Requesting to carry a urban youth equalizer is not a valid request in DC. Update to a previous story.
The District of Columbia passed one of the strictest concealed carry laws in the nation Tuesday, calling for 16 hours of training, “good reason” be proven for consideration, and a host of other restrictions.
The measure, outlined in a 21-page bill, comes in an effort to comply with a federal court order that struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns outside of the home. The 90-day stay agreed to by U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. is set to run out Oct. 22.
“While I would prefer that we did not have to change our laws to allow the carrying of concealed weapons by civilians, this bill ensures that we will be able to meet the requirements of the Constitution while maintaining the maximum amount of safeguards possible to protect our residents, visitors, workers and public-safety officers,” D.C. Democratic Mayor Vincent Gray said in a statement Tuesday.
The bill, dubbed the License to Carry a Pistol Temporary Amendment Act of 2014, passed the 13-member D.C. City Council by unanimous vote. Modeled after restrictive “may-issue” laws in effect in Maryland and New Jersey, an applicant for a concealed carry permit in Washington D.C. would be required to meet the same strict requirements already established to register a firearm in the District.
These include background and fingerprint tests, a firearms safety course followed by an exam, as well as a vision certification. Added to the process would be an interview and a mandated 16-hour training course administered by a firearms instructor certified by the metro police chief. [...]
Should an applicant be issued the two-year permit, the places they are valid in the 68-square mile city is very limited. The new legislation includes a list of 14 separate areas and circumstances in which a permit holder is prohibited from carrying. Besides the streets near the White House and buildings under the control of the District, concealed carry is forbidden at child care facilities, any private residence unless it has been specifically allowed by the owner, stadiums, schools and universities, on public transportation, at venues where alcohol is served and within a 1,000 feet of any of dignitary or demonstration in a public place.
There is no country in the world in which a sociopathic thug does not stand to get himself killed if he attacks a police officer. Yet Obama, representing the United States before the United Nations today, saw fit to twist the events in Ferguson into leftist propaganda with which to berate America:
Note that at the end he gets in yet another dig at the country’s allegedly flawed founding. Obama is no fan of the Constitution.
I cannot imagine anything an American could do that would be more disgusting than voting for this character not once but twice. A lot of people have a lot to make up for.
Via The Weekly Standard.
Sen. Ted Cruz tried to get the Senate to consider a measure Thursday providing that any American who joins the fight with terrorist groups such as the Islamic State would immediately renounce their U.S. citizenship, but a Democratic senator objected, saying more time is necessary to weigh the significant constitutional issues it raises.
Ahead of the Senate’s scheduled consideration Thursday afternoon of a proposal to arm and train Syrian rebels, part of President Obama’s strategy to combat the terrorist group, the Texas Republican asked for unanimous consent to pass the Expatriate Terrorist Act he introduced earlier this month.
The measure makes providing support to or fighting for a terrorist group targeting the U.S. “an affirmative renunciation of American citizenship,” Mr. Cruz said on the Senate floor Thursday. He pointed out that former Sens. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and Scott Brown, Massachusetts Republican, introduced a similar measure several years ago related to al Qaeda.
“If we do not pass this legislation, the consequence will be that Americans fighting alongside ISIS today may come home tomorrow with a U.S. passport, may come home to New York or Los Angeles or Houston or Chicago and innocent Americans may be murdered if the Senate does not act today,” Mr. Cruz said.
Sen. Mazie Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, objected, saying the bill has not been brought before the Senate Judiciary Committee and it affects “fundamental constitutional rights, which should be given the full deliberation of the Senate.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com …
I confess I’ve been called a bigot for lots of things simply because I have a Christian worldview. I’ve been called it by atheists, homosexuals and Islamists, but they always use that because they simply cannot defend their positions, and so, they resort to name calling. It shouldn’t surprise anyone then that socialist Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) spoke at an Islamic Society of Orange County town hall meeting on the issue of the Constitution and Sharia law.
Keep in mind that this town hall meeting took place in 2012, but her words are still relevant today because she and others like her continue to think like this. Also keep in mind that the Islamic Society of Orange County claims to be a “non-political organization.”
“Over the last year, and due to the focus of House Republicans on so-called ‘Muslim radicalization,’ we have seen politicians and pundits attacking the Islamic faith as a security threat to the United States,” she said. “Across the country, these people are exploiting fear and trying to convince state legislatures that the state adoption of Sharia tenants is the strategy extremists are using to transform the United States into an Islamic country.”
Wow! There is far too much in just that one statement that is easily demonstrated to be true. First, as I always point out, there is no “radical Islam,” only Islam. Republicans need to get that right. Second, it wasn’t Republicans who tweeted this out:
No, my friends, that is from a Democrat Islamic imam and former DHS advisor to Barack Hussein Obama, Mohamed Elibiary. Elibiary is championed by those Waters calls “extremists,” yet we know they are simply those that follow the teachings of Islam found in the Qur’an.
As for the strategy of adopting Sharia, well let’s be clear, Sharia is the law in Islam. It applies to Islamists as well as the infidels (at least in the Islamists minds). It is not championed by extremists, but Islamists. In fact, Islam is very optimistic in its view of dominating the world, just as Christians view the power of the gospel to do the same thing. Therefore, they seek to gain ground in every country they dwell in for the sake of Allah. This means a transformation of every country into an Islamic country.
As for the claim of strategy, one need only look to the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood to determine whether this is a strategy or a conspiracy theory. I’ll go with what the Muslim Brotherhood has written concerning this issue. Mrs. Waters is either ignorant (without excuse) or she is complicit. In either case, this woman is not fit to hold office.
She then declared that, at the time, at least thirteen states were looking to adopt legislation forbidding Sharia. What is wrong with that? We have a US Constitution. That’s the law in the US. Each State has a Constitution and as far as I know, not one of them is Sharia compliant. But what happens when states try and push forward this legislation? You guessed it, the Islamists and their socialist and communist friends come out of the woodwork to try and beat it down. Just look at Oklahoma, where the federal government tried to force them to overturn anti-Sharia law and to pay Islamists $303,333!
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/maxine-waters-believes-americans-bigots-opposing-sharia-law/#skWKHwhvQK0OhQSS.99
HOORAY a 53-46 vote.
The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11. It: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT of all UN countries”.
By a 53-46 vote – The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution. HOORAY.
This is that brief, glorious moment in history when everyone stands around…reloading.
Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known ! See below .. If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legislators” vote against them.
In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The Statement of Purpose from the Senate Bill reads: “To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.” The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms. The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.
Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.
Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N. Baldwin (D-WI) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (D-CO) Blumenthal (D-CT) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD) Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Coons (D-DE) Cowan (D-MA) Durbin (D-IL) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN) Gillibrand (D-NY) Harkin (D-IA) Hirono (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaine (D-VA) King (I-ME) Klobuchar (D-MN) Landrieu (D-LA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) McCaskill (D-MO) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murphy (D-CT) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT) Schatz (D-HI) Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Stabenow (D-MI) Udall (D-CO) Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Warren (D-MA) Whitehouse (D-RI) Wyden (D-OR)
What? No Republicans????
Folks: This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.
Please send this to SOMEONE!
Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged 53-46 vote, COLLECTION and DISARMAMENT, Constitution, Corruption, Cover-up, Gun Confiscation, Political Accountability, Resident in Thief, Second Amendment, Senate, Treason, Tyranny, U.N. Resolution 2117
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama said in a press conference in Wales on Friday afternoon that although his “preference is to see Congress act,” he intends to take unilateral action to give illegal aliens “some path” to “be legal” if Congress does not enact the sort immigration legislation he wants.
The Associated Press reported on Saturday that unnamed White House officials had told the news organization that Obama would wait until after the midterm elections to make his move on immigration.
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress—not the Executive–authority over immigration. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says: “Congress shall have power…to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”
The president announced his intention to unilaterally grant immigration lawbreakers living illegally in the United States “some path…to be legal”
Though it is doubtful that you will see any American owned media outlets devoting programs to this debate (seems highly unlikely six years later), Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show decided to go where American media refuses to. He devoted an entire episode of his program to this debate and it aired Monday on Canadian television.
Our friends at Birther Report summarize the broadcast:
As reported here Canadian broadcaster Richard Syrett interviewed Attorney Mario Apuzzo, Attorney Phil Berg, computer expert Karl Denninger and Allenna Leonard of Democrats Abroad. The show focused on Obama’s forged birth certificate and the Article II natural born Citizen clause in the U.S. Constitution. Full show below…
The host says Birthers that conclude a natural born Citizen is one born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents (Vattel) stand on pretty solid ground but notes the other side could provide a compelling counter-argument (Blackstone). Syrett said to dismiss Birthers as racist is extremely unfair. He also believes evidence suggesting Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery is not conclusive but says it deserves further investigation and serious media scrutiny. Syrett warned viewers that if Obama is not eligible and he forged his birth certificate the United States would be plunged into a constitutional crisis unparalleled in its history. His full conclusion excerpted here…
You can watch the entire episode here. .
The debate over the definition of “natural born citizen” has largely been in trying to determine the intentions of our founders. Both sides can roll out historical court decisions to seemingly support their case, but I prefer to start at the beginning. What is perceived as true in 2014 was not necessarily true in 1790. I always encourage people to do their own research. However, in the course of that research I would suggest that you start with our first congress. My interpretation is that BOTH parents must be citizens to create a “natural born citizen.” If not, then why the distinction between a simple “citizen” and a “natural born citizen?”
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/canadian-tv-goes-birther-62-say-obama-american-citizen/#3aWFlEQUDz8vwExK.99