorial control over the network.
A Fox News spokesperson declined to comment on Ailes’s Second Amendment views.
While Ailes’s network said it wasn’t the right time to talk about legislation, Murdoch had no hesitation. Within hours of the attack, he took to Twitter to call for an automatic-weapons ban. “Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy,” he wrote, referring to Australia’s move to ban assault weapons in 1996 after a man used two semiautomatic rifles to kill 35 people and wound 21. That massacre came six weeks after the horrific mass school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, in which sixteen children and one adult were murdered. (Despite Murdoch’s plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza used semiautomatics.)
As a global media mogul, Murdoch’s newspapers and television networks have the power to shape public opinion. Already there are signs that parts of Murdoch’s empire are adopting the boss’s position. Today’s New York Postcover, fronting a photo of Obama, declared, “ENOUGH!” In London, where gun culture is decidedly outre, the cover of the Sun screamed, “END THE LUNACY.” Murdoch “is obviously very affected by what’s gone on,” News Corp. executive vice-president Joel Klein told me. “I think most rational people would think there’s no place for assault weapons. I don’t think it’s complicated.” He said that Murdoch will continue to advocate for gun-control policies.
But aside from News Corp.’s soon-to-be-separate print division, there were few signals that Murdoch’s call for gun control was having much effect. The Fox & Friends Twitter account sent out a message at 7:43 a.m. highlighting one nonlegislative method for preventing future massacres without a firearm crackdown: “Gov Mike huckabee joins us LIVE at 7:52am EST … do we need to get prayer back in our schools?”