ATF pulls license of one particular gun shop

posted at 11:01 am on April 7, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It took little more than the headline of this article to begin raising eyebrows

Gun shop that sold to mother of Newtown shooter loses license

(Reuters) – The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.

The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.

“We did revoke their federal firearms license,” she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.

This announcement has already provoked cries of Tyranny from alarmed Second Amendment defenders, and it’s no mystery why. The old rule of where there’s smoke there’s fire would make it utterly ignorant to see something like this happen and not have more questions. But there is still a lot that we don’t know about this. For one thing, the response from Riverview – the gun shop in question – was rather muted.

A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza’s mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.

This doesn’t rule out the whole Tyranny! suspicion, because it’s certainly possible that the shop owners feel like they are under the microscope of the ATF and are cautious about talking to the media. But before I go rushing to judgement here, it’s worth noting that there are other possibilities which aren’t far fetched at all. Various businesses get their licenses pulled all the time for offenses ranging from gross misconduct to mundane paperwork snafus. Stores get banned from selling cigarettes or alcohol if one of their employees is found selling to minors a couple of times or if they fail to send in a renewal or inspection form by the proper date.

There was obviously a high profile, extensive investigation after the Newtown shooting which delved into every pertinent fact of the case,and that would have included a look at the shop where the weapons were originally purchased. While it’s not impossible that somebody in the administration is going after this shop out of vengeance, it’s also possible that the aftermath of the investigation turned up some problematic detail about Riverview’s operation. Particularly if it was an honest mistake in their paperwork or a code discrepancy on weapons storage which they will be able to clear up quickly and get their license restored, it would clearly be in their best interest not to go bad mouthing the ATF to reporters.

In fact, while acknowledging that this is completely speculative, if the government had gone in vindictively and yanked their license for no valid reason, I think Riverview would be all the more likely to be screaming to the rafters. The muted tone of their response makes me think that it will turn out to be something far more mundane which will be cleared up and see them back in business. Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep an eye on this. I’ve been very wrong before.

UPDATE: (Jazz) Thanks to readers, apparently the local media has reported incidents of inventory problems at the store prior to the school shooting. This may be part of it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I love my country…didn’t realize that was a sin

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM

You may be the dumbest Fluking trolls I’ve ever seen around here. Country and government are not the same thing sweetheart.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 2:13 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Just because you would bend over (you might even enjoy that) every time your gubmint tells you to and as your GOD given rights are taken away from you, you will not say a thing much less fight does not mean that a large swath of this great land will not stand up and defend ourselves.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

“I love my country…didn’t realize that was a sin”

I love my country,too, but its government deserves nothing but suspicion, regardless of which party is in charge at the moment.

Hucklebuck on April 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

its absolutely hysterical (and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the applications of a gun control/Constitution tampering not as a gun experts, but as completely ignorant and emotional basket cases.

Please don’t shoot me with your skeet-thingy!

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Good, you should be disconcerted. The more of our liberty that the federal government violates, the further they will push us towards rebellion. Whether that’s peaceful secession, or an eventual armed resistance against a tyrannical government overstepping their limited powers, remains to be seen.

Resistance is always an inevitable eventuality. That you are so ignorant of history, of the fact that it shows us that all governments become too corrupt and removed from the will of the people to continue is what’s hysterical… and shows how ignorant (and how truly partisan) you really are

You still haven’t faced up to your logical fallacy, that you do indeed support government tyranny over the freedom of the people.

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Just because you would bend over (you might even enjoy that) every time your gubmint tells you to and as your GOD given rights are taken away from you, you will not say a thing much less fight does not mean that a large swath of this great land will not stand up and defend ourselves.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

it’s also a little hysterical how little our liberal trolls capitalize.

Hmm, sesqui?

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Hmm, sesqui?
 
hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

 
Nah. nonpartisan is way, way too clever.

rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

I never once mentioned joe biden.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:22 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Aww, look at him resorting to religious bigotry to make his points.No one will win you over, because you are a partisan hack masquerading (and badly I might add) as non-partisan.

You made yourself perfectly clear though, you support government tyranny and a populace that could never hope to defend itself against it.

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I never once mentioned joe biden.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Thread-winner.

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Do you ever feel just the least little bit embarrassed?

“Man … must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator.. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…. This law of nature…is of course superior to any other…. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force…from this original.” – Sir William Blackstone (Eminent English Jurist)

Natural Law is not some invention of modern day conservatives, but a fundamental underpinning of our constitutional government that goes all the way back to Plato and Aristotle. Whether you agree with it or not you should at least know what the Fluke you are talking about. Where the Fluke were you educated anyways?

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Thread-winner.

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Thank you. I’ll be here all the week.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Nah. nonpartisan is way, way too clever.

rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

:-)

You’re completely correct. Handing sequi’s ass to him is slightly less difficult than handing nonpartisan’s ass to him.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Thread-winner.

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM
Thank you. I’ll be here all the week.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I’d have to second that TW nomination. Very funny.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

STILL no mention of whether the shooter at Sandy Hook or in Aurora were being liberally dosed with SSRIs by their “mental health provider” prior to their ‘outburst’.

It’s almost as though everyone wants to avoid that. Odd.

Solaratov on April 7, 2013 at 12:17 PM

That’s what still disturbs me most – I think this is a huge coverup that needs a very hot white light shined on it. As a reflex, it’s my FIRST question every time we see a mass killing – “What psychotropic drug was he on?”

Harbingeing on April 7, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Likely because ALL the networks make a fortune on advertising from drug companies.

slickwillie2001 on April 7, 2013 at 2:31 PM

As Ayn Rand said:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

-
There are plenty of real criminals, illegals, gang-bangers, drug dealers… and the like… But it is way easier for the current batch of government despots running all levels of our system to go after the ‘mostly law abiding yet imperfect’ citizenry. Many of our laws are overly complex… tax laws and healthcare just to name two.

Imagine if they stopped nit-picking US and went full on after the serious criminal element. They could spend less time and money in policing and at the same time actually improve the safety of this country.

But the power resides in backing the average middle class into a corner, not in providing a higher level of freedom for US as individuals.

Guaranteed that there is some piece of paper or what-not that was unsigned or unpaid at that gun shop… The shop will now be made an example of BIG.GOV power weilding, and dozens of real criminals will slip through the hole created by the diversion of resources required to shut the little shop down.

RalphyBoy on April 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

O’rly? Should the FBI be concerned about you?

**partisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:04 PM

What a liberal using intimidation tactics?

Never./

I love my country…didn’t realize that was a sin

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Oh please : You’re a pus*y. You are so ready to give it all up. Just a child.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I feel so dumb.

HiJack on April 7, 2013 at 2:47 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

So that’s how you pictured “God”? Interesting. Perhaps you’re a subconscious gay Christian in denial. See a therapist.

S. D. on April 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

In fact we have stronger moral and legal grounds for a rebellion or insurrection today than the patriots did in the 18th century.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

I was in the shop shortly after they had their license suspended… I heard an employee tell several callers that they’ve lost their FFL and weren’t going to get it back. This was in late December or early Jan. They got raided, er, “audited” shortly after the Newtown shootings. I suspect the only way they would have passed and kept their FFL would have been if every form was correct and complete.

darkpixel on April 7, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Imagine if they stopped nit-picking US and went full on after the serious criminal element. They could spend less time and money in policing and at the same time actually improve the safety of this country.

But the power resides in backing the average middle class into a corner, not in providing a higher level of freedom for US as individuals.

Guaranteed that there is some piece of paper or what-not that was unsigned or unpaid at that gun shop… The shop will now be made an example of BIG.GOV power weilding, and dozens of real criminals will slip through the hole created by the diversion of resources required to shut the little shop down.

RalphyBoy on April 7, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Government workers are inherently lazy and by implication, cowardly.

It’s a lot easier to go after law abiding people on a technicality of violating a law or regulation that is likely Unconstitutional (especially since the individual citizen has no chance against the government’s unlimited resources in court) than it is a gang-banger, especially with overwhelming force.

It’s the POSSIBILITY of getting shot that scares them. Which is one incentive of them to try to take the guns. Once they have the guns of all the law abiding people they will then be able to victimize us WITH IMPUNITY.

Going after gang-bangers? “I might get hurt!”

Why do you think Bloomberg goes after soft drinks instead of whole neighborhoods in his city that are controlled by the lawless? Same reason. “I might get hurt”!

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM

cars serve a necessary purpose in the functioning of society…guns don’t. hth (hope this helps)

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Then why do cops have them sh*t for brains?

jawkneemusic on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

It took 20 minutes for the cops to show up.

29Victor on April 7, 2013 at 12:20 PM

If you’re talking about Newtown, that “20 minutes” meme was claimed by CNN, but was later debunked by the official police reports; they actually got there in about half that time.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

If you’re talking about Newtown, that “20 minutes” meme was claimed by CNN, but was later debunked by the official police reports; they actually got there in about half that time.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

When seconds count the police are just minutes away…

ajacksonian on April 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

If not God then nature sh*t for brains. God/Nature fashioned animals with claws, teeth, hooves, antlers and an instinct for survival so defend ones self. Humans were given a mind in which they use to fashion tools. To deny that makes you an absolute fool and a dangerous one at that.

jawkneemusic on April 7, 2013 at 3:15 PM

If you’re talking about Newtown, that “20 minutes” meme was claimed by CNN, but was later debunked by the official police reports; they actually got there in about half that time.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Doesn’t matter. They’re not there in the moment, never can be.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 3:16 PM

…they actually got there in about half that time.
 
Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

 
And, for some unknown reason, with guns.

rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

And, for some unknown reason, with guns.

rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Why not knives I say.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Q: Why do I carry a gun?

A: A policeman is too heavy.

ajacksonian on April 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

not_terribly_bright on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

You obviously were on vacation in North Korea during the 8 years between January of 2001 and January of 2009, when many Leftists were convinced that Chimpy Bush would never leave office voluntarily when his term expired. They were talking armed rebellion as well.

In fact a Leftist blog did an online “poll” in 2006, and 90% of the 1,000 respondents said Bush would never leave office voluntarily.

Not to mention nonsense like this, which was actually written by a Senior Democrat Party Staffer:

Before leaving office George W. Bush will issue a mass pardon, the largest collection of presidential pardons in American history.

Bush will pardon himself, Vice President Cheney, and a long list of officials involved in torture, eavesdropping, destruction of evidence, the CIA leak case, and a range of other potential crimes.

As George Bush signs the pardons and boards the helicopter to depart Washington as his presidency finally ends, even then he and those pardoned will worry about the statute of limitations.

There is an important point to this, often not recognized in official Washington during the Bush years: When the unthinkable became a way of life, acts were committed that defied constitutional and legal principles in ways never done by an American president.

Torture alone violates international law, domestic law, criminal statutes, and American principles that date back to George Washington.

Eavesdropping without court order violates a statute, FISA, that includes severe criminal penalties. If the courts ultimately conclude that these laws were broken, as I predict they ultimately will, considering the number of individual violations, and the penalties for each violation, the potential sentencing liability for anyone convicted would be huge.

But your biggest problem? Just last year, the Leftist group known as Anonymous, which was created in 2003 to protest the Evil War Criminals Bush and Cheney, issued this ultimatum:

Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.

Thanks for the entertainment again, Kid! You’re really on a roll.

a+

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I love my country…didn’t realize that was a sin

non on April 7, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Did you support the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and the volunteers who fought in those wars?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:28 PM

So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns?

non on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

How do you know it’s a man with a beard? You claim it’s invisible.

(rolls eyes)

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Various businesses get their licenses pulled all the time for offenses ranging from gross misconduct to mundane paperwork snafus. Stores get banned from selling cigarettes or alcohol if one of their employees is found selling to minors a couple of times or if they fail to send in a renewal or inspection form by the proper date.

So why didn’t ATF disclose their reason for pulling the license?

Methinks if they actually did something wrong or illegal, however minor the offense, ATF would say what it was. Why didn’t they?

And the gun shop owner may not be saying anything because he does not know why his license was pulled. If so, he could only speculate. It would be unwise to do that publicly.

As far as I am concerned, ATF is guilty of Kafkaesque tyranny until it demonstrates otherwise by disclosing why it pulled the license. This is Chicago Way crap. This is how the Chicago Bosses keep local businesses in line. The Rahmfather silenced the (right-leaning) owner of the Cubs, who was making rightish political noises, by threatening to block his requests for permission to make improvements to Wrigley field.

farsighted on April 7, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Congratulations gnat brain. Ask your supers at OFA for a raise.

tom daschle concerned on April 7, 2013 at 3:35 PM

Riverview apparently has a history of problems with theft & inventory control. The final straw was when a kleptomaniac who had already been arrested for walking out with 12 firearms over some time period did it again after being released.

http://articles.courant.com/2012-12-17/news/hc-bushmaster-theft-1218-20121217_1_jordan-marsh-rifles-east-windsor-police

clancy_wiggum on April 7, 2013 at 3:41 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Not nearly as disconcerted as you *should* be.

Midas on April 7, 2013 at 3:49 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Uhhhh, that’s because YOU can’t name a country of any serious age that hasn’t had either a civil war or a coup.

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 3:49 PM

If you’re talking about Newtown, that “20 minutes” meme was claimed by CNN, but was later debunked by the official police reports; they actually got there in about half that time.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Good catch. So contrary to popular belief, the police got there not in 20 minutes, but in 10 minutes – in time to save everyone. Oh, wait… even getting there in half the time was still… oh, about 10 minutes too late.

Do we agree?

Midas on April 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM

For our Low-IQ Leftists, another All Guns Are Bad Update:

A year ago this month, the Junior Democrat Senator from New York (the lady who replaced Hillary! as a matter of fact) proposed a law that would expand the FAA’s right to kill geese at NYC’s JFK Airport. And not just with guns!

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on Wednesday proposed making it easier to round up geese from a federal refuge near Kennedy Airport and kill them, an idea that’s meeting opposition from wildlife advocates.

-snip-

The USDA has wildlife-control contracts at most of New York’s airports including Kennedy, LaGuardia and Westchester. Besides rounding birds up and gassing them — or euthanizing them, as the agency prefers — its methods include scaring the geese with starter pistols, shooting them with real guns and putting corn oil on their eggs to smother the embryonic chicks.

There is one dog whose job is herding geese, but the USDA does not use the falconers who previously patrolled Kennedy. Gosser said a falcon can scare small birds away, “but it’s not going to scare a goose. It won’t scare many of the gulls either.”

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:56 PM

Apparently this shop had other issues, unrelated to Newtown. It appears that a great many guns vanished from inventory as a result of theft, perhaps as many as a few dozen. An employees and a person from the area may have been involved in the thefts, which occurred unnoticed over a long period of time. If these allegations are true, then Rivieview is facing a serious problem, more serious than revocation.

thegringo on April 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM

It’s a lot easier to go after law abiding people on a technicality of violating a law or regulation that is likely Unconstitutional (especially since the individual citizen has no chance against the government’s unlimited resources in court) than it is a gang-banger, especially with overwhelming force.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Well put.

flicker on April 7, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Post updated. Apparently the store had some inventory problems due to theft.

Jazz Shaw on April 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Just because you would bend over (you might even enjoy that) every time your gubmint tells you to and as your GOD given rights are taken away from you, you will not say a thing much less fight does not mean that a large swath of this great land will not stand up and defend ourselves.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Welcome to the age of the Tea Party, a group without a serious intellectual foundation, adamantly convinced that its a victim of American democracy, and committed to a right-wing vision of utopia that’s divorced from reality.
Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/24/ukip-tea-party-beppe-grillo-threat

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

its crazy to you that ppl can’t have a morality system without religion? so, if a kid isn’t indoctrinated in some religion (christianity, islam, judaism, whatver fairy myth you want to fill in the blank) they won’t know that killing is wrong, that stealing is wrong, that hurting others is wrong?

you don’t think humans are capable of an inherent morality? jeebus dood

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Your side kills babies and tries to justify it as a “choice”. So no, I don’t think “ppl” can have a morality system without religion. Thank you for pointing that out!

dominigan on April 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

When did I say that? And bending over and just taking it is something that the trolls such as yourself promote around here. Oh, and I don’t cast myself in any minority as I believe there are way more people that think like I do than how you think.

VegasRick on April 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Oops… I just realized I fell for your strawman argument. “ppl” don’t need religion… They need Jesus Christ for Salvation, and to turn to God the Father. I need it, and you need it.

dominigan on April 7, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Welcome to the age of the Tea Party, a group without a serious intellectual foundation, adamantly convinced that its a victim of American democracy, and committed to a right-wing vision of utopia that’s divorced from reality.
Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/24/ukip-tea-party-beppe-grillo-threat

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Welcome to Liberal insanity, a group without a serious intellectual foundation who advocates ignorance in history so they can enjoy the benefit of reliving it.

I’m amazed at how many liberals profess a complete lack of reading comprehension. You rely on crutches of lawyers, instead of the clear words of the Constitution. Why do you not read the plain words? What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” do you not understand? Why are you afraid of being on “Are you dumber than a 5th Grader”?

(Ok, that last question was rhetorical… we all know the answer here!)

dominigan on April 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

…braying again?…jackazz!

KOOLAID2 on April 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Thanks for taking the mask off you disgusting stalinist.

tom daschle concerned on April 7, 2013 at 5:01 PM

its crazy to you that ppl can’t have a morality system without religion?
nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Everyone has a religion, everyone has a God. You live long enough you figure this out. The severest “fundamentalists” I’ve ever known were Leftists. They worshiped a religion without a morality system, completely detached from a source of humility. Therein arises the greatest inhumanity.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM

This happened back in DECEMBER. Not sure why this is being recycled ?

TX-96 on April 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

In fact we have stronger moral and legal grounds for a rebellion or insurrection today than the patriots did in the 18th century.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Yep, the Obama Regime makes King George III look like a PARAGON of respecting the rights of free individuals.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

We had the right to own guns before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified.

After the BOR was ratified, if you were an able-bodied, white male between the ages of 18 and 45, you HAD to own a gun.

See the Militia Act of 1792.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

The supreme court isn’t always right.

The Dred Scott Decision
Plessy vs Ferguson…

The Supreme Court basically CAUSED the Civil War with those disastrous decisions.

And many more.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM

How about we just ban your people from owning guns, bayam. You know what I’m talkin’ bout, dawg. There would be an incredible decrease in homicides involving guns.

Lanceman on April 7, 2013 at 5:14 PM

You rely on crutches of lawyers, instead of the clear words of the Constitution. Why do you not read the plain words? What part of “SHALL NOT INFRINGE” do you not understand? Why are you afraid of being on “Are you dumber than a 5th Grader”?

(Ok, that last question was rhetorical… we all know the answer here!)

dominigan on April 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

If you want to succeed in the global economy, perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time playing with your guns.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/24/ukip-tea-party-beppe-grillo-threat

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

And, guess what type of weapons the Court said could be regulated?

Hint: AR-15s aren’t one of them.

The Heller decision said that “dangerous and unusual weapons which are not in the common usage” can be regulated or banned by the government. It said that there was an individual right to bear arms; the Second Amendment “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” (p 8). In Heller, the Court held that bans on widely-used “amounted to a prohibition of an ENTIRE CLASS OF ‘ARMS’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

Dangerous:

The AR-15 is the #1 rifle sold in the United States. It is no more dangerous than handguns. In fact, it kills FAR less. In 2011, 72.5% of all gun-related homicides were committed using handguns. In 2011, 3.8% (323) of ALL gun-related homicides in 2011 committed with rifles of ALL KINDS, INCLUDING “ASSAULT RIFLES” LIKE AR-15s.

Unusual:

There is NOTHING unusual about AR-15-style rifles…unless one is afraid of black, skeery, plastic thingies.

Don’t believe me? Then, look at the pictures of these two guns and ask yourself, “Does one really look that much more ‘dangerous, unusual and uncommon’ than the other?”

The AWB of 1994 would be declared unconstitutional, in whole or in part, today in the wake of Heller.

Uncommon:

Really? AR-15s are uncommon? Since when?

In 2009, it was estimated that there were 3,261,725 of AR-15s – alone, not just AR-15-style – in the United States…and the homicide rate was 5.0.

In contrast, in 1994 when the original Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, there were approximately 1.5 million AR-15s in the United States and the homicide rate was 9.0.

In Heller, the Court was talking about the ability of the government to ban weapons such as SAMs, armed drones, and weaponised botulinum toxin. The Federal government doesn’t – and can’t – even ban fully-automatic guns although they are heavily-regulated and have been since the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:19 PM

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Hey, thanks for refuting nothing and contributing zilch. Now go hide under your bed like a good little ignoramus before them there semi-automatic kill machines find you.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

While common law has long maintained the position that “punctuation is no part of statute,” Hammock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co, 105 U.S. 77, (1881), citing references from the late 18th and early 19th century), it does help us in two ways: 1) It helps divine intent; and 2) it shows how those with agendas are willing to even change the actual punctuation of the Constitution to further their agenda. It is important to pay attention to punctuation because the version that was ratified wis not actually the version frequently quoted today.

The Second Amendment, as oft-stated today:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This formulation makes it appear that only those people in a “well-regulated” Militia (you’ll also notice that militia is capitalised meaning that it must be a state-sponsored “Militia” like the National Guard) have the right to keep and bear arms – a right, which shall not be infringed. With regard to “the people,” “shall not be infringed” almost becomes an afterthought in this version. But, about whom are we talking? Who would infringe upon the “right” of the people in the “Militia”?

Since it would be state-sponsored, that would have to be the Federal government. Yet, such an answer only raises another question. Why would the Framers have given the states a specific right in the Second when they intended that the states have all “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States…reserved…by the people”? Nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the states given specific rights. Indeed, states are given no rights in the first nine whatsoever. In the first nine amendments to the Constitution- even if we ignore the Second for the sake of argument – the rights recognised belong not to a government, but to citizens or people.

Apart from being grammatically incorrect, this version simply doesn’t make any sense. Either people have a right, which shall not be infringed, or they do not.

According to both the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office, the Second Amendment, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, only had one comma and reads as follows:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“Well-regulated” modifies the word “militia.” It doesn’t apply to arms. The “right” of people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

The Framers were giving a reason why people should have a right to bear arms, i.e., the security of a free state relied on a “well-regulated militia.” If they had wanted to do so – and, perhaps, they should have – they could have easily have dropped the modifying clause “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Now, I do understand why the states or even corporate (not necessarily in the way that the word is defined today) entities may have wanted a defined right to bear arms and have a well-regulated – meaning well-equipped, well-disciplined, well-organised – militia considering the recent history at the time of the Second Amendment’s drafting. So, the incorporation of the “well-regulated militia” clause in the amendment certainly has a solid legal and historical basis, but it has no bearing on the right of people, as individuals, to bear arms. The Tenth Amendment could certainly have protected the states’ rights to have “well-regulated militias” and the Second Amendment would have still protected the rights of “corporate entities” to bear arms, along with the assemblage protection of the First. Nevertheless, the intent of the Founders was clear, if one reads the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, and the correspondence and other writings of the Framers. They intended for a free people’s natural right to bear arms to not be infringed upon by government.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

You’re wasting your time quoting anything of history to Tore here.

Lanceman on April 7, 2013 at 5:24 PM

*Toure

Lanceman on April 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Being that I tend to believe in the first hand wisdom written out by our countries founders more than drive by palaver from idealistic twits like nonpartisan, I’ll practice my rights regardless of my atheism.

kregg on April 7, 2013 at 5:27 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

If you want to succeed in the global economy, perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time playing with your guns.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Let me guess.

Obama’s lecture on Constitutional law at U of C right?

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 5:27 PM

The Supreme Court basically CAUSED the Civil War with those disastrous decisions.

And many more.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM

And don’t forget the Democratic Party’s post-Reconstruction past where ‘gun control’ was used against blacks to disarm them before KKK visited them or lynching parties showed up.

Gun control has such a bloody history of the poor, the minority, and the innocent being killed that it isn’t funny.

And it always winds up with the innocent killed because they are disarmed by the State. Always. Without exception.

ajacksonian on April 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

What part of ‘THE PEOPLE’ do YOU not understand?

Are you claiming that, unlike the other rights in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment refers to a collective, not an individual right?

From a writer at the Daily Kos:

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you’ve read the Bill of Rights — and who among us hasn’t? — you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them:

“THE PEOPLE.”

First Amendment:

“…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”

Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Fourth Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…”

Ninth Amendment:

“…shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people…”

Tenth Amendment:

“…are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about “separation of church and state,” although there is no mention of “separation of church and state” in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the “Fvck Bush” bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment’s use of “the people” has the same meaning?

But it’s different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to “bear arms,” join the National Guard!

Right?

Wrong.

A Daily Kooks Writer Argues: Why Liberals Should Love The Second Amendment??? You Betcha!

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

If you want to succeed in the global economy, perhaps you should spend more time reading and less time playing with your guns.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You’re such a simpleton. The others here have done a great job schooling you but all you have is talking points. Say why don’t you just type Gates’ name or Rush’s name for fun. You know you want to. You have such a narrow knowledge of the workings of this country and this world. Truly embarrassing.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?
bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

You can’t be this uninformed, can you? You really said this, and with such insult and presumptuousness?

Did you even pause to consider what “well-regulated” or the term “regulated” meant at the time? It had NOTHING to do with government regulations or control — indeed, the opposite. It meant a militia instrinsically well kept and self regulated by the people to be capable of resisting the tyrannical elements or intent of the government’s army.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Bayam, do you wear your Che shirt to Prog meetings to discuss ‘the revolution’ and gun bans/control?

You guys are walking oxymorons, with an emphasis on morons.

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM

You know, shift change at restaurants is aroung 4 pm too.

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 5:35 PM

around

WryTrvllr on April 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

You can’t be this uninformed, …
rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Brayam’s as dimwitted as they get but likely she understands but she loves herself some big government and the control it brings. Even more so she loves to point out that some big business types are liberal…even though anybody with a half a brain knows that if you are a big business it probably makes sense to get a long with those that control America’s “revenue”. The fact that this makes her all giddy only emphasizes her ignorance and gullibility.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Even more so she loves to point out that some big business types are liberal…even though anybody with a half a brain knows that if you are a big business it probably makes sense to get a long with those that control America’s “revenue”. The fact that this makes her all giddy only emphasizes her ignorance and gullibility.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 5:40 PM

IOW, she wants the 1% to be armed and the 99% – the criminal class to be defenceless.

“Power to the 1% people!”

Resist We Much on April 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

its absolutely hysterical(and a little disconcerting) how many hotair posters have seriously contemplated the implications of a civil war/resistance movement not as a hypothetical, but as an eventuality.

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:10 PM

You’ve never opened a history book, have you?

kim roy on April 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Good catch. So contrary to popular belief, the police got there not in 20 minutes, but in 10 minutes – in time to save everyone. Oh, wait… even getting there in half the time was still… oh, about 10 minutes too late.

Do we agree?

Midas on April 7, 2013 at 3:51 PM

Newtown is a rural town, and Sandy Hook is in one far corner of said town. The school was as I recall approximately 5 miles from the police station, so they would have had to travel going at least 60 miles per hour over rather rather rural roads to have gotten there any faster than they did.

But hey, if you want to blame the Newtown cops for their own town’s physical geography and topography, be my guest!

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Welcome to the age of the Tea Party, a group without a serious intellectual foundation

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Brilliant Satire! How can it be a group at all if it doesn’t have a foundation?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

The supreme court isn’t always right.

The Dred Scott Decision
Plessy vs Ferguson…

The Supreme Court basically CAUSED the Civil War with those disastrous decisions.

And many more.

wildcat72 on April 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM

bayam was also an enthusiastic supporter of the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in favor of George W. Bush in December of 2000.

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.
bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

But wait where is the militia?

CW on April 7, 2013 at 5:51 PM

What part of “well-regulated militia” do you not understand?

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

What part of the SCOTUS decision in D.C. vs Heller do you not understand?

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Unable to accept the Supreme Court’s decision that government has the right to regulate the type of weapons available for sale in the United States, some people enjoy casting themselves in the light of a suppressed minority.
bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Also, funny as well- you aren’t getting your AW ban. Accept it.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM

bayam on April 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Most arguments against an AW ban have nothing to do with any claim of victimhood (or with the court’s ruling .) Rather it has to do with the waste such a ban is and the fact that it puts those that respect the law at a disadvantage.

You’re selling straw-as usual. For you to try rephrase the arguments here is just business as usual.

CW on April 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

LOL. So now a invisible bearded half-naked man gave you the right to own guns? You’ve won me over with that convincing argument. *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 2:18 PM

No one “gave” us the right to own firearms. The 2nd Amendment places restriction on government, not “the people”. You can’t take away or diminish that right because you are specifically denied the legal authority to do so. I know the concept of personal responsibility and natural rights is frightening to your progressive sensibilities but that’s YOUR problem, not mine.

Wendya on April 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Wendya on April 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

He doesn’t know what natural rights are. I think we’re being punked by a kindergartner.

NotCoach on April 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Visited the store a few times — never bought there. Was well kept and good inventory. Admittedly, haven’t been there in several years.

They did advertise with a big billboard heading north from Hartford on I-91 — probably offended the “right thinking people” as they drove on 91 north to Bradley Airport.

FiveG on April 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Wendya on April 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM

there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

the natural right is self protection. the gun is the modern knife, sword, whatever. get over it gnat brain.

tom daschle concerned on April 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM

That you are so ignorant of history, of the fact that it shows us that all governments become too corrupt and removed from the will of the people to continue is what’s hysterical… and shows how ignorant (and how truly partisan) you really are

ShadowsPawn on April 7, 2013 at 2:17 PM

Primarily, it shows that he has bought – hook, line and sinker – the progressive ideology: that man and the world can be perfected, given enough time/effort/money/education/whatnot. He believes that history is not a guide for what will happen, but only for what can happen – if we don’t “progress”.

GWB on April 7, 2013 at 6:57 PM

there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Wrong. The natural right is to be free from threats, both individual and corporate. The natural law provides that you have a right to protect yourself against those threats. Ergo, natural law says you can have a firearm, as it is generally the most efficient method of protecting oneself from threats.

GWB on April 7, 2013 at 7:01 PM

But hey, if you want to blame the Newtown cops for their own town’s physical geography and topography, be my guest!

Del Dolemonte on April 7, 2013 at 5:46 PM

He doesn’t appear to be blaming them, but pointing out that we can’t count on the police to protect us, since they are generally not actually at the place and time of whatever is happening. You mentioned the place is 5 minutes from the precinct – plenty of time to kill lots of folks as you wait for the police to show up; heck, even if you just wanted to be noticed (instead of actually killing folks) before your suicide-by-cop, you’d need a really long – Shakespearean, even – soliloquy to occupy that time. As was said, up-thread:

Q: Why do I carry a gun?

A: A policeman is too heavy.

ajacksonian on April 7, 2013 at 3:24 PM

GWB on April 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM

there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

The toxic stream of illiberal proclamatory idiocy coming from you is staggering. You show no signs of comprehending or deserving the once-in-a-history phenomenon of inherent American Constitutional freedoms, whose essence and particular genius are multiply self-supporting and serve YOUR interests as a liberal more than anything any government-centered system could ever provide or guarantee.

rrpjr on April 7, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Wendya on April 7, 2013 at 6:17 PM
there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

May I honestly ask, do you also post as sesquipedalian? Your comment structure and worldview are just so much the same.

Honestly.

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM

And, for some unknown reason, with guns.
 
rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 3:17 PM

 
Why not knives I say.
 
CW on April 7, 2013 at 3:23 PM

 
Or vigorous tackling.

rogerb on April 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM

no, don’t know who that is

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM

there is no ‘natural right’ to own a gun

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 6:37 PM

If you contend that there is a “natural right” to self-defense, then in this world, you are necessarily implying a “natural right” to own a gun.

If you argue against the right to self-defense, then you are beyond hope.

hillbillyjim on April 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM
no, don’t know who that is

nonpartisan on April 7, 2013 at 7:14 PM

You’ve never read any of his comments here?

hawkdriver on April 7, 2013 at 7:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4