Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Bosonic

(3,746 posts)
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 10:20 AM Jun 2015

Indictment: Phoenix-area man helped plan, provided guns for Texas cartoon contest shooting

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 10:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

PHOENIX (AP) — A Phoenix-area man has been charged with helping plan an attack on a provocative Texas cartoon contest featuring depictions of the Prophet Muhammad that ended with the two shooters' deaths last month.

An indictment filed in federal court in Phoenix last week alleges that Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem hosted the gunmen in his home beginning in January and provided the guns they used in the May 3 shooting.

Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson were roommates in Phoenix and drove to Garland, Texas, to attack the event featuring cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims. They were killed by police after they opened fire outside the contest, injuring a security guard. No one attending the event in suburban Dallas was hurt.

Kareem practiced shooting with Simpson and Soofi in the remote desert outside Phoenix between January and May, the indictment said. He hosted the gunmen and others in his home to discuss the contest and the shooters' plans to travel to Texas to attack the event, according to the indictment.

Read more: http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/06/16/indictment-man-helped-plan-texas-cartoon-contest-shooting

42 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Indictment: Phoenix-area man helped plan, provided guns for Texas cartoon contest shooting (Original Post) Bosonic Jun 2015 OP
kick samsingh Jun 2015 #1
Death penalty candidate n/t cosmicone Jun 2015 #2
Why leave out "provocative" from "at a cartoon contest"? Media manipulation lesson in a nutshell. Fred Sanders Jun 2015 #3
Hahaha! I just love your little comedy routines! Coventina Jun 2015 #5
You are mistaken..I am not outraged, that is a dime a dozen,....I am correct and like to say so!! Fred Sanders Jun 2015 #8
Bless your little heart! You're making my sides hurt!! Coventina Jun 2015 #9
Why leave out "Muslim" in the headline? Camelback Jun 2015 #6
Remember the Christian who killed a beautiful recently married Muslim couple in a parking lot? "Christian" killer? Fred Sanders Jun 2015 #7
What was the headline? Camelback Jun 2015 #10
Are you referring to Craig Stephen Hicks? Marengo Jun 2015 #11
Hicks is a militant atheist. nt Crabby Appleton Jun 2015 #17
Well, he didn't just murdered them spontaneously. He terrorized them relentlessly previously, Judi Lynn Jun 2015 #16
The killer you refer to was an atheist. NutmegYankee Jun 2015 #18
He was an atheist as much as ISIS is Muslim. The point is the media downplays the religion of white Fred Sanders Jun 2015 #19
So Hicks is a christian ? Angel Martin Jun 2015 #20
Welcome to DU. Throd Jun 2015 #23
Either that or it will make you insane ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2015 #42
He wasn't at the time of the murders, and presumably still isn't, a Christian as you claimed Marengo Jun 2015 #24
I don't agree with the plans this guy was making but it would be a time the planners of the cartoon Thinkingabout Jun 2015 #4
Were the guns legal? Where were they obtained? Was the provider's seller involved in the conspiracy? onehandle Jun 2015 #12
It would be hard to have an illegal gun in arizona captainarizona Jun 2015 #13
If "machine gun" equals "assault weapon", then they are legal in a lot of states onenote Jun 2015 #21
Real machine guns are legal in every state hack89 Jun 2015 #22
Wow. Glad they got this guy off the streets alboe Jun 2015 #14
From the article...see #2 Sancho Jun 2015 #15
You can keep pushing this people control, not gun control mantra till the end of time, GGJohn Jun 2015 #25
Haha...I was told that before.... Sancho Jun 2015 #26
I've studied the history of the 2A extensively, GGJohn Jun 2015 #27
Exactly...again... Sancho Jun 2015 #28
Thanks for the link, fascinating read, GGJohn Jun 2015 #31
The point is that historically.... Sancho Jun 2015 #32
... GGJohn Jun 2015 #33
Wrong question...ask the people question! Sancho Jun 2015 #34
... GGJohn Jun 2015 #35
There are studies (not polls) about the guns in homes...regardless of your acceptance of that data. Sancho Jun 2015 #36
So it's a study? GGJohn Jun 2015 #37
Actually there are social science studies. Sancho Jun 2015 #38
How hard do you think it is for a criminal to get a gun on the black market? eom. GGJohn Jun 2015 #39
It would be pretty difficult with a simple license. Sancho Jun 2015 #40
You do realize. Sancho Jun 2015 #29
call me crazy... this map over time Angel Martin Jun 2015 #41
Good with most if it, not with 2, 5, and 8 Telcontar Jun 2015 #30

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
3. Why leave out "provocative" from "at a cartoon contest"? Media manipulation lesson in a nutshell.
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:00 AM
Jun 2015

Correctly adding 'provocative' to the first line of the article is like an apology for the headline.

The 'cartoon contest' was not just 'provocative', as it sure was, it was vile and evil and insulting for the sake of....being vile and evil and insulting.

And, since I am on the topic of distorted media reporting protecting American religious extremism in a manner that shames the Iranian media, it was not a 'cartoon contest' when all the money for the 'contest' comes from proud and loud haters of Islam.

Coventina

(27,167 posts)
5. Hahaha! I just love your little comedy routines!
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:13 AM
Jun 2015

A story about conspiracy to commit murder over drawings of a man dead for 1300+ years gets your outrage because "provocative" isn't in the headline!!



You are adorable!!

 

Camelback

(27 posts)
6. Why leave out "Muslim" in the headline?
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:15 AM
Jun 2015

As long as you're going for descriptive adjectives shouldn't it read " Phoenix-area MUSLIM man helped plan, provided guns for Texas cartoon contest shooting"?

You know, accuracy in media and all.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
7. Remember the Christian who killed a beautiful recently married Muslim couple in a parking lot? "Christian" killer?
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:19 AM
Jun 2015

He was Christian and motivated by hate...no provocation...just hate...what was the headline??

Thanks for playing, new poster.....dismissed.

 

Camelback

(27 posts)
10. What was the headline?
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:35 AM
Jun 2015

Don't remember the incident you refer to.

BTW, ever noticed that post count and relevance are inversely proportional?

Judi Lynn

(160,598 posts)
16. Well, he didn't just murdered them spontaneously. He terrorized them relentlessly previously,
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 10:56 PM
Jun 2015

forcing them to live in deep fear of him before he assassinated them.

[center]



Craig Stephen Hicks

He is really white, however. [/center]

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)
19. He was an atheist as much as ISIS is Muslim. The point is the media downplays the religion of white
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 11:12 AM
Jun 2015

killers.....but if the killers are not....there is no denying the media double standard borne of white privilege.

Angel Martin

(942 posts)
20. So Hicks is a christian ?
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 01:38 PM
Jun 2015

even though he claims to be an atheist...

but ISIS is not muslim, even though they claim that they are ?

 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
24. He wasn't at the time of the murders, and presumably still isn't, a Christian as you claimed
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 07:33 PM
Jun 2015

Not a difficult fact to uncover. How could you make such an elementary mistake?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
4. I don't agree with the plans this guy was making but it would be a time the planners of the cartoon
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 11:10 AM
Jun 2015

shows start getting smart and quit planning stupid events.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
12. Were the guns legal? Where were they obtained? Was the provider's seller involved in the conspiracy?
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 01:52 PM
Jun 2015

Every single human being who's path these guns filtered through should be tracked down and questioned.

onenote

(42,746 posts)
21. If "machine gun" equals "assault weapon", then they are legal in a lot of states
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 02:22 PM
Jun 2015

including a number of blue states.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
22. Real machine guns are legal in every state
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 03:13 PM
Jun 2015

Very expensive, highly taxed and very rare but perfectly legal.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
15. From the article...see #2
Tue Jun 16, 2015, 08:59 PM
Jun 2015

"Court records in Phoenix show Abdul Kareem had a criminal record, struggled with substance abuse and had difficulty finding steady employment.

He has two aggravated drunken driving convictions in Arizona, including a 1998 case where he was found passed out with a beer bottle between his legs behind the wheel of a vehicle that was still running. He was also charged in 1997 with aggravated assault after a woman told police that Abdul Kareem had pointed a gun in her direction. Abdul Kareem maintained that he didn't point the weapon at anyone and instead had taken the gun away from his brother during an argument.

After a second DUI arrest, probation officials say Abdul Kareem was generally cooperative but had continued to drive while drunk and struggle with substance abuse. He was sentenced to four months in jail."
-------------------------------

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
25. You can keep pushing this people control, not gun control mantra till the end of time,
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 08:11 PM
Jun 2015

but it ain't never going to happen.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
26. Haha...I was told that before....
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 08:24 PM
Jun 2015

when we wanted out of Vietnam
when we wanted the 18 year old vote
when we almost ratified the ERA, but we got Title IX at least
and on and on....

Sooner or later we will have a change back to before 2008, and get some control over the problems caused by guns in the hands of people who should not have them. The only reason you don't see it, is because you haven't really studied the history of the 2nd Amendment. We just happen to be in a time of a crazy SC - which is obvious from all the nutty decisions over the last 15 years.

It will happen. It's already started.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
27. I've studied the history of the 2A extensively,
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 08:34 PM
Jun 2015

but because I reach a different conclusion than you, I must be ignorant about that Constitutional right.

It will happen. It's already started.


Really? Where? How? When?
Maybe you missed it, but firearm rights have been expanding in the last 20 years, every state now has a CCW law on the books, the majority of them are Shall Issue, more states are allowing for CCW on their college campuses without any problems, the PLCAA was passed in 2005, making firearms manufacturers immune from frivolous SLAPP suits designed to bankrupt them, etc.

Sorry, but you're wrong, well, no I'm not sorry you're wrong.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
28. Exactly...again...
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 08:46 PM
Jun 2015

You happen to live in a time of unusual court rulings: the Gore/Bush election, Citizen's United, etc....and this SC has also reached different conclusions over the last 20 years than any time in history. Read the scholarly history. It will eventually change back. Sorry, but the new laws in Connecticut and San Fran, etc. show the creep back to sanity. There is NOTHING illegal with permits, licenses, and certifications - so it will just take time to work around the right wing, NRA, Tea Party arguments that we live in the wild west. CCW's will have more and more restrictions. Databases will become more comprehensive. Purchase licenses will become more common, and sooner or later we will have a rational court. Sorry, you just can't see it objectively.

"The Second Amendment: A Biography"

http://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Biography-Michael-Waldman/dp/147674744X/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434587788&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=2nd+amendment+bookd

From Booklist:
Given the murkiness of the language of the Second Amendment and worries about armed citizens from the era of the Revolutionary War to the Civil War, from the settling of the western frontier to the gangsterism of the Prohibition era, the U.S. Supreme Court has generally ruled against the constitutional right to own a gun. In 2008 that all changed. Legal scholar Waldman examines the political forces behind that change, including the growing influence of the National Rifle Association and how gun rights play into the culture wars. Waldman offers historical perspective on the fierce debate to decide how much militia the nation should support and then goes on to trace the violent history of gun use in the U.S. and the increasingly contentious debate about crime and safety, all against the backdrop of debates about “originalism” as applied to the Constitution. This is a lively and engaging exploration of the radically different perspectives of the Founding Fathers, worried about the nation’s ability to protect itself yet fearful of a powerful military, and contemporary politicians fretting over culture wars and the role of government and the rights of individuals. --Vanessa Bush

Amazon description:
By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.

At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.

The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.

The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.

In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
31. Thanks for the link, fascinating read,
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 10:41 PM
Jun 2015

but I still disagree with you on gun control picking up steam, you cite SF and CT, both with strong anti gun histories, now, let's look at another strong anti gun state, IL, which recently passed Shall Issue CCW, this with a Dem supermajority, or CA, the 9th Circuit heard, en banc, Peruta v San Diego County yesterday, about CA's may issue system of CCW, odds are that's going to be ruled unconstitutional and CA will have to institute a Shall Issue CCW system.


http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000014555
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000007886
http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/06/17/san-diego-county-defends-concealed-gun-law.htm

Now, more states are debating on Constitutional Carry for it's citizens.

For every gun control law passed, 3 more pro 2A laws are passed.

Sorry, but your proposals are, at this time, wishful thinking, but who knows? Some of your proposals MAY happen, but not in my lifetime.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
32. The point is that historically....
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 11:02 PM
Jun 2015

the current last 20 years are abnormal. 4 out of 5 times the SC ruled against the current individual right. The majority of citizens want more gun control (or people control).

All it would take is a couple appointments, a couple new cases, and we'll see a whole new ball game. Even with a nutty court system and army of judges and piles of NRA money, legislatures keep picking away at the dumb idea to have dangerous people armed on every corner. It will change - and the legal method won't matter - since the 2nd is really a political device. Read the whole book, follow the references.

Hopefully, you're not as old as I am so maybe you'll live long enough to see the changes for the better.

The alternative to a license that screens for dangerous people is either to take guns away from everyone and restrictions on the weapons; or an overbearing invasion of privacy with POS databases, searches, and all kinds of airport like inspections.

Of the three alternatives, politically one will emerge over time as preferred. Just like Citizen's United, etc. - the Constitution will be interpreted by the politics of the times. I believe the license will win out.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
33. ...
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 11:13 PM
Jun 2015
The majority of citizens want more gun control (or people control).


That's simply not true.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

Less Than Half of Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Less than half of Americans, 47%, say they favor stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, similar to views found last year. But this percentage is significantly below the 58% recorded in 2012 after the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, spurred a nationwide debate about the possibility of more stringent gun control laws. Thirty-eight percent of Americans say these laws should be kept as they are now, and 14% say they should be made less strict.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
34. Wrong question...ask the people question!
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 11:42 PM
Jun 2015

you continue to miss the picture. That's laws covering sales of Firearms...like mail order or gun shows, etc. Not the question.
First, the number of homes owning guns is going down - because people are voting with their behavior.

If you asked people in the US if it was ok for unstable, emotional, mentally ill people; or untrained people; or children; or people under types of restraining orders predicting violences; etc., etc...if it was OK for those people to possess guns - then tell me the number who agree! Around here, people are getting tired of the shootings.

With daily reports (increasing in recent years) of preventable shootings - accidental, mass killing by the unstable, murder/suicide that was predicted, road rage - well, you won't get agreement it's a good idea for dangerous people to have guns.

SOOOO....you still haven't said how to deal with those dangerous people; so I assume you think it's ok for them to have whatever weapon they want to buy. I have posted a logical effort to prevent the dangerous from having guns.

If you have a better way, then let us know.

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
35. ...
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 11:54 PM
Jun 2015
First, the number of homes owning guns is going down - because people are voting with their behavior.


That's simply not provable, because of the ongoing attempt to stigmatize gun owners, it's just as likely that less and less gun owners are admitting to having a firearm in their home or even owning one.
I can tell you that if an anonymous pollster were to ask me, or for that matter, any of my gun owning friends, if we owned a firearm, we'd lie and tell them no.
You cannot prove that there are fewer and fewer gun owners in the US, hell, in IL, the ISP has issued thousands of new FOID cards in the last couple of years, yet some poll says that people are buying or owning less firearms.

As far as what to do with dangerous people getting their hands on firearms? I assume you mean criminals?
Since when has any gun control law in the US stopped a determined criminal from getting a weapon.

Same with your proposals, a determined criminal will find a way to get a weapon.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
36. There are studies (not polls) about the guns in homes...regardless of your acceptance of that data.
Thu Jun 18, 2015, 12:14 AM
Jun 2015

I do NOT mean criminals!!!!

I specifically assume that if you were a convicted violent felon, in theory (it really doesn't work well in practice) would be caught by a "background check". That is NOT who the license is intended to prevent from shooting others.

I mean the people who are known by professionals or family to be unstable; many will openly admit they have mental or emotional issue. They usually are not diagnosed as seriously ill enough to be committed, but they shoot up school, movie theaters, or simply commit suicide. They are usually reported to police or officials before shooting others.

I mean people who are in circumstances where they are angry at a spouse, employer, or some "class of people". They are known to friends and family as potential hotheads. They may have restraining orders, previous arrests, or clearly threaten others on the internet, etc. There is almost always a history where they expressed their intention,

I mean children who live in a home or with people who openly have unsecured guns. They sometimes attempt to "teach" children about guns without knowing about children (even if they know guns).

I mean people who possess guns without training or skills consistent with whatever they possess.

Frankly, I think that all the above (including criminals) should find it more difficult to easily obtain guns, ammo. Those types of people should not be able to go to a range, hunt, or transport a gun without a license. No one wants to wait for a person to be convicted and then picked up by a background check.

Simple. At shooting in SC tonight (9 dead?). The speaker just said, "we don't care if it's Bush or Hillary, we won't vote for anyone who won't tell us how to keep guns out of here!"
http://www.counton2.com/category/259339/news-2-livestream

GGJohn

(9,951 posts)
37. So it's a study?
Thu Jun 18, 2015, 12:23 AM
Jun 2015

Same thing applies, you cannot prove that gun ownership, short of going into every home and counting firearms, unconstitutional, is going down.

How does a license prevent someone from shooting someone else?

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
38. Actually there are social science studies.
Thu Jun 18, 2015, 12:33 AM
Jun 2015

I'll get that for you later. Some has been posted on DU before.

Yes!!!! a license would make it difficult for dangerous people from easily getting guns! It's not that hard to understand.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
40. It would be pretty difficult with a simple license.
Thu Jun 18, 2015, 12:45 AM
Jun 2015

You keep talking criminals...I'm not talking about convicted criminals even though it would be helpful to catch them too.

You go to buy a gun, ammo, shoot at a range, hunt, or transport a gun, and you show a license as routine. The unstable, untrained, etc. would find it hard to get a gun easily. Most would not be able to get one.

Careers criminals get guns now and would do so illegally. It's just one way to reduce the number of dangerous people with guns. Fewer people would be killed.

Sancho

(9,070 posts)
29. You do realize.
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:26 PM
Jun 2015

Four times in the past the SC ruled against an individual right to a firearm....it's only the recent crazy SC that ruled as you state....


Please learn history.

References to the cases:

"The Second Amendment: A Biography"

 

Telcontar

(660 posts)
30. Good with most if it, not with 2, 5, and 8
Wed Jun 17, 2015, 09:36 PM
Jun 2015

2-Disagree with the references. A bad divorce proceeding and a vindictive spouce could hinder an innocent citizen's rights. This is not theoretical, it has happened already in California.

5-Requiring insurance is making a right fee-based. It is just like a poll tax. For that reason, there can be no fee requirements for licensing either.

8-Every law abiding citizen should have the option to carry either concealed (or openly, but I think that's tacky) their firearm for personal defense.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Indictment: Phoenix-area ...