Although Eleanor told the fascinated press, when she first got the weapon, that she was a “fairly good shot,” a New York Times reporter at the 1972 dedication of the Eleanor Roosevelt Wings of the FDR Library interviewed several of Eleanor’s friends who said that she carried the permit, but not the pistol.
via Eleanor Roosevelt: The First Lady’s license to carry a pistol.
Today’s media would be apoplectic if Michelle Obama, or any First Lady, owned, let alone carried a gun. Yet, in 1957, Eleanor Roosevelt was famously licensed to carry a gun in one of the most anti-gun states in The Union. In so many ways, Eleanor Roosevelt was a poster child for liberalism and women’s independence. Insisting on unfettered freedom to move about as she pleased. She refused to be driven around by the Secret Service, insisting on driving her own car. She didn’t even want to take an agent with her. The “compromise” to put the Secret Service at ease was Mrs. Roosevelt carrying a gun. I suspect the current First Lady would throw a no-shit-fit if someone suggested she drive her own car or carry a gun for her own protection. In fact, the current President and First Lady would rather none of us have the right to own, let alone carry a gun.
Of course, the irony here is Mrs. Roosevelt’s husband, Franklin D. Roosevelt is the father of modern gun control and the first federal gun control law. Roosevelt wanted to tax and register ALL firearms. At the time, Congress was actually concerned with protecting the rights of citizens to protect themselves. Especially those in rural communities with little in the way of police presence. And so, what became the Gun Control Act of 1934 was actually watered down from what Roosevelt, many Democrats, and quite a few Republicans wanted at the time. Shockingly, even the NRA didn’t offer much in the way of opposition at the time either.
Based on one of the latest Democrat proposals for “safety,” it is obvious that at least some of these people not only want to get rid of the Second Amendment, they want to eliminate any and all forms of self-defense, including body armor. By itself, body armor serves a purely defensive purpose. It does not launch bullets. It cannot be used directly to harm anyone except perhaps as a blunt object with which to beat someone. It’s only real purpose is to protect the life of the person wearing it. None of those facts stopped Rep. Mike Honda of San Jose, California (Yes, the land of fruits and nuts) from proposing a ban on the purchase of body armor by civilians.
Honda claims that shootings by armored criminals is a new trend. He further claims that experts say, “access to military-grade body armor emboldens criminals and mass shooters to act.” He is quoted by the local NBC affiliate saying:
“This bill will keep military body armor out of the wrong hands,” Honda said. “It would ensure that only law enforcement, firefighters and other first responders would be able to access enhanced body armor.”
“We’re not talking about just a standard bullet-proof vest,” he said. “We’re talking about body armor that is designed for warfare, designed to protect against law enforcement ammunitions.”
Never mind that the act only bans the sale to otherwise law abiding people. As is always the case, those with the intent of doing harm or otherwise committing a crime, can and will continue doing what they do, regardless of the law.
While gun rights are facing a continued assault and new threats every day, today was a good day. A federal judge has ruled the District of Columbia’s ban on carrying guns outside the home is unconstitutional.
Judge Sculin extensively referenced the Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) to concluding “there is no longer any basis on which this court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”
The court ordered the city to now allow residents from the District and other states to carry weapon within its boundaries.
via EMILY MILLER: Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional | Fox News.
It’s worth a read because one needs to know how the other side thinks. It’s enlightening and disturbing at the same time.
“Politicize Disaster, Unabashedly
This may make some progressives queasy….This isn’t complicated: Making a political issue of the tiny coffins of dead children in the wake of a school shooting isn’t just a thing that helps pass strong gun-control, it’s practically the only thing in the last quarter century that’s moved the needle on anti-gun-violence laws. Recall that the catalyst for the 1994 assault weapons ban was a 1989 school shooting in Stockton, California, that killed five kids and wounded 29 other children.
It’s not distasteful to act in the name of victims of gun violence. What’s distasteful to squander the burning anger and intense political focus that such senseless bloodshed inspires…”
via How to Beat the NRA In 7 Not-So-Easy Steps | Politics News | Rolling Stone.
We were fortunate enough to get two sides of this issue out there for debate with Terry Holcomb, CJ Grisham, and Charles Cotton. To their credit, the leaders of the Open Carry movement recognized that dragging private businesses into this issue has been counter productive. And Mr. Cotton made us aware that the TSRA and NRA have been making strides but, it’s not necessarily at a pace that keeps everyone happy. Still, I cannot help but think Target’s announcement yesterday is a predictable result of negative attention brought to them through earlier protests even if no one from Texas Carry, OCT, CATI, has officially gone into a Target store in months the damage was done and the media campaign started. Public opinion does matter folks. It matters a great deal. While this issue continues to be a point of division in the firearms community, we really, really need to find a way past it.
As you’ve likely seen in the media, there has been a debate about whether guests in communities that permit “open carry” should be allowed to bring firearms into Target stores. Our approach has always been to follow local laws, and of course, we will continue to do so. But starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target – even in communities where it is permitted by law.
via Target Addresses Firearms in Stores | A Bullseye View.