John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Stat of the Day: Everywhere Guns Are Banned, Murder Rates Increase

John Lott, our favorite economist at least in the arena of criminology and Second Amendment scholarship, cogently summarizes the actual, real-world, data-based sociological effect of "gun control" laws:

. While gun bans (either a ban on all guns or on all handguns) have been imposed in many places, every time guns have been banned, murder rates have gone up.

One would think that one time, just out of simple randomness, murder rates would have gone down or at least stayed the same.  Yet in every single case for which we have crime data both before and after the ban, murder rates have gone up, often by huge amounts."

. It's almost as if more guns mean less crime.…[more]

October 20, 2017 • 11:58 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room New CFIF Ad Exposes Revised PROMESA Legislation for What It Remains: A “Super Chapter 9” Bailout for Puerto Rico
New CFIF Ad Exposes Revised PROMESA Legislation for What It Remains: A “Super Chapter 9” Bailout for Puerto Rico Print
Wednesday, April 13 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) today announced a new television ad about the “Super Chapter 9” bailout legislation for Puerto Rico (H.R. 4900) that was formally introduced yesterday by Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) and is currently under consideration by the Committee on Natural Resources in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“We are deeply concerned by this most recent version of the ‘Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’ (PROMESA),” said Timothy Lee, CFIF’s Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs. “The language of the bill is updated from the ‘Discussion Draft’ released in late March, but it is far from improved and lawmakers should not be fooled by it.  Despite claims to the contrary, this legislation is a Super Chapter 9 bailout on the backs of America’s retirees and savers, and violates the principles of property rights and the rule of law.”

The new ad is the latest component of CFIF’s education campaign about the contagion effect of a “Super Chapter 9” bailout. Should Congress retroactively change the rules of the game for Puerto Rico’s debt, effectively sacrificing the rule of law and property rights in order to give the Commonwealth unprecedented access to bankruptcy measures, there will be very real consequences for America’s taxpayers, investors and state and municipal governments.

“CFIF remains ready to support more effective proposals that address Puerto Rico's financial woes while safeguarding the principles of property rights and the rule of law,” said Lee.  “Such proposals include reforms relating to Puerto Rico's destructive minimum wage, Jones Act constraints and public union strike laws, among others.”

CFIF encourages all Americans to contact their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote against any bailout of Puerto Rico that constitutes, in name or effect, provisions commonly referred to as “Super Chapter 9.”

View the television ad below.

 ###

Related Articles :
Question of the Week   
Which one of the following battles effectively ended the American Revolutionary War?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"History will record that the Islamic State caliphate -- a bizarre pseudo-state founded on illusory goals, created by a global horde of jihadis, and enforced with perverted viciousness -- survived for three years, three months and some eighteen days. The fall of Raqqa, the nominal ISIS capital, was proclaimed on Tuesday by the U.S.-backed militia that spearheaded the offensive, a coalition of Kurdish…[more]
 
 
—Robin Wright, Newyorker.com Contributing Writer
— Robin Wright, Newyorker.com Contributing Writer
 
Liberty Poll   

What is your family’s reaction to this week’s statement that the NFL would like for players to stand for the national anthem, but will not force them to do so?