We're the Only Ones with secret performance evaluations enough

I don't usually do "Only Ones" posts (one reason being my inability to come up with titles half as catchy as David's), but this is something I stumbled on in my own Area of Operations. As part of my (small) contribution to the work we do at Illinois Carry, I (along with a bunch of others) keep an eye, every legislative session, on all the bills introduced, in order to see which ones will affect gun rights, and thus require action on our part.

As I was going through a block of bills for which I'm responsible, I stumbled on one that doesn't really have anything to do with gun rights, but caught my eye anyway: SB 3040

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Freedom of Information Act. Exempts from disclosure information relating to performance evaluations of law enforcement officers covered by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board and sworn peace officers employed by the State. Effective immediately.

Can't have the uppity peasants getting too much information about their betters' paid enforcers now, can we.

The bill was actually introduced by my own state senator. Senator Haine has been pretty good on gun issues, although I do remember he seems to have a soft spot for "Only Ones," and for giving them special dispensations--he signed a letter asking for leniency for 3 Illinois State Troopers caught with illegal machine guns. A doctor was also caught in that bust, but the letter didn't mention giving the non-"Only One" any breaks.

Gun rights movement in India underscores important point

That's a lesson that Americans can ill afford to ignore. We, as gun rights advocates, refer to the right to keep and bear arms as a Constitutional right--which is entirely correct, as far as it goes. What we must not lose sight of, however, is that the Constitution merely guarantees that right--it does not grant it--indeed, rights cannot be "granted" by any government document, only privileges can. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you give it a look.

Illinois gun owners, make your voices heard in Springfield

On March 10th, gun owners in Illinois are going to Springfield to march on the capital to tell legislators--public servants--to, well . . . serve the public, and protect the rights of the people. I refer to Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD) 2010. A collaborative effort of the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry, and the Champaign County Rifle Association, IGOLD draws thousands of concerned gun owners (over 5,000 last year, and the hope is to double that this year). [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. In addition to IGOLD, it also discusses the latest legislative attack on gun owners in Illinois.

Launch-your-beverage-through-the-nose-funny

Head over to The Trailer, and see what that mad genius, Kaveman, has created.

Good stuff.

Pi**ing in the Brady Bunch's coffee

Thursday, I wrote about the Brady Campaign's hysteria about people carrying guns (unloaded guns) while drinking . . . coffee. Starbucks has been so impressed with the Brady Bunch's power and influence, and in the logic of their position, that they immediately decided to . . . shrug.

Starbucks has brushed aside a request from a gun control advocacy group to ban the display of guns in its retail locations, saying it will abide by laws that allow patrons to openly carry unloaded weapons.

Starbucks' response was pretty much what one would expect of a large corporation with enough sense to not be interested in being conscripted into either side of a culture war.

"Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue," Starbucks' customer relations department said in response to the Brady Campaign's request.

I haven't seen a reaction from the national organization, but a local Brady Chapter is disappointed.

The head of a local chapter of the Brady Campaign was disappointed by the response.

"I don't want someone who carries a gun into a store to be making life-and-death decisions. I don't think it's safe for them to be there," said Griffin Dix, who leads the Oakland-Alameda County chapter, which has more than 500 members and other chapters in San Mateo and Contra Costa counties.

Hmm--"life-and-death decisions," Griffin? Like Espresso Macchiato vs. Cinammon Spice Mocha?

One amusing line from the article was that the Brady Campaign "sent e-mails to its approximately 180,000 members nationwide," to "demand" the banning of armed private citizens.

180,000 members? I seriously doubt it. If you go to their website, you'll see that there's no way to join as a "member" of the national organization--just local chapters. Out of curiosity, I looked to see what the nearest chapter was in my home state of Illinois. Actually, all they have are "Million (HA!) Mom March" chapters (OK--guess that counts--Brady Campaign coalesced with MMM when the Marching Mommies had to sidestep some shady tax dealings), and there is a grand total of three of them--all in the Chicago area.

Remember that Illinois is a point of focus for the Brady Campaign (more here).

Stop it guys--I'm starting to be embarrassed for you.

Unarmed security guard faces lawsuit for failing to prevent massacre

An attorney for the daugher of one of the victims seems to claim that the guard, Ronald L. Whitehead, should have taken Thornton's angry relationship with the City Council into consideration, and based on that consideration, apparently should have prevented Thornton from entering . . . somehow (this was after Thornton had already killed a police officer in the parking lot, and taken his gun).

When Thornton first arrived outside, Mr. Whitehead did go upstairs and alert the police officer providing secuity inside (that officer was also killed later in the rampage). Beyond that, what would the plaintiffs have had Mr. Whitehead do? [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

If I were a coffee drinker . . .

Well, I should perhaps amend that to "If I were a coffee drinker who likes to spend a lot of money on coffee . . . "

Anyway, if I were such a person, I'd be supporting Starbucks, and here's why.

Over the past few months, more and more gun owners have been gathering at restaurants and coffee shops like Starbucks with guns strapped to their hips, intimidating fellow patrons.

So far, Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have heeded customer concerns and barred the open carrying of guns. But Starbucks is refusing to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in its stores.

It's everyone's right to sit in a restaurant or coffee shop with their families without intimidation or fear of guns, either concealed or openly carried.

Under the law, Starbucks has the right to adopt a gun-free policy, with an exception for uniformed police officers. Such a policy can easily be implemented in most cases by putting up signs at store entrances.

The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and communities – and it must be stopped.

Coffee drinkers--particularly those in California--please buy a Triple Kiwi-Raspberry Decaf Espresso Latte Frappuccino, for freedom.

And all of us should drop them a note suggesting they tell the Brady Campaign where they can stick their "demands."

Here's what I sent them:

Dear Starbucks,
I am writing to applaud your policy in California of serving customers who, in compliance with all applicable laws, openly carry holstered, unloaded firearms. I know that the Brady Campaign is trying to pressure you to prohibit such customers, (and is in fact "demanding" that you do so), and I hope you stand firm in your insistence on respecting the rights of all your customers.

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has more (and here, as well), as does Bob S., and now, National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) plans to advance gun rights

Sen. Coburn, who introduced the legislation, added as an amendment to a credit card reform bill, to overturn national park gun bans, has more in mind, using a similar strategy.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has quietly been preparing a series of gun rights amendments that he intends to offer to must-pass Senate bills this year, hoping to force Democrats to take tough votes and draw clear distinctions between the two parties heading into the midterms.

Coburn’s effort, part of a broader GOP 2010 strategy, is still coming together, but the Oklahoma Republican said this week that at least one forum for the gun fight will be this year’s appropriations measures. “We’ll see gun amendments if we see appropriations bills,” Coburn said.

The thinking is that at least some amendments that protect or advance gun rights have a chance of being adopted, because they'll (hopefully) be supported by a large majority of Republicans, plus a fair number of Democrats--especially junior Democrats in traditionally Republican seats, representing areas in which the constitutency tends to favor gun rights.

Republicans have seen some success in the past inserting gun rights provisions into Senate bills. The Senate Democratic Conference is not of one mindset on the issue; many of its more junior Members hail from conservative states and support gun rights. For instance, Coburn successfully tied up a public lands bill in 2008 by demanding that it include provisions repealing a ban on guns in national parks, and Republicans successfully inserted language into last year’s District of Columbia voting rights legislation to rid the city of many of its gun-control laws.

The article didn't go too deeply into specifics, but mentioned language to accomplish what Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) tried to do with S. 669, the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act."

Other likely possibilities include some kind of national reciprocity ("Thune Amendment," in other words)--not that I am without concerns about such legislation.

What I like about Coburn's approach is that if Democrats feel compelled to support gun rights in order to keep their congressional seats, that pretty clearly demonstrates that the will of the people is in favor of gun rights.

Should be interesting.

Delaware Public Housing Authority's attempt to disarm the poor

With the revelation, by the Caesar Rodney Institute, that all four public housing agencies in Delaware have implemented policies forbidding residents from possessing firearms in their homes, we see, once again, that some would prefer to price the poor out of the self-defense market. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Meet the new boss: Baltimore to get new anti-gun mayor

With Baltimore, Maryland's Mayor Sheila Dixon having been convicted (on the first count--she was indicted on eight eleven more counts) for corruption (stealing gift cards meant for the poor--stay classy, Sheila), Baltimore is about to get a new mayor (Dixon resigns tomorrow, as part of her plea deal).

(Soon to be Ex)-Mayor Dixon is a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (or, perhaps, Illegal Mayors Against Guns), and has made disarming the citizenry a central part of her political agenda (well, maybe not quite as central as stealing stuff).

Baltimore gun owners hoping for a mayor less hostile to them have little reason to be reassured by Dixon's successor, though. Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, in fact, hopes to make all of Maryland's already draconian gun laws still more restrictive:

Baltimore's incoming mayor, Stephanie C. Rawlings-Blake, pressed Annapolis lawmakers to toughen state gun laws at a packed hearing Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee, saying "we have to do more" to build on successes in reducing crime.

Specifically, she wants a law that "enhances" penalties for violent crimes that are committed with a handgun, to also "enhance" crimes committed with long guns.

Such laws (whether the handgun-only law now on the books, or the proposed expansion to cover long guns) take the curious position that beating someone to death with a baseball bat is less heinous than shooting him to death.

Strangely, in arguing for the expansion of the law to cover long guns, Baltimore Police Commissioner Fred Bealefeld seems (presumably by accident) to make that very point (my emphasis added).

Bealefeld said sentencing should not be dictated by a criminal's choice of weapon -- a choice that is increasingly a long gun, according to city statistics.

Indeed, Fred, sentencing should not be dictated by the criminal's choice of weapon--be it a gun, a knife, a beer bottle, a bikini top, a railroad tie (or wooden board, depending on the account), etc.

Is airline security entrusted to an armed extremist hate group?

So, yeah--maybe bigotry and hatred are a bigger threat than I've been willing to acknowledge, and maybe the hate-filled extremists are armed, and able to board airliners without question.

The problem is that none of the "solutions" being offered will do anything to protect against this alarming threat, and in fact tend to make the haters the "Only Ones" with guns. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.