Monday, December 31, 2012

Registration Of All Black Rifles Coming To A Neighborhood Near You?


Registration will be required of all black rifles currently owned, possessed, and "Grandfathered" by the new law if the Feinstein "Assault" Weapons is passed as currently proposed and written. If it is scary looking, then it is on the list.

Registration will amount to confiscation. This scheme is destined to follow the much touted "Australian model" of mandatory gun "buy backs." Here's how it worked there. Most guns in Australia had been registered since the 1930's. When it came time for the mandatory "buy backs" the Australian government already knew who owned what and where the owners were. Failure to stand in long lines to sell the firearm "back" would result in a still prison sentence. Simple enough?

In a one year period beginning in 1996, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 631,000 firearms at a "buy back" cost of about 500 million. This was financed by a 1% income tax surcharge for one year. The handgun "buyback " of 2003 resulted in 50,000 handguns being confiscated.

However, effectiveness and full compliance with the law remains to be seen. Here's a summary of the 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation.

The law requires registration of the semiautomatic rifles under the National Firearms Act of 1934. This includes a $200.00 fee per firearm.

 Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons, the Act requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

o Background check of the owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

The Law bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
 120 specifically-named firearms
 Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
 Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
 Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
 Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test
 Banning firearms with “thumb hole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address
attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than
10 rounds.
Protects "legitimate" hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
 Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
 Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or
sporting purposes and

Additionally, gun bans instituted elsewhere have not worked.
In 1998 in Dunblane, Scotland a man known to be mentally unbalanced walked into a school and killed 16 children and wounded 13 more adults and kids. That precipitated the 1998 Firearms Act which essentially banned all handguns there. They all had to be turned in, and if the owner did not, he or she faced ten years in prison. This was meant to prevent mass killing from ever happening there again, just as the current AWB proposals are "designed" to accomplish. However, in North Umbria, a man in 2010 killed his brother, a co worker, 12 others in drive by shootings along the rural countryside. He further injured 11 more  before killing himself.

National Black Rifle Registration Coming To A Neighborhood Near YouSummary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:  120 specifically-named firearms  Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic  Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:  Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test  Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test  Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:  Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment  Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and  Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include: o Background check of owner and any transferee; o Type and serial number of the firearm; o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint; o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration



Registration will be required of all black rifles currently owned, possessed, and "Grandfathered" by the new AWB law if the Feinstein "Assault" Weapons ban is passed as currently proposed and written. If it is scary looking, then it is on the list.

Registration will amount to confiscation. This scheme is destined to follow the much touted "Australian model" of mandatory gun "buy backs." Here's how it worked there. Most guns in Australia had been registered since the 1930's. When it came time for the mandatory "buy backs" the Australian government already knew who owned what and where the owners were. Failure to stand in long lines to sell the firearm "back" Simple enough? In a one year period beginning in 1996, the Australian government confiscated and destroyed about 631,000 firearms at a "buy back" cost of about 500 million.

However, effectiveness and full compliance with the law remains to be seen. Here's a summary of the 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation.

 Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons, the Act requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms

Act, to include:

o Background check of the owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

The Law bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
 120 specifically-named firearms
 Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
 Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
 Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
 Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test
 Banning firearms with “thumb hole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address
attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than
10 rounds.
Protects "legitimate" hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
 Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
 Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or
sporting purposes and

Additionally, gun bans instituted elsewhere have not worked.
In 1998 in Dunblane, Scotland a man known to be mentally unbalanced walked into a school and killed 16 children and wounded 13 more adults and kids. That precipitated the 1998 Firearms Act which essentially banned all handguns there. They all had to be turned in, and if the owner did not, he or she faced ten years in prison. This was meant to prevent mass killing from ever happening there again, just as the current AWB proposals are "designed" to accomplish. However, in North Umbria, a man in 2010 killed his brother, a co worker, 12 others in drive by shootings along the rural countryside. He further injured 11 more  before killing himself.


Friday, December 14, 2012

New Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling May Face Big Obstacles


Although there’s been a breakthrough in the strict laws against concealed carry of firearms in Illinois 1,  there may be some dark clouds in an expansion of gun rights in oppressive Illinois.  There are several potential problems. The well publicized 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has left the door open to Illinois granting concealed carry permits to carry a concealed firearm just as is it is handled in New York state.

Although it’s a giant leap in Illinois gun rights, before anyone gets overly excited, the fact is that the Court left the door open in Illinois to restrictive Concealed permit laws that afflict New York. New York law requires an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed handgun in public to show a “proper cause” to obtain a license. 1

A New York applicant for a gun permit must demonstrate a need for self-defense greater than that of the general public such as being the target of personal threats. The Court believed that the New York law is less restrictive than  Illinois’s law current;y was.  And, the decision was made by a three Judge Appellate panel. The door is left open for an appeal to the full nine Judge Seventh Circuit Court. And, this could eventually wind its way to the United States Supreme Court.

 The problem faced by gun rights foes was that The state’s Attorney General failed to convince the Judges that the “safety” needs of that state’s residents were any greater than any of the other 50 states.  The Court decided that Illinois’s failure to justify the most restrictive gun law of any of the 50 states made the law unconstitutional. The judges also recognized the fact that people face the potential of greater harm from criminals outside of the home while on Illinois streets than in their homes. 1

A big question is that even if the ruling survives the appeal process, will a new state law make Illinois a "shall issue" state or an overly restrictive "may issue" state like New York is. The Court wouldn’t speculate on any limits that Illinois “may” impose in the interest of “public safety” on the carrying of guns in public. It was just enough for this Court to determine that the limits Illinois imposed went too far.

This Court understood that a person faces greater danger from potential criminal attack outside the home and on the state’s streets than in the home. The Court also was convinced that criminals knowing that many law-abiding citizens are walking the streets armed may make criminals timid. The Court referenced to the fact that in Chicago, most murders occur outside the home. And, there have been over 400 gun homicides on the streets of Chicago’s south and west sides so far this year.  

The Court didn’t buy into many of the usual anti gun rights arguments that “more guns” lead to more crime. The Judges believed that the data made available from both the pro and con sides in their briefs to them implied that concealed permit holders are at fairly low risk of misusing guns, consistent with the relatively low arrest rates observed to date for permit holders. The Appellate panel expects relatively little negative public safety impact if Courts invalidate laws that prohibit gun carrying outside the home, assuming that some sort of permit system for public carry of side arms is allowed to stand. And, “some sort” of permit system still leaves the door open to a potentially abusive and very restrictive carry permit scheme. The state has 180 days to formulate A "less restrictive" law than the one tossed out. 


Illinois' McLean County State’s Attorney, Ronald C. Dozier, took an earlier stand against enforcing certain Draconian Illinois gun laws. Announcing in his press release, with certain exceptions, the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office, “Will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms:
Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65),
Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1),
Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6)
and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.”

Even as Illinois may be liberalizing gun rights, Colorado’s Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper said that gun control measures should be considered now in light of the Aurora and the Oregon mall shootings. However, highly publicized shootings such as these get the anti gun attention rather than on the failure of the strictest gun laws in America in Chicago with over 400 dead on the streets in Chicago, where the country’s strictest gun laws have been a failure.

Meanwhile, the number of concealed permits issued in Colorado has been soaring since their inception in 2004. There was an increase in permit applications there of 185% last year, the greatest increase since 2004. Also, last year there were 251,000 Colorado background checks for gun purchases made, and 245,000 checks were approved. 2.
2. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPS-CBIMain/CBON/1251622199088

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

One Illinois State's Attorney Just Says "No" To Harsh Illinois Gun Laws

There is a big change in enforcement of restrictive firearms laws in one Illinois county. 
Illinois' McLean County State’s Attorney, Ronald C. Dozier, has taken a stand against enforcing certain Draconian Illinois gun laws. Announcing in his press release, with certain exceptions, the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office, “Will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms:
Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65),
Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1),
Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6)
and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.”

Heavily weighing in his decision were the Second Amendment, and as he says, “The duty of a public prosecutor is to seek justice, not merely to convict.” Indeed, every prosecutor’s office has a duty to be a fair administrator of justice. That means for both victims and those accused of crimes.

Under the laws of all states, including Illinois, prosecuting attorneys use great discretion everyday when they decide to file charges or not. They also decide what charges to bring. They can also reduce charges or dismiss them.

A major consideration in his decision was the Heller decision. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.

Dozier said this of the Heller decision in his news release, “What has been the response of the State of Illinois to the Supreme Court? So far, the City of Chicago and the State have done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings. Illinois remains the only State in the Union to deny its citizens the legal right to “bear” firearms, either open or concealed, for personal defense. We are the only State to have a draconian FOID law that makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong except exercise their constitutional right to own a gun.

We have a law called “Unlawful Use of Weapons” which criminalizes people for merely possessing (not using or threatening to use) a firearm in the wrong place or wrong kind of container… What has been the response of the State of Illinois to the Supreme Court? So far, the City of Chicago and the State have done everything possible to defy, obfuscate and ignore the Court’s substantive rulings. Illinois remains the only State in the Union to deny its citizens the legal right to “bear” firearms, either open or concealed, for personal defense. We are the only State to have a draconian FOID law that makes criminals out of ordinary citizens who have done nothing wrong except exercise their constitutional right to own a gun...”

Dozier also stated  “We also penalize citizens of neighboring states who possess or carry firearms in complete obedience to their state laws, but don’t stop at the border of Illinois and switch the guns and ammunition around to accommodate our more stringent firearm laws.
Even the courts in parts of this State refuse to follow the Supreme Court’s ruling, going so far as to hold that the Second Amendment gives citizens only the right to keep and bear arms within our houses! Can any person honestly say he or she believes our forefathers intended the Second Amendment to allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves only while inside their houses?

Proponents of the status quo continue to argue that such laws as these are “reasonable”
restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. But as pointed out in McDonald, “Chicago Police Department statistics reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban [which was struck down by the Supreme Court] was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the Country and rates of other violent crimes that exceed the average in other comparable cities.”

In fact, the result of most gun control laws is that law-abiding citizens go defenseless while
criminal thugs are armed.

I believe these facts to be incontrovertible:
1) No State that has gone from no-carry to concealed-carry or open-carry of firearms has
experienced a significant increase in firearm violence.
2) Any evil or deranged person who is intent on killing others will find a way to do so, no
matter how strict our laws.
3) Murder is already against the law and carries very serious penalties. If that is not enough
to deter someone from committing the crime, why would they be deterred by laws against
gun possession?
4) The police can’t be everywhere to protect us. Only on rare occasions is a policeman
present to prevent a violent crime. Mostly they arrive after the fact, to investigate and
apprehend the offender if possible.

People who don’t like guns—who don’t want to own or carry a gun for protection, have the right to rely on the government to do that for them. They do not have the right to require everyone else to do so. The Supreme Court has so decided.

As the State’s Attorney, I have to make a choice. Do I continue to enforce laws that I believe to be unconstitutional, a belief that is supported by decisions of the highest court in the land, or do I continue to prosecute citizens who run afoul of State gun laws but have no evil intent or purpose in mind?  

In fact, since I was appointed State’s Attorney last December, I have been quietly changing our policies to bring them in accordance with the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Now I am announcing publicly that the McLean County State’s Attorney’s Office will no longer enforce those parts of the following Illinois statutes relating to firearms: Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (430 ILCS 65), Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1), Aggravated Unlawful Use of Weapons (720 ILCS 5/24-1.6) and provisions of any other statutes that appear to be in contravention of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

The questions we will seek to answer in determining whether or not to file charges are:
1) What appears to be the reason or purpose for the person’s possession of carrying a
firearm?
2) Was the firearm actually displayed, or used, for an improper purpose or in a reckless
manner?
3) Was the person under the influence of alcohol or drugs, or have illegal drugs on his or
her person or in their vehicle?
4) If the person is not an Illinois citizen, was the weapon possessed or carried in
accordance with the laws of the State of his or her residency?
5) Is the person a member of or affiliated with any gang known to engage in illegal
activities?
6) Has the person been convicted of a felony offense? If so, how long ago and for what
offense(s)?

Other questions may arise as we continue to improve our policy.

At this point, I must remind everyone that I am just the State’s Attorney of McLean County and can only enforce the laws within McLean County. I am not urging anyone to disregard the laws of the State of Illinois or of the Federal government with regard to firearms. The penalties for doing so can be very harsh. Additionally, I have no right and no intention of telling local law enforcement agencies when or under what circumstances to make arrests for firearms offenses.
Officer safety must remain the highest priority, and departmental policies must be followed.

My purpose is to send a message to the Governor and legislators of this State who continue to ignore the U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and who continue to oppose reasonable legislation that would bring Illinois into compliance with the Second Amendment. I know that other State’s Attorneys share my views and am hoping they will join in this effort.

Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Date: 08/21/12

Ronald C. Dozier
McLean County State’s Attorney”

Reaction to Dozier’s decision has been as expected. That reaction ranges from legal experts saying that he is within his rights not to prosecute to the assertion that the NRA is too powerful and that Dozier has overstepped his bounds. Apparently, so far, no anti gun rights groups have weighed in on the Prosecutor’s decision. But, that is surely coming with attempts to remove him from office.

However, the final judge on his decision will be the voters of McLean County, Illinois. Dozier said it best above, “The primary check or balance on the power and authority of the State’s Attorney is the power of the people to vote him or her out of office.”

VISIT OUR OTHER BLOG

Carrying a gun does not provide ANY realistic possibility of self defense


Saturday, August 18, 2012

Obama Lied To The Illinois Bar About Barry Soetoro

Why did Barack Obama lie about never using the name Barry Soetoro on his Registration with the Illinois Bar Association? "Full Former names" the second question on the ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD. 

However, instead of Listing "Barry Soetoro," he wrote the word "NONE" on the "Former Names Used" line. 

The Bar wants to know EVERYTHING on the background about its members, and generally do not look kindly on deception by applicants or members. This could have lead to more questions about "Barry Soetoro" if he disclosed that name. Such as, when, where, and how was it used. There could have been requests by the Bar for supporting documents that were used with than name which could prove embarrassing. 

The Bar website address for his form is http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=584273216
However, your request may not go through.
If not, go to the Illinois website: http://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp and enter "Obama" and then click on his name for verification, or read below.

Lawyer Search
Lawyer Registration
How to Submit a Request for Investigation
Rules and Decisions
Ethics Inquiry Program
Publications
Clerks Office, Filings and Public Hearings
Client Protection Program
Resources & Links
ARDC Organization Information
spacer (no content)

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of August 17, 2012 at 1:17:38 PM:
Full Licensed Name:Barack Hussein Obama 
Full Former name(s):None 
Date of Admission as Lawyer
    by Illinois Supreme Court:
December 17, 1991 
Registered Business Address:Not available online 
Registered Business Phone:Not available online 
Illinois Registration Status:Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law 
Malpractice Insurance:
(Current as of date of registration;
consult attorney for further information)
In annual registration, attorney reported that he/she does not have malpractice coverage. (Some attorneys, such as judges, government lawyers, and in-house corporate lawyers, may not carry coverage due to the nature of their practice setting.) 
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings:
None
Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information relating to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information relating to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, please contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, from within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

ARDC makes every effort to maintain the currency and accuracy of Lawyer Search. If you find any typographical errors in the Lawyer Search information, please email registration@iardc.org. For changes to contact information, including address, telephone or employer information, we require that the attorney submit a change of address form. Please consult our Address Change Requests page for details. Name changes require the filing of a motion with the Supreme Court. Please consult our Name Change Requests page for details.

  
.

Friday, August 17, 2012

Overwhelming Majority of Americans Agree Constitutional Right to Own a Gun is as Important as Right to Free Speech


Public Religion Research Institute

News Release- Overwhelming Majority of Americans Agree Constitutional Right to Own a Gun is as Important as Right to Free Speech

08/15/2012 Most Americans oppose allowing people to carry concealed guns in a place of worship, government building, or on a college campus
Washington, DC— Following the tragic mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin, which led to a renewed dialogue on gun rights, a new national survey finds that Americans overwhelmingly believe that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as their constitutional right to free speech.
The August PRRI-RNS Religion News Survey, conducted by Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with Religion News Service, found that more than two-thirds (68 percent) of Americans agree that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech or freedom of the press. There are substantial differences between gun owners (89 percent) and non-gun owners (55 percent), and large differences along racial lines. White Americans (75 percent) are significantly more likely than non-white Americans (56 percent) to agree.
“In spite of recent debates over gun control, a strong majority of Americans believe that the constitutional right to own and carry a gun is as important as the right to free speech,” said Dr. Robert P. Jones, PRRI CEO. “Unsurprisingly, this belief is particularly pervasive among gun owners.”
The survey also found that roughly three-quarters of Americans believe people should not be allowed to carry concealed guns in a church or place of worship (76 percent), in a government building (73 percent), or on a college campus (77 percent). However, opinion varies somewhat along political and religious lines.
Nearly one-third (32 percent) of white evangelical Protestants and 3-in-10 (27 percent) white mainline Protestants believe that people should be allowed to carry concealed guns to church, compared to 18 percent of religiously unaffiliated Americans and 14 percent of Catholics. A majority (55 percent) of Americans who identify with Tea Party support allowing people to bring concealed guns to church, compared to nearly 4-in-10 (38 percent) Republicans and fewer than 1-in-5 Independents (17 percent) and Democrats (9 percent). Similar patterns of opinion exist in Americans’ views about whether concealed guns should be allowed in government buildings or on college campuses.
“White evangelical Protestants and white mainline Protestants are roughly twice as likely as Catholics to believe that people should be allowed to bring concealed weapons to church,” said Daniel Cox, PRRI Research Director. “But it’s important to note that white evangelical Protestants and white mainline Protestants are also substantially more likely than Catholics to own guns, which strongly predicts views on these questions.”
Additionally, the survey finds that a slim majority of Americans support passing stricter gun control laws. There is also broad public support for providing stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws. Few Americans support loosening current gun control laws.
Among the Findings:
There is no consensus among the public on the most important thing that could be done to prevent mass shootings. However, there is considerable disagreement along political and religious lines.
Nearly 3-in-10 (27 percent) Americans say that stricter gun control is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings, while roughly 1-in-5 say that better mental health screening and support (22 percent) and placing more emphasis on God and morality (19 percent) are the most important preventive measures. Fourteen percent of Americans say that stricter security measures at public gatherings are most important for preventing mass shootings from occurring. Roughly 1-in-10 (11 percent) Americans say that allowing more private citizens to carry guns for protection is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings.
  • Members of the Tea Party movement are three times more likely than Americans overall to say that allowing more private citizens to carry guns for protection is the most important thing that can be done to prevent shootings (35 percent vs. 11 percent).
  • Democrats are roughly three times more likely than Republicans to say that stricter gun control laws and enforcement is the most important measure to prevent mass shootings (38 percent vs. 13 percent).
  • Close to 4-in-10 (36 percent) white evangelicals say that placing more emphasis on God and morality in school and society is the most important thing that can be done to prevent mass shootings.
The survey was designed and conducted by Public Religion Research Institute. Results of the survey were based on bilingual (Spanish and English) RDD telephone interviews conducted between August 8, 2012 and August 12, 2012 by professional interviewers under the direction of Social Science Research Solutions (SSRS). Interviews were conducted among a random sample of 1,006 adults 18 years of age or older in the continental United States (304 respondents were interviewed on a cell phone). The margin of error for the survey is +/- 3.5 percentage points at the 95 percent level of confidence. In addition to sampling error, surveys may also be subject to error or bias due to question wording, context, and order effects. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

Brady Announces Push For Moderator To Ask About Guns In First Presidential Debate

MEDIAPRESS RELEASE

“We Are Better Than This” Campaign Urges Candidates to Listen to American Public

Aug 13, 2012
Washington, D.C. – The Brady Campaign today released a letter to presidential debate moderator  Jim Lehrer, calling on him to ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present plans to prevent gun deaths and injuries in the first presidential debate that will be held in Denver, Colorado. The Brady Campaign has been leading a national conversation on gun violence with an online campaign, www.WeAreBetterThanThis.org, and will ask Americans to join the call for questions on guns in the presidential campaign.

The letter reads:

Dear Jim:

As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver, Colorado, I respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because

•  The debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.

•  Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.

•  During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.

Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions -- solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms -- solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.

It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.

As a nation, we know we are better than this.  It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it too.

Brady Campaign President Dan Gross explained why the letter to the moderator is so important.

“There’s a dramatic disconnect between what the American people want and what our elected officials -- even our presidential candidates -- are doing about it. Our goal with this letter campaign is to lead the American people in closing this disconnect and in holding elected officials accountable. Until we do that, nothing will change. Once we do, everything will.”

The letter to the presidential debate moderator is hosted at www.WeAreBetterThanThis.org.

Friday, June 29, 2012

You Can Keep Your Doctor If You Want To…Unless He Is Run Out Of Business By The ACA


“A physician shortage was already expected before ACA was signed into law in March 2010, and now that gap could worsen. According to projections released last fall by the AAMC Center for Workforce Studies, there will be a shortage of about 63,000 doctors by 2015, with greater shortages on the horizon—91,500 and 130,600 for 2020 and 2025, respectively.” 1.

How will this actually affect the number of practicing Physicians? The outlook is not good. 
Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan... and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted…”  2. And, now the ACA is the law of the land. 

A major unintended consequence of the ACA is that many private practice physicians will no longer be able to stay in business for themselves. Or, is this really an unintended consequence? Fees that the Physician will be paid will be cut back significantly as dictated by the ACA. And, many Doctors may no longer be able to remain in business. It will also be difficult for new Doctors to hang up their shingle too.
Who will really want to enter the private practice field if there is not a possibility of making a decent income relative to the cost of doing business?

High costs of doing business are taken right off the Doctor’s bottom line. In addition to fixed costs like rent, office, medical equipment, and other expenses, there’s the Physician’s medical and office staff who must be paid. There are at least three staff in a Physician’s office that are important for the practice to function efficiently. The average salary of Physician Assistants is $79,000 annually. 3.  And, for a medical assistant, its $44,000. 4. Someone must answer the phones, meet the patients, and maintain the patient files. That’s the medical receptionist who make on average $28,000. 5.

Newer Physicians have a lot invested in their educations. There is four years of undergraduate, four years of medical school, three years of internship, one year of residency, and if a specialty is entered into, additional time in a fellowship. “The average medical student graduates with nearly $100,000 in student loan debt...A family practice salary may range from $73,150 on the low end and up to $249,950 on the top end, according to the report. But pay can vary dramatically by geographical region.” 6.

Most Physiciand make a good living. They have earned it. As of 2011, “On average, primary care physicians in the United States received $186,582 in pretax income a year, compared with $95,585 in France and $92,844 in Australia.7. Obama apparently wants not only to make our healthcare comparable to France, he also wants physician pay to be equivalent.  

And, Physician’s educations must be paid for, usually by student loans. And, those loans must be repaid.  Income based monthly payments on a $100,000 student loan with an interest rate of 6.8% with a 15 year repayment term is about $887.00.  8.

Part of the ACA provides 250 million for training for residency, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. 9.
However, based on the meager payments to providers, who will be interested in a decent paying career in the medical field? A major "unintended" consequence is the loss of operating income for Physicians medical clinics.

The typical Doctor’s office has an overhead of between 40 and 60% of the total operating income for the practice. 10. But, will Doctors be able to meet their overhead, let alone take home a paycheck?

In propagandizing about Obamacare, you will remember him saying this about a diabetic foot amputation on August 11, 2009.
“Right now if we paid a family -- if a family care physician works with his or her patient to help them lose weight, modify diet, monitors whether they're taking their medications in a timely fashion, they might get reimbursed a pittance. But if that same diabetic ends up getting their foot amputated, that's $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 -- immediately the surgeon is reimbursed.” 
However, The American College of Surgeons immediately fired back, “The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight. Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.” 11.
Physicians also narrowly averted a 27% cut in Medicare payments this year through a stopgap measure passed into law that ends 12/31/2012. 12.  And, payment cutbacks in general cannot be avoided by the ACA.
There are payment cutbacks for virtually every physician payment category. But, Obama has promised many good things to healthcare providers. Although portions of the  White House fact sheet shown below promises lowering the burden of uncompensated care on physicians, hospitals, and the rest of the system, none of the promises included a “living wage” for doctors and other healthcare providers.
For health care providers, health reform is designed to make our health care system stronger and make it work better for you and your patients:
…Expanded coverage and consumer protections will offer security…  This will lower the burden of uncompensated care on physicians, hospitals, and the rest of the system.
Reduced paperwork and administrative simplification will bring down the cost of care.
Tough new consumer protections will hold health insurers more accountable for treating patients and providers fairly. 
Tough new consumer protections will hold health insurers more accountable for treating patients and providers fairly. 
Tough new consumer protections will hold health insurers more accountable for treating patients and providers fairly. 
Health care providers will help drive improvements to health care delivery.”
Strengthening and growing our health care workforce.
Investing in community health centers and new clinical settings.
Loan forgiveness and scholarships. (for those joining The National Health Service Corps)  9.

In addition to patients being at the mercy of the Affordable Care Act, so will the fates of their Doctors.  

If the above is not infuriating enough, see our other blog:
http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/eric-holders-letter-to-obama-asking-him.html

Eric Holder's Letter To Obama Asking Him To Conceal Documents Related To fast And Furious

10. Arnow FM. Acceptable overhead. Fam Pract Manag. November/Dec 2002:78

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Letter from Rep. Issa To Obama Explaining Why He Is Not Entitled To Fast And Furious Executive Privilege

Here is the scathing letter to President Obama by Rep. Darrell Issa that explains why he is not entitled to Executive Privilege regarding Fast and Furious. 
See the letter from Eric Holder to Obama that brought about the Executive Privilege claim at: 
http://armedselfdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/eric-holders-letter-to-obama-asking-him.html


“Dear Mr. President:
On June 19, 2012, shortly after leaving a meeting in the U.S. Capitol, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to request that you assert executive privilege with respect to Operation Fast and Furious documents he is withholding from this Committee. The next day, Deputy Attorney General James Cole notified me in a letter that you had invoked executive privilege. The Committee received both letters minutes before the scheduled start of a vote to recommend that the full House hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with its subpoena.
Courts have consistently held that the assertion of the constitutionally-based executive privilege — the only privilege that ever can justify the withholding of documents from a congressional committee by the Executive Branch — is only applicable with respect to documents and communications that implicate the confidentiality of the President’s decision-making process, defined as those documents and communications to and from the President and his most senior advisors. Even then, it is a qualified privilege that is overcome by a showing of the committee’s need for the documents. The letters from Messrs. Holder and Cole cited no case law to the contrary.
Accordingly, your privilege assertion means one of two things. Either you or your most senior advisors were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee, or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation. To date, the White House has steadfastly maintained that it has not had any role in advising the Department with respect to the congressional investigation. The surprising assertion of executive privilege raised the question of whether that is still the case.
As you know, the Committee voted to recommend that the full House hold Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress for his continued refusal to produce relevant documents in the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. Last week’s proceeding would not have occurred had the Attorney General actually produced the subpoenaed documents he said he could provide. The House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on the contempt resolution this week. I remain hopeful that the Attorney General will produce the specified documents so that we can work towards resolving this matter short of a contempt citation. Furthermore, I am hopeful that, consistent with assertions of executive privilege by previous Administrations, you will define the universe of documents over which you asserted executive privilege and provide the Committee with the legal justification from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
Background
U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed in a firefight with a group of armed Mexican bandits who preyed on illegal immigrants in a canyon west of Rio Rico, Arizona on December 14, 2010. Two guns traced to Operation Fast and Furious were found at the murder scene. The Terry family appeared before the Committee on June 15, 2011, to ask for answers about the program that put guns in the hands of the men who killed their son and brother. Having been stonewalled for months by the Attorney General and his senior staff, the Committee issued a subpoena for documents that would provide the Terry family the answers they seek. The subpoena was served on October 12, 2011.
Internally, over the course of the next eight months, the Justice Department identified 140,000 pages of documents and communications responsive to the Committee’s subpoena. Yet, the Department handed over only 7,600 of these pages. Through a series of accommodations and in recognition of certain Executive Branch and law enforcement prerogatives, the Committee prioritized key documents the Department needed to produce to avoid contempt proceedings. These key documents would help the Committee understand how and why the Justice Department moved from denying whistleblower allegations to understanding they were true; the identities of officials who attempted to retaliate against whistleblowers; the reactions of senior Department officials when confronted with evidence of gunwalking during Fast and Furious, including whether they were surprised or already aware of the use of this reckless tactic, and; whether senior Department officials are being held to the same standard as lower-level employees who have been blamed for Fast and Furious by their politically-appointed bosses in Washington.
I met with Attorney General Holder on June 19, 2012, to attempt to resolve this matter in advance of the Committee’s scheduled contempt vote. We were joined by Ranking Member Elijah Cummings and Senators Patrick Leahy and Charles Grassley, respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Department had previously identified a small subset of documents created after February 4, 2011 — the date of its letter containing the false claim that no gunwalking had occurred — that it would make available to the Committee. The Justice Department described this small subset as a “fair compilation” of the full universe of post-February 4th documents responsive to the subpoena.
During the June 19th meeting, the Attorney General stated he wanted to “buy peace.” He indicated a willingness to produce the “fair compilation” of post-February 4th documents. He told me that he would provide the “fair compilation” of documents on three conditions: (1) that I permanently cancel the contempt vote; (2) that I agree the Department was in full compliance with the Committee’s subpoenas, and; (3) that I accept the “fair compilation,” sight unseen.
As Chairman of the primary investigative Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, I considered the Attorney General’s conditions unacceptable, as would have my predecessors from both sides of the aisle. I simply requested that the Department produce the “fair compilation” in advance of the contempt vote, with the understanding that I would postpone the vote to allow the Committee to review the documents.
The short meeting in the Capitol lasted about twenty minutes. The Attorney General left the meeting and, shortly thereafter, sent an eight-page letter containing more than forty citations requesting that you assert executive privilege. The following morning, the Deputy Attorney General informed me that you had taken the extraordinary step of asserting the privilege that is designed to protect presidential decision making.
In his letter, the Attorney General stated that releasing the documents covered by the subpoena, some of which he offered to the Committee hours earlier, would have “significant, damaging consequences.”[1] It remains unclear how — in a matter of hours — the Attorney General moved from offering those documents in exchange for canceling the contempt vote and ending the congressional investigation to claiming that they are covered by executive privilege and that releasing them — which the Attorney General was prepared to do hours earlier — would now result in “significant, damaging consequences.”
The Scope of Executive Privilege
Deputy Attorney General Cole’s representation that “the President has asserted executive privilege over the relevant post-February 4, 2011, documents” raised concerns that there was greater White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious than previously thought.[2] The courts have never considered executive privilege to extend to internal Executive Branch deliberative documents.
Absent from the Attorney General’s eight-page letter were the controlling authorities from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. As the court held in the seminal case of In re Sealed Case (Espy):
The privilege should not extend to staff outside the White House in executive branch agencies. Instead, the privilege should apply only to communications authored or solicited and received by those members of an immediate White House adviser’s staff who have broad and significant responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to be given the President on the particular matter to which the communications relate.[3]
The D.C. Circuit established the “operational proximity test” to determine which communications are subject to privilege. Espy made clear that it is “operational proximity to the President that matters in determining whether the president’s confidentiality interest is implicated.”[4]
In addition, even if the presidential communications privilege did apply to some of these subpoenaed documents, Espy made clear that “the presidential communications privilege is, at all times, a qualified one,” and that a showing of need could overcome it.[5] Such a need — indeed a compelling one — plainly exists in this case.
The Justice Department has steadfastly maintained that the documents sought by the Committee do not implicate the White House whatsoever. If true, they are at best deliberative documents between and among Department personnel who lack the requisite “operational proximity” to the President. As such, they cannot be withheld pursuant to the constitutionally-based executive privilege. Courts distinguish between the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Both, the Espy court observed, are executive privileges designed to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch decision-making. The deliberative-process privilege, however, which applies to executive branch officials generally, is a common law privilege that requires a lower threshold of need to be overcome, and “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct has occurred.”[6]
The Committee must assume that the White House Counsel’s Office is fully aware of the prevailing authorities of Espy, discussed above, and Judicial Watch v. Dep’t of Justice.[7] If the invocation of executive privilege was proper, it calls into question a number of public statements about the involvement of the White House made by you, your staff, and the Attorney General.
Finally, the Attorney General’s letter to you cited numerous authorities from prior Administrations of both parties. It is important to note that the OLC opinions provided as authorities to justify expansive views of executive privilege are inconsistent with existing case law.
Remarks about White House Involvement in Fast and Furious
For the past sixteen months, Senator Grassley and I have been investigating Operation Fast and Furious. In response to a question about the operation during an interview with Univision on March 22, 2011, you stated that, “Well first of all, I did not authorize it. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, did not authorize it.”[8] You also stated that you were “absolutely not” informed about Operation Fast and Furious.[9] Later in the interview, you said that “there may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.”[10]
From the early stages of the investigation, the White House has maintained that no White House personnel knew anything about Operation Fast and Furious. Your assertion of executive privilege, however, renews questions about White House involvement.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney emphasized your denial that you knew about Fast and Furious. Mr. Carney stated, “I can tell you that, as the president has already said, he did not know about or authorize this operation.”[11] A few weeks later, Mr. Carney reiterated the point, stating, “I think he made clear . . . during the Mexican state visit and the press conference he had then that he found out about this through news reports. And he takes it very seriously.”[12]
In an October 6, 2011 news conference, you maintained that Attorney General Holder “indicated that he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious.”[13] Regarding your own awareness, you went on to state, “Certainly I was not. And I think both he and I would have been very unhappy if somebody had suggested that guns were allowed to pass through that could have been prevented by the United States of America.”[14]
On March 28, 2012, Senator Grassley and I wrote to Kathryn Ruemmler, who serves as your Counsel, to request that she grant our numerous requests to interview Kevin O’Reilly, a member of the White House National Security Staff. We needed Mr. O’Reilly’s testimony to ascertain the extent of White House involvement in Operation Fast and Furious. In her response, Ms. Ruemmler advised us that the e-mail communications between Mr. O’Reilly and William Newell, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Phoenix Field Division, did not reveal “the existence of any of the inappropriate investigative tactics at issue in your inquiry, let alone any decision to allow guns to ‘walk.’”[15] She further emphasized “the absence of any evidence that suggests that Mr. O’Reilly had any involvement in ‘Operation Fast and Furious’ or was aware of the existence of any inappropriate investigative tactics.”[16] Your assertion of executive privilege renews concerns about these denials.
Earlier this month, when House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith asked the Attorney General when the Justice Department first informed the White House about the questionable tactics used in Fast and Furious, he responded, “I don’t know.”[17] He informed Chairman Smith that his focus was on “dealing with the problems associated with Fast and Furious,” and that he was “not awfully concerned about what the knowledge was in the White House.”[18]
Attorney General Holder has assured the public that he takes this matter very seriously, stating that “to the extent we find that mistakes occurred, people will be held accountable.”[19] Yet, he has described the Committee’s vote as “an election-year tactic.”[20] Nothing could be further from the truth. This statement not only betrays a total lack of understanding of our investigation, it exemplifies the stonewalling we have consistently faced in attempting to work with the Justice Department. If the Attorney General had produced the responsive documents more than eight months ago when they were due, or at any time since then, we would not be where we are today.
Moving Forward
At the heart of the congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious are disastrous consequences: a murdered Border Patrol Agent, his grieving family, countless deaths in Mexico, and the souring effect on our relationship with Mexico. Members of the Committee from both sides of the aisle agree that the Terry family deserves answers. So, too, do Agent Terry’s brothers-in-arms in the border patrol, the Mexican government, and the American people. Unfortunately, your assertion of executive privilege raises more questions than it answers. The Attorney General’s conditional offer of a “fair compilation” of a subset of documents covered by the subpoena, and your assertion of executive privilege, in no way substitute for the fact that the Justice Department is still grossly deficient in its compliance with the Committee’s subpoena. By the Department’s own admission, it has withheld more than 130,000 pages of responsive documents.
I still believe that a settlement, rendering further contempt of Congress proceedings unnecessary, is in the best interests of the Justice Department, Congress, and those most directly affected by Operation Fast and Furious. In light of the settled law that confines the constitutionally-based executive privilege to high-level White House communications, I urge you to reconsider the decision to withhold documents that would allow Congress to complete its investigation.
In the meantime, so that the Committee and the public can better understand your role, and the role of your most senior advisors, in connection with Operation Fast and Furious, please clarify the question raised by your assertion of executive privilege: To what extent were you or your most senior advisors involved in Operation Fast and Furious and the fallout from it, including the false February 4, 2011 letter provided by the Attorney General to the Committee? Please also identify any communications, meetings, and teleconferences between the White House and the Justice Department between February 4, 2011 and June 18, 2012, the day before the Attorney General requested that you assert executive privilege.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa
Chairman
cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Senate
The Honorable Kathryn Ruemmler, Counsel to the President”