City of Chicago Ban on Gun Sales Declared Unconstitutional by U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang has struck down Chicago’s law prohibiting the sale of guns within the city limits and declared in unconstitutional. In his ruling Judge Change said, “the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”

Chicago law prohibiting the sale of guns within the third-most populous U.S. city was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge.

“Chicago’s ordinance goes too far in outright banning legal buyers and legal dealers from engaging in lawful acquisitions and lawful sales of firearms,” U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang wrote in a decision today.

The judge said he was delaying the effect of his ruling to allow the city time to seek a stay during an appeal or, if it elects to forgo an appeal, to consider and enact sales restrictions “short of a complete ban.”

Chicago Sun Times: Federal judge rules city ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

City Hall attorneys had argued that the gun sale ban makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

Chang agreed the city had a “fundamental duty” to protect its citizens and acknowledged that “the stark reality facing the City each year is thousands of shooting victims and hundreds of murders committed with a gun.”

But he wrote that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense “must also include the right to acquire a firearm.”

“If all cities and municipalities can prohibit gun sales and transfers within their own borders, then all gun sales and transfers may be banned across a wide swath of the country if this principle is carried forward to its natural conclusion,” he added.

Actor and Martial Arts Expert Steven Seagal Considers a Run for Arizona Governor

Arizona Governor Steven Seagal?

Steven Seagal, the actor and martial arts expert says he is considering a run to be the governor of Arizona. Seagal said in an interview with ABC15 that the number one problem facing America today is open border. The 61 year old actor stated that because of the US open borders “any type of terrorism could come, and does come”.  Seagal had a pretty much common sense and factual approach on his views of borders amnesty and the need to secure our borders. Seagal goes on to discuss his association with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and that when they arrest someone who commits a crime, they do not care whether they are Mexican, Irish, French, German or Chinese.

Seagal says he’s had discussions with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio about the prospective bid, but has other priorities to consider.

The 61-year-old Seagal made the comments while talking about his newly released reality series “Steven Seagal – Lawman: Maricopa County” (The Lost Episodes.)

According to Seagal, the number one problem facing the U.S. is its open borders.

The Daily Mail:

He told ABC that the country’s leading problem today is open borders, ‘I don’t think our biggest problem is Islamist terrorism in America. Oh I don’t think that’s it at all,’ he said. ‘The biggest problem is open borders. I think that across these borders, any type of terrorism can occur.’

He believes that open borders are, ‘ a tremendous oversight by the current administration.’

He quoted Reagan who said, ‘If you don’t have security on your borders you don’t have a country.’

One other issue Seagal would address is that of amnesty.

‘You have to be very careful with blanket pardons,’ he said.If you’re gonna pardon people you should do a background on them to make sure they’re safe for society.’

Seagal also told ABC that all he and Arpaio care about on their tv show is ‘whether or not you’re a criminal.’

He says that he and the tough sheriff do not discriminate based on race or nationality.

Looks Like Democrats Have the Registered Felon Vote … 7 in 10 Criminals Register as Democrats, 73% of Convicts Who Vote … Vote Democrat

Imagine that, most convicted felons register as Democrats … What a surprise, NOT! Nearly 7 in 10 felons register as Democrats. Now the only problem is having Democrats getting these ex-cons to the polls rather than holding up a liquor store or a bank. There is really something to be said for a party that opening targets voting constituents that break the laws like felons and illegal immigrants. Speaks volumes indeed. Yea, I guess the Donkeys feel that while the felon is registering as a sex offender, they can register as a Democrat as well.

I think we might have found the one voting constituency that still supports Obama.

A new study of how criminals vote found that most convicts register Democratic, a key reason in why liberal lawmakers and governors are eager for them to get back into the voting booth after their release.

“Democrats would benefit from additional ex-felon participation,” said the authoritative study in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

The authors, professors from the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University, found that in some states, felons register Democratic by more than six-to-one. In New York, for example, 61.5 percent of convicts are Democrats, just 9 percent Republican. They also cited a study that found 73 percent of convicts who turn out for presidential elections would vote Democrat.

The study finds that it is not even close. The following is the Democrat-to-Republican breakdown in felon party registration patterns for the three states the study was conducted:

• New York: 61.5% register Democratic, 9% register Republican
• New Mexico: 51.9% Democratic, 10.2% Republican
• North Carolina: 54.6% Democratic, 10.2% Republican

Hmm, Democrats want no part of voter ID to prevent voter fraud. But they have no problem with targeting felons for their vote. Democrats will condemn the Tea Party and call Conservatives evil and that they want to throw grandma from her wheel chair over the cliff, yet Democrats seek the vote of the individual that actually robs, assaults and rapes grandma. Just sick!

NY Times Goes in the the Tank for Barack Obama & Hillary Clinton … Revisionist History Report Says Al-Qaeda Not Linked to Benghazi Attack & Was Fueled by Anti-Islam Video

All hands liberal MSM on deck … its time to shill for Obama and namely protect Hillary Clinton for 2016 … Benghazi-gate, What Benghazi-gate?

The NY Times reported this morning that Al Qaeda was not linked to the Benghazi consulate attack that killed four Americans, including US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Instead, the attack was led by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. However, most astonishingly, the Times was back touting that the attack was “fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.” GOOD GRIEF. Hmm, doesn’t the Times realize that Hillary Clinton is already on record that in September of last year, Clinton suggested the attack was the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda affiliates?

Darrell Issa disputes NY Times Propaganda Piece on Benghazi and tries to educate a bias NBC ‘Meet the Press’ David Gergory

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

A fuller accounting of the attacks suggests lessons for the United States that go well beyond Libya. It shows the risks of expecting American aid in a time of desperation to buy durable loyalty, and the difficulty of discerning friends from allies of convenience in a culture shaped by decades of anti-Western sentiment. Both are challenges now hanging over the American involvement in Syria’s civil conflict.

The attack also suggests that, as the threats from local militants around the region have multiplied, an intensive focus on combating Al Qaeda may distract from safeguarding American interests.

In this case, a central figure in the attack was an eccentric, malcontent militia leader, Ahmed Abu Khattala, according to numerous Libyans present at the time. American officials briefed on the American criminal investigation into the killings call him a prime suspect. Mr. Abu Khattala declared openly and often that he placed the United States not far behind Colonel Qaddafi on his list of infidel enemies. But he had no known affiliations with terrorist groups, and he had escaped scrutiny from the 20-person C.I.A. station in Benghazi that was set up to monitor the local situation.

You thought the MSM was in the tank for Obama? You haven’t seen nuthing yet. They will be all-in, all the time for Hillary Clinton from now until the 2016 presidential election. The Libs in the MSM now have to make up for a weakened, scandal plagued, dishonest and untrustworthy lame duck Barack Obama, the lie and disaster that is Obamacare and an anemic economy. So why not start with as Powerline calls it, some revisionist history on Benghazi. It would appear that we have found Hilary’s weak spot and the MSM must now cover it up … but what difference does it make?

The Times stops short of claiming that the Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi was “spontaneous.” It says, instead, that the attack was not “meticulously planned.”

That may or may not be true. But the quality of the planning — good enough, as it turned out — seems irrelevant. Again, what matters is that the State Department should have been prepared for the attack and taken action accordingly. This the New York Times does not dispute.

It also matters that the Obama administration’s account of the attack, per Susan Rice, was inaccurate even if one accepts the Times’ dubious reporting. The Times acknowledges this, though it chooses to characterize Rice’s account as just a “misstatement.”

The adequacy or inadequacy of the Obama administration’s response as the Benghazi attacks unfolded also matters. So does the treatment of those in the State Department who have dared to question Hillary Clinton’s actions relating to Benghazi.

Whatever else the Times story demonstrates, I believe it shows that this story won’t go away as long as Hillary Clinton aspires to be president.

UPDATE I: House Intelligence chair, Rep. Mike Rogers, (R-Mich): Benghazi attack ‘Al Qaeda-led event.

The 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya was an “Al Qaeda-led event” according to multiple on-the-record interviews with the head of the House Intelligence Committee who receives regular classified briefings and has access to the raw intelligence to make independent assessments.

“I will tell you this, by witness testimony and a year and a half of interviewing everyone that was in the ground by the way, either by an FBI investigator or the committee: It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event. And they had pretty fairly descriptive events early on that lead those folks on the ground, doing the fighting, to the conclusion that this was a pre-planned, organized terrorist event,” Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., told Fox News in a November interview.

“Not a video, that whole part was debunked time and time again,” Rogers added of the attack which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, “which just leads to questions of why the administration hung with that narrative for so long when all the folks who participated on the ground saw something different.”

Country Singer’s New Restaurant in Virginia, ‘Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill’ Sparks Second Amendment Controversy … “No Guns Permitted”

 Second Amendment controversy erupts as  ’Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill’ does not permit guns in establishment. 

Once again we are presented with a situation that puts Americans on both side of the fence of the gun question. The country singer restaurant named after himself,  ‘Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill’ in Woodbridge, VA has plunged into said gun carry controversy.  The restaurant’s statement says, “It is our desire to provide a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff.”  Obviously, that is not a true statement because those who have carry permits and want to frequent this bar and grill do not feel safe or entertained.  How does one provide a safe environment when only the bad guys would bring guns into the establishment, because as we all know, bad guys, thieves, robbers, thugs and punks don’t follow abide by the law or signs that say, “No guns permitted”.

A new restaurant that recently opened in Woodbridge is sparking a Second Amendment controversy, especially online.

The restaurant named for country music star Toby Keith has posted a “No guns permitted” sign on its front door and gun rights supporters are blasting the restrictions on the chain’s Facebook page. Some comments accuse Keith, who doesn’t own the restaurant, of being anti-gun.

Virginia is a right to carry state, which means residents can openly carry a firearm without a license.

The Facebook page of Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill in Woodbridge posted on Saturday:

“While we understand and respect every person’s right to own and bear arms, we at Toby Keith’s I Love This Bar and Grill, with guidance from the State of Virginia and based on insurance regulations, have adopted a no weapons policy. It is our desire to provided a safe, enjoyable and entertaining experience for our patrons and staff.”

In the The United States, “We the People” have a US Constitution and a Second Amendment Right to bear Arms, shall not be infringed; however, private business owners also have a right to make certain guidelines for their places of business. Or do they? To read most of the comments from the anti-gun crowd show their ignorance and uninformed opinion of what is taking place. Virginia law specifically states that that an individual can carry a gun on to a premises that sells alcohol as long as the permit colder does not consume alcohol.  If they do, any person granted a concealed handgun permit who is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs while carrying such weapon in a public place shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Let’s see what happens when the bad guys bring guns into this establishment and rob the place knowing that it is a soft target and a gun free zone.

Some thing to think about … Isn’t it interesting that a business can discriminate against law abiding, gun carrying, Second Amendment, state law protected Americans and tell them to leave or not serve them, yet if that same establishment discriminated against the patron based on their skin color, religion or sexual orientation, they would be fined, closed down and possibly arrested for violating their civil rights?

Of course in the end, you have the right to protest this place of business with you wallet and go all “Duck Dynasty” on them. Eventually places of business will learn to understand who their customer really is and not be consistently fall in line with liberal, knee-jerk political correctness.