A New York Police Department (NYPD) officer keeps guard during New Year’s Eve celebrations in Times Square December 31, 2014. REUTERS/Stephanie Keith (UNITED STATES – Tags: SOCIETY CRIME LAW) – RTR4JS50

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is sending out letters telling gun owners to turn over their rifles and shotguns — or else face the consequences.

New York City’s ban on rifles and shotguns that hold more than five rounds is now being enforced, according to a letter the NYPD is sending out to targeted city gun owners.

“It appears you are in possession of a rifle and/or Shotgun (listed below) that has an ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition. Rifles and shotguns capable of holding more than five (5) rounds of ammunition are unlawful to possess in New York City, as per NYC Administrative Code 10-306 (b).”

“You have the following options,” the letter explains.

“1. Immediately surrender your Rifle and/or Shotgun to your local police precinct, and notify this office of the invoice number. The firearm may be sold or permanently removed from the City of New York thereafter.

2. Permanently remove your Rifle and/or Shotgun from New York City and provide the following…Disposition Report/Registration Certificate…Notarized statement of permanent removal…Utility bill or other proof of residency regarding the address where the firearm will be stored outside the City of New York.

3. You may call to discuss the matter if you believe your firearm is in compliance…”

Departing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a major gun-control activist, with his coalition recently sponsoring an ad that depicts an Adam Lanza-type character entering a school full of children.

New York state, meanwhile, passed the NY SAFE Act in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. The law, which bans “high-capacity magazines” and puts in place other stringent controls, was signed by governor and 2016 presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo.

Patrick Howley, Political Reporter

The head of Cleveland’s largest police union is calling on Ohio Gov. John Kasich to temporarily restrict the state’s open carry gun laws during this week’s Republican National Convention following Sunday’s shooting in Louisiana that killed three officers and wounded at least three others.

“We are sending a letter to Gov. Kasich requesting assistance from him. He could very easily do some kind of executive order or something — I don’t care if it’s constitutional or not at this point,” Stephen Loomis, president of Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association, told CNN. “They can fight about it after the RNC or they can lift it after the RNC, but I want him to absolutely outlaw open-carry in Cuyahoga County until this RNC is over.”

State law in Ohio allows for licensed firearm owners to wear their weapons in public. With the exception of a small “secure zone” inside and around the Quicken Loans Arena, residents, delegates and protesters are legally permitted to walk around the city — including within its 1.7 square mile regulated “event zone” — with any firearm not explicitly banned by the state.

Kasich, responding to the request, said: “Ohio governors do not have the power to arbitrarily suspend federal and state constitutional rights or state laws as suggested.”

“The bonds between our communities and police must be reset and rebuilt — as we’re doing in Ohio — so our communities and officers can both be safe. Everyone has an important role to play in that renewal,” he said.

Earlier, he released a video offering his condolences in the wake of the Baton Rouge attack.

In the wake of tragedies such as the shooting in Orlando this week, the conversation turns to how society should address gun crime.  As the people of the United States recover from their shock, both sides will roll out their standard arguments: Ban specific firearms, increase concealed carry, a more watchful State.  These arguments will continue, and I agree with the authoritarians that something must be done.  However, I wish to take a different path with this argument; to envision how a free society would address gun crime.  For those interested in applying policy within the current system, I will attempt to show here that the answer is fewer laws, not more.

While each state in the US is different, all states depend as their primary line of defense on prohibitions against violence.  Punishment of violent offenders gives some closure to victims and serves to deter would-be offenders.  However, it is not always possible to punish people commensurate with the harm they cause.  Both sides of the debate agree on this problem, but offer differing proposals on how to solve this issue, usually in the form of additional legislation.

In a free society, we imagine the case of someone who purchases a weapon and goes on to misuse it, harming or killing others.  In this instance, defense agencies would take the person into custody.  After the requisite hearings, the sentence would be carried out.  On occasion, the guilty party would be able to repay his or her victims, but we must also consider the occasion where they could not.  The defense agencies would then expand the scope of their recourse.  In a free society, there would be nothing to prevent them from holding the weapons dealer responsible.

In an extreme example, someone purchases a shoulder-fired missile from a dealer and shoots down a passenger aircraft with it.  At list price, a Boeing 787 costs $265 million.  Each of the families of the victims will demand compensation, and clearing away the rubble isn’t free.  By the time everything is tallied, the damage could exceed $1 billion.  Considering that very few people have that kind of cash, life in prison or even the death penalty isn’t going to squeeze it out of them.

In the free society, the defense agencies go after the dealer because his product caused damage which they can’t recoup from the offender.   If the dealer’s assets aren’t sufficient, they go after the manufacturer, or even their suppliers.  Seeing this, other weapons dealers are faced with tremendous risk if their customers misuse their products.  So they do what is natural and they pay someone to manage this risk for them.  In fact, they don’t sell to a customer unless that customer pays to manage the risk by buying insurance.

The first thing we notice is that the amount is not equal for all weapons because the risk is not the same. The premium would vary based on the damage the weapon could cause and the likelihood it would be used in a crime. A Hi-Point might enter the market at $150, but carry a $500 insurance premium because of the probability it would be used to hurt people.  Likewise, the aforementioned MANPADS might retail for $25,000, but the risk to civilian aircraft might push the actual cost over $1 million.  The effect is to price out people who would be least likely to use the weapon responsibly.

The second thing we notice is that dealers who sell lots of problem guns have lots of claims, which makes it difficult and expensive to secure coverage. This addresses the “bad apple dealer” problem.

The third observation we make is that not all people pay the same for coverage.  Just as auto insurance rates males under 25 differently, it is a safe bet that insurers will be keenly aware of the demographics of mass shootings.  Likewise, insurers may insist on a background check before deciding the risk a person poses.

Having dealt with the abstractions of the free market, we ask what such a solution would look like in the society of today.  My proposal would consist of several legislative changes:

• Repeal of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
• Removal of liability limits granted by incorporation (ideally for all corporations)

The former removes specific protections granted to the gun industry, while the latter removes the ability of a dealer or manufacturer to hide behind a corporation.

I don’t envision this as a perfect solution, but one that greatly reduces the risk posed by firearms without creating lists that worry conservatives or creating yet another contraband law.  Most of all, it reminds us that the best solutions lie not in restriction, but in freedom.

Andrew Slanker is a voluntaryist, engineer, and husband.  His hobbies include economics, camping and travel.

I am going to say it right out, I hate these Lefty jackals who are determined to take away my right to own a gun. They are all in for protecting the rights of gays, the rights of illegal aliens, and the rights of Black Lives Matter rioters destroying public property. But when it comes to 2nd Amendment, Constitutionally guaranteed rights that allows me to own a firearm to protect me and my family, not so much.

President Obama just did an end run around Congress, you know, the fellows we elect to make the laws, and instead decreed his own executive action laws to try and prevent law abiding citizens access to legal weaponry. The proposals seem benign, but will have many unintended (or completely intended but undisclosed) consequences.

Obama cites the mass murders that have occurred in recent years as justification for his actions, but fails to mention that not one of his proposals would have had any impact at all on the instances that he cites. Instead, his proposals would simply increase the prices of guns dramatically, and would prevent the gifting of guns from father to son or between friends. All this at a time that Obama has opened up the floodgates to tens of thousands of Muslim immigrants who we cannot properly vet to see if they are refugees or ISIS terrorists.

That is the very definition of insanity.

It is hard to understand why the Left, as exemplified by the Washington Post newspaper, would be so insistent about disarming the law-abiding citizens of the U.S. They cannot point to one instance of an NRA member who “went rogue” and shot up the town. If that happened, they would shriek to the high heavens about the need to dismantle the organization. Instead, they offer up their pipe dream, which is not only dishonest, but completely  irrational.

According to WAPO, confiscation “is likely the only policy that would dramatically reduce gun violence in the United States.” They cite the possibility of disillusionment with the executive actions Obama put forward on January 5, based on the fact that Obama admitted the actions “might have only a modest impact” at best.

WAPO quoted Obama speaking at the January 7 gun control town hall, saying, “We’re not going to eliminate gun violence, but we will lessen it. If we take that number from 30,000 down to, let’s say, 28,000, that’s 2,000 families who don’t have to go through what the families at Newtown or San Bernardino or Charleston went through.”

The Washington Post observed:

Obama believes his policies can save thousands of lives a year, but acknowledges that gun shots would still kill tens of thousands of Americans annually. That intense level of firearms violence is one that Obama and other gun-control advocates might be forced to tolerate unless they push measures that are more invasive than background checks.

The Post says one policy that has worked in other countries is confiscation. They point to “Australia’s mandatory buy-back scheme” as an example of such a policy. And Obama and Hillary Clinton have both pointed to such a confiscatory scheme at various times themselves.

In quick review, it is worth pointing out that the 30,000 gun deaths include about 20,000 suicides, and there is little doubt that those individuals would find other ways of removing themselves from the gene pool.

Background checks, as a precursor to confiscation, will engender deep distrust, and the bad guys don’t buy their guns from Wal-Mart in any event. It is entirely likely that Obama will come up with other programs that will seek to limit access to guns, and the biggest irony is that Obama himself has been the most successful gun salesmen ever seen as the people start to recognize his plan to take their guns away. U.S. citizens have seen what took place in other countries and they will not be fooled.

Gun confiscation may indeed be the next step the Left wants to try, but they should be ready for a long, pitched battle since few gun owners will hand over their personal security system without a fight.

Source: breitbart.com

COLUMBUS, Ohio – Ohio may soon join other states in preventing those charged with misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing a gun.

But as it stands now, Judges don’t have the power.

On January 5, a deadly case of domestic violence unfolded in Chillicothe.

Detectives say Jerry Way shot and killed his sister-in-law April Lazar as her sister watched.

Inside Franklin County’s only domestic violence shelter, it’s not uncommon to see victims who’ve been shot by their partner.

“We’ve seen folks come to our shelter her in Columbus who have been shot by their abuser. We know that a woman who in an abusive situation is five times more likely to be murdered if the abuser has a gun,” Susan Villio, Executive Director of CHOICES, said.

In Ohio, there’s no law that allows a judge to take a gun away from someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

Federal laws allow guns to be taken felony domestic violence which involves repeated acts of abuse.

Representative Nickie Antonio said her bill would give judges more power in cases of misdemeanor domestic violence.

“The bill would allow judicial discretion in asking and commanding those convicted of domestic violence where there is a protection order in place to turn in their weapons,” she said.

It’s a move applauded by those who run domestic violence shelters.

“It will have a huge impact, more than 75 percent of folks that are killed the result of a domestic violence incident are killed with a gun,” Villilo said.

Opponents of the gun bill, argue it would be unfair to a young person who made a bad decision early in life and now could not own a gun.

Antonio says she’s willing to address that.

“Perhaps if someone has done their time and been rehabilitated that perhaps they could have their weapons back,” Rep. Antonio said.

Those who run the shelter believe this is a bill that makes sense because it has the potential to save lives.

“If we can keep the guns out of the hands of someone who is likely to kill their spouse or partner then that’s something we should be able to do,” Villilo said.

Franklin County is seeing more victims of domestic violence seek safety inside the shelter.

Right now it only has room for 51 but is housing 70 people who are forced to sleep on the floor.

In 2014, the shelter served 214 people. Last year that number jumped to almost 800.

There is an effort underway to build a new Franklin County Domestic Violence shelter that will provide 120 beds for those in need.

As Muslim refugees flood into Europe the number of violent attacks has increased. The spikes have resulted in record demand for guns. A video has surfaced on the internet and shows French citizens being confronted by alleged North African Muslim immigrants armed with rocks, knives, and bats.

The Golden Globes were held on Sunday and the award show was filled with celebrities spending countless hours praising each other.

While the stars had to worry about hair and makeup, they didn’t have to worry about personal protection — because many of these gun control advocates were protected by armed security guards, snipers on the roof, armored cars, and bomb sniffing dogs walking up and down the red carpet.

Several celebrities who were nominees and presenters at the award show signed a letterthanking President Obama for his Executive Action on gun control.

Amy Schumer, Quentin Tarantino, and Matt Damon believe the average American shouldn’t be armed, but when it comes to their own personal security — no expense should be spared.

Increased security presence at the 73rd Annual Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/YxPEnZQfrM

— Allen Schaben (@alschaben) January 10, 2016

First time I’ve ever seen security with machine guns walking #GoldenGlobes(@ScottFeinberg) https://t.co/E3Q76hkOkv pic.twitter.com/fVnBi933Q8

— Janice Min (@janicemin) January 11, 2016

Security with machine guns patrol red carpet before 73rd Golden Globe Awards at the Beverly Hilton #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/FSRlmmcBnN

— Allen Schaben (@alschaben) January 10, 2016

Beverly Hills PD armored vehicle in position. At 4, a look at prep and security going into tonight’s #goldenglobes pic.twitter.com/jLMANNRWgy

— Ashley Kewish (@ashleykewish) January 10, 2016

@SantaMonicaPD K-9 Rambo pawz’d for a moment on red carpet while aiding in security check at the #GoldenGlobes pic.twitter.com/cTYiEdWLbt

— Jacqueline Seabrooks (@SantaMonicaCoP) January 10, 2016

If you’re white, middle-class, and are a legal gun owner, The Baltimore Sun is afraid of you. More so even then they are of the illegal gun touting murderers currently overtaking their city’s streets. Just read the recent article published in the publication, written by Tricia Bishop:

It’s inevitable when my husband and I visit family these days that the subject of violence in Baltimore comes up. Often, I’m the one who raises it. But when it came up last week on a trip to see my parents in Georgia, I got my back up. I thought of the 11-hour drive south and the billboards we passed along I-81 boasting guns for sale (“A Glock for Christmas”!), and of the story my brother-in-law, who lives in Florida, told of a neighbor stopping by to shoot the breeze in his suburban driveway, a handgun holstered at the man’s waist as their kids played nearby.

I’m less afraid of the criminals wielding guns in Baltimore, I declared as we discussed the issue, than I am by those permitted gun owners. I know how to stay out of the line of Baltimore’s illegal gunfire; I have the luxury of being white and middle class in a largely segregated city that reserves most of its shootings for poor, black neighborhoods overtaken by “the game.” The closest I typically get to the action is feeling the chest-thumping vibrations of the Foxtrot police helicopter flying overhead in pursuit of someone who might be a few streets over, but might as well be a world away. But I don’t know where the legal gun owners are or how to ensure that their children, no matter how well versed in respecting firearms, won’t one day introduce that weapon to my daughter.

It’s probably good that op-eds like this get published. The more the anti-gun lobby talks, the more ridiculous they reveal themselves to be. Keep talking, Tricia Bishop. All you’re doing is strengthening America’s adherence to the Second Amendment.

Source: Baltimore Sun

Barack Obama smoking Marijuana

President Barack Obama is flexing his executive muscle, ordering the federal government to study how smart guns could stem violence.

In a memorandum Monday, the president told the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to look into smart gun technology, such as fingerprint and radio-frequency identification. The goals are to track lost or stolen guns and to prevent accidental gunfire.

The agencies have 90 days to compile recommendations.

The Obama memo comes a month after a couple influenced by radical Islamic beliefs fatally shot 14 people in San Bernardino, California, raising concerns about public safety. Gun sales rose sharply amid fear of extremists after the December 2 shooting, the Obama administration said in a briefing over the weekend.

On Tuesday, Obama outlined the memo and other executive actions he took during a tearful speech at the White House where he implored the nation to have a “sense of urgency” to tackle gun violence.He recalled the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut that left 20 children and six teachers dead.

“Every time I think about those kids, it gets me mad,” Obama said, wiping away tears. “And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.”

Besides encouraging gun safety technology, Obama’s initiatives also include expanding background checks during gun sales to beefing up enforcement of existing gun laws. This is part of an effort to close the so-called “gun show loophole” that allows gun dealers conducting business at gun shows or online without conducting background checks. Current laws exempts gun collectors and hobbyists from conducting background checks before selling a firearm.

Obama further plans to address gun violence during a nationally televised town hall meeting at George Mason University in Virginia on Thursday night. On Monday, the president consulted with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on which executive orders he could use for more gun restrictions.

“Developing and promoting technology that would help prevent these tragedies is an urgent priority,” Obama said in his memo.

Obama’s push for smart technology will likely run into resistance from gun rights groups, which have long said smart technology is a way for the federal government to track firearms.

That, they say, could ultimately lead to a ban on weapons.

Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement Tuesday that Obama has chosen once again to engage in political rhetoric instead of offering meaningful solutions. He said the NRA would not allow “law-abiding gun owners to become scapegoats for President Obama’s failed policies.”

“The American people do not need more emotional, condescending lectures that are completely devoid of facts,” Cox said. “The NRA will continue to fight to protect the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed under our Constitution.”

The president cited a 2013 Department of Justice report that reviewed the most effective use of gun safety technologies, including a requirement to scan for the owner’s fingerprint before a gun could discharge.

“In its report, the (DOJ) made clear that technological advancement in this area could help reduce accidental deaths and the use of stolen guns in criminal activities,” he said.

Obama said the recommendations are within his legal authority, consistent with the Second Amendment and supported by the “overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners.”

On January 1st, a new law will come into effect in Texas allowing for licensed handgun owners to openly carry their weapons in the same places they might normally bring a concealed one, including many restaurants and retailers.

But they’ll be out of luck if they want to open carry in H-E-B, the Texas grocery giant that is the largest private company in the state and 15th in the country, with $22 billion in revenues in 2014.

Eagle-eyed H-E-B shoppers might have noticed new signage on the doors of the supermarket chain’s 316 Texas stores in December.

Right underneath a warning that drinking liquor on premises is a crime is the following notice,posted online by a handful of Twitter users in recent days:

Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly.

Billionaire-owned H-E-B has issued no public statement on its decision to disallow open carry — one that is entirely legal for a private business, as long as compliant signage is displayed.

H-E-B competitors including Whole Foods and Safeway SWY +% subsidiary Randall’s have already posted notices prohibiting open carry in their Texas stores from the moment the law comes into effect.

So far, Kroger KR +0.00% has not. The country’s largest grocery chain has long said it would “follow state and local laws” on open carry. Ohio-based Kroger has been on the receiving end of a campaign by Michael Bloomberg-backed gun safety group Moms Demand Action for well over a year, including a six-figure ad spend and a rally outside its annual meeting.

H-E-B did not return multiple requests for comment from Forbes.

By Clare O’Connor for Forbes.com