Adds Rand, “Keeping crime gun trace data secret puts the whims of the gun lobby ahead of the needs of local officials and law enforcement who are desperate for information that will help them fight illegal gun trafficking.What she fails to mention is that the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, supports the continued protection of this sensitive information, and that when she mentions "the needs of local officials," she is referring to the ability of local officials to wage a campaign of predatory lawsuits against the firearms industry.
“Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee chose the gun lobby over America’s police and local officials, making a bad law that has hurt law enforcement even worse.In their call to action (accompanied by their standard call for money), we see this:
“The Committee restored a provision that prevents communities from knowing the truth about corrupt gun dealers and illegal guns, and added even greater restrictions on law enforcement access to crucial crime gun information.
“At a time when crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence in our neighborhoods, this action is a step in the wrong direction.”
At a time when violent crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence, the Senate Appropriations Committee's actions are inconceivable. But not surprising, given the gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members."The gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members," eh? That would seem to be an odd statement for the Bradys to make just one day after crowing about what they had claimed to be a rising tide of restrictive gun legislation:
While common sense gun measures have moved forward, gun lobby proposals to weaken gun laws have foundered. The gun lobby has had very few successes, and a number of high profile failures, including defeats in states like Florida and Georgia where they have traditionally been successful.Sounds as if Paul (Helmke) might be suffering from rapid mood swings, or something (is that bipolar disorder?). I think that can be treated--he might not be able to buy firearms, but I guess that's no big loss to him.
Most of the threats referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation, Kotowski said this week.Most of the alleged threats were in reference to his civilian disarmament agenda? Some folks would have us believe that all the alleged threats came from the gun rights movement. I wonder if Rich Miller and friends would have ISRA apologize for and condemn those other threats, as well. I also wonder if the threats unrelated to gun legislation will receive the kind of investigative attention as those supposedly from gun rights advocates, or if instead, they'll be blown off, like the threats issued by "Snuffy" Pfleger, in front of hundreds of witnesses (and which were recorded).
During the current spring session, Kotowski, of Park Ridge, successfully introduced proposals to tighten restrictions on high-capacity gun magazines and .50-caliber rifles. Both bills have received wide support and are awaiting final approval in the House and Senate respectively.Wide support? The .50 caliber ban bill was never brought up for a vote--presumably because its supporters didn't believe that they had the votes. That was before May 31st, when it would only have needed a simple majority. Now that it needs a 3/5ths majority, its chances of going anywhere during the overtime session are minimal, at most. The magazine ban bill did just barely squeak through the Senate, but again, was never brought up for a vote in the House--presumably for lack of support.
Kotowski is himself a victim of gun violence and, prior to his election in November 2006 over incumbent Republican Cheryl Axley of Mount Prospect, he was executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.By "victim of gun violence," are they referring to the fact that he was mugged? The fact that a couple thugs (one of whom was armed) took twenty bucks from him bestows upon him the authority to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?
"The ISRA needs to take responsibility for inciting people. They created a climate where this is acceptable to some people by telling their members that my legislation takes guns out of the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq, that I'm 'dancing in the blood' of the Virginia Tech shootings," he said, referring to previous ISRA press releases opposing his efforts to pass new gun control legislation.Let me make sure I have this right--ISRA's expression of rather unflattering sentiments about Kotowski--without ever endorsing threatening behavior or violence "incites" people to do those things? Does that mean that gun rights advocates should not be allowed to express our abhorrence for those who wish to disarm us? That hardly sounds like the position of "a strong proponent of the 1st Amendment right to free speech," as Kotowski has claimed to be.
In the days after ISRA's June 18 response hit the Internet, Kotowski said three death threats appeared online, including one stating that, because of what he's trying to do, Kotowski should feel that "his life is in danger."It is certainly possible that the article is referring to a quote other than the one I know of ("Sounds to me like Sen. Kotowski deserves to be threatened."), but if not, it would be a case of misquoting that would seem calculated to put a much more sinister light on what was said.
A suburban mayor is speaking out against a protest in her village last weekend. That demonstration ended with the arrests of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Father Michael Pfleger. They have led two protests at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale. The mayor there says the demonstrations have cost the village thousands of dollars.I do not contest the right of people to protest whatever they feel compelled to protest. The Constitution protects such speech, and I would not want to live anywhere that such protections were not provided by law.
The mayor says resources spent on protecting protesters' rights and safety will be better spent elsewhere, in particular, trying to prevent gun violence. This was all sparked by an incident over the weekend, a protest of a gun shop in Riverdale.
They didn't mention that the Republican Congress had let the Brady Act, which banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons, sunset in 2004.Actually, this is several lies, all in one short statement. First, the "Brady Act" dealt with background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales--not with semi-automatic firearms in general (many semi-automatics are not handguns, and many handguns are not semi-automatics). The criminal background check element of the Brady Act is still in force to this day, and although the five day waiting period is no longer in effect, it expired not in 2004, but in 1998, when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented.
If ever there was an issue on which Americans are of two minds, it is guns. Most Americans believe in the Second Amendment, but most Americans also support a host of restrictions on gun sales and ownership.So most Americans support a right of the people that shall not be infringed, but they "also support a host of restrictions" on that right? In other words, apparently, Americans are largely unaware of the plain meanings of common English words.
The notion of being defenseless doesn't sit well with southern and rural males, whose identity as men is strongly associated with the ability to protect their families.Are we to infer, then, that "the notion of being defenseless" does sit well with northern and urban males (and all women)? If so, that would seem to be an attitude we should seek to change, rather than to exploit.
You can't fight a war against terrorists if you grant them unrestricted access to automatic weapons on your own soil.Who gets "unrestricted access to automatic weapons" in this country? Since 1934 (and the National Firearms Act), automatic firearms have been extraordinarily heavily regulated, with the regulations becoming even more onerous and draconian with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and still more so with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Perhaps Westen somehow failed to notice the conspicuousness of the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. in which automatic weapons (or any other firearms, for that matter) have been used.
Our moral vision on guns reflects one simple principle: that gun laws should guarantee the freedom and safety of all law-abiding Americans. We stand with the majority of Americans who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt and protect their families. And we stand with that same majority of Americans who believe that felons, terrorists, and troubled teenagers don't have the right to bear arms that threaten the safety of our children. We therefore support the right to bear arms, but not to bear arms designed for no other purpose than to take another person's life.The lies come fast and furious in that little gem. First, more restrictive laws do not "guarantee the freedom"--they actively attack it. Secondly, no law can guarantee safety--even a well-crafted law designed to promote safety can only work when it is not broken. To end the breaking of laws, one would have to eliminate criminals. That seems rather unlikely.
If you can't speak the truth and win elections, you need to learn another language. The language that wins elections is the language of the heart.That just about says it all, doesn't it?
Local communities were being blighted by run-away violence as gang members who believe they are "untouchable" carry guns and weapons as a matter of routine to carry out crimes and to settle scores.But that's impossible--gun laws are much too strict there for that to be happening. Everyone knows that the violence in the United States is a direct result of our "loose gun laws," and that guns actually cause violence.
Now as a matter of "urgency," police should carry out random and targeted stop and search to catch weapon wielding thugs backed up with the introduction of a mandatory five year prison sentence for those carrying illegal knives - the same penalty as carrying guns.It's sounding better and better over there all the time, isn't it? Well, you know, except for little things like this:
Victims of Crime Trust director Norman Brennan said Britain was quickly gaining a reputation as being one of the most violent countries in the Western world, scarring communities and leaving millions in fear of crime.But don't let that scare you--if you are attacked, you can at least defend yourself by . . . um, let's see . . . screaming for help, or something. Of course, anyone who might otherwise be willing to help will most likely also be unarmed, but I guess he or she could join in with the screaming, or something.
. . . knife homicides out number gun homicides by three to one. If these measures were introduced it would greatly reduce knife crime and consequently save lives.I could swear that I keep hearing that if we make guns hard to get, violent death rates would plummet--who could have guessed that violent people would find other ways to wreak their carnage?
Judge Jimm Hendren made the ruling on Fincher's sentencing, opting to impose the minimum recommended sentence according to federal sentencing guidelines, which set his imprisonment at between 78 and 97 months. Hendren also put Fincher on two years' probation once he leaves prison and required him to pay the government $1,000.How very generous of the judge.
Fincher's court-appointed attorney, Shannon Blatt, asked Hendren to consider Fincher's poor health and that of his wife and sentence Fincher to house arrest or probation. Hendren said given the severity of Fincher's crimes he could not allow such a lenient sentence.
Hendren said Fincher would have faced a more lenient sentence had he entered into a plea agreement with the federal government.So, it would seem that not only is Fincher to be imprisoned for his patriotism, but his imprisonment will be longer because he is unapologetic about it.
Owner John Riggio said he told Jackson and Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church, that they could enter the store but that he would only let the two in.Jackson and Pfleger declined the invitation, claiming that their lives would be in danger if they entered (the "gun rights supporters are scary" card seems a popular one to play these days).
"I was going to explain to Jackson and Father Pfleger how to get a gun license and explain to them how the laws work, basically go through a regular sale with them," Riggio said.
"The police believe that store has a right to lock us out and that is not offensive to push us physically," Jackson said.Only this bunch could claim to have been "locked out," by the man whose invitation to come inside they had just declined.
You can see more of this type of vitriol here (Kotowski treating the state police as “his personal goon squad), here (”Commissar” Kotowski) . . .I'll acknowledge sloppy wording on my part in claiming that Kotowski was using "the state police as his personal goon squad"--a junior senator does not really have the power to make the state police do his bidding, so it would have been more accurate for me to say that the ISP is playing the role of Kotowski's goon squad, entirely of the department's own volition. If it would make anyone would feel better to receive my sincere and humble apologies for the misstatement, please consider them given. I suppose that what I am trying to admit here is that I was wrong to blame Kotowski for the ISP visits and interrogations of people who had clearly issued no threat whatsoever--that blame lies with the ISP. As for the "
Kotowski and his office staff received threats during the first few months of the Spring Legislative Session, most of which specifically referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation. “If Illinois State Rifle Association members were as law abiding and anti crime as they claim, then they would be the first to condemn these threats and help to champion the cause for measures designed to get guns away from those with criminal intent.”This, despite the fact that ISRA's first press release on this matter said:
Of course, the manner in which citizens exercise that right must not include any threats of harm against elected officials.My first post about this issue included an acknowledgment that such threats "would warrant a police response"--which I had kind of hoped would make clear that I disapprove of such threats. Toward the end of the same post, when I urged readers (I must be up to three or four of them by now) to contact Kotwoski, I made clear (I hope) that it was vital to be careful to keep the messages absolutely, utterly without threats of any kind.
"The Pfleger situation brings to light an interesting double standard," continued Pearson. "Earlier this week, the ISRA released the results of an investigation into the apparent harassment of gun owners by the Illinois State Police. In these cases, gun owners were treated to visits to their homes by state police detectives because they had sent faxes to Sen. Dan Kotowski expressing opposition to gun control legislation sponsored by the senator. Based on our investigation, there was not even the slightest hint of a threat conveyed in the content of the subject faxes. Nonetheless, these citizens had to bear the embarrassment of having the police show up at their homes with the additional strain of having to answer humiliating questions about their mental health and personal lives. In contrast, when Fr. Pfleger publicly advocated the "snuffing" of state legislators, the Illinois State Police turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. One would think that Sen. Kotowski would be especially sensitive to threats against legislators, yet his anti-gun alliance with Pfleger has left him totally mum on the priest's dangerous remarks."This, of course, is in reference to what could be interpreted as Kotowski's use of the state police as his personal goon squad. On the NRA's "Cam & Company" show last night, in a telephone interview with Tom Warchol (who was visited by the state police because of his utterly cordial FAX to
T[h]om Mannard, executive director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said he wants to see compromise between legislators and gun manufacturers.It's a little surprising to see the head cheerleader for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence calling for "compromise," but let's analyze what Thom is saying here. Apparently, so-called "assault weapons" are too dangerous for Illinois residents, but not for people who live in other states. Now that is a simply fascinating assertion, and as an Illinois resident, a rather insulting one. It's also an opinion not shared by many other states. By virtue of concealed carry licenses issued by Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, I can legally carry a concealed handgun in twenty-three states. That's right--although my own state mandates that I be unarmed and helpless, twenty-three others, in which I have never paid taxes, trust me to do so. If Illinoisans are so inherently violent and unstable, almost half the country seems unaware of the fact.
"It's a delicate balance," he said. "You could have a bill that prohibits the sale of assault weapons in Illinois, but allows the manufacturers to continue to manufacture and sell outside of Illinois. The current measures don't allow that."
Action Alert for Saturday, June 23, 2007: Counter-Protest at Chuck's Gun Shop, the 3rd Time in 4 WeeksBe sure to enjoy some more excellent commentary from the Armed School Teacher.
ISRA has found out that Fr. Michael Pfleger is going to march yet again at Chuck’s Gun Shop, 14310 S. Indiana, Riverdale, IL on Saturday, June 23rd. This is four weeks after the highly publicized protest at the same location where he called for the "snuffing out" of Chuck's owner, John Riggio. He will probably bring Reverend Jesse Jackson with him.
Many of you have followed the news about Pfleger's threat and wished that you could have been at Chuck's on May 26th to show your solidarity. Some of you took advantage of the short notice to come out to Chuck's last weekend. ISRA 1st Vice President Mike Weisman was there to stand with John Riggio and the counter-protestors at both marches. He's going to be there again, and he's urging all gun owners who can do so, to come to Chuck's this Saturday.
"Chuck's Gun Shop is a part of my own personal history with firearms. I first went there over 25 years ago, when I lived in the city. The staff helped me get my first FOID card." Mike Weisman said, "Chuck's Gun Shop as been part of the community in the south suburbs for decades, it's a vital, family-run business that should stay and serve the community in the decades to come."
"So I'm going back there this Saturday, and I'm calling on my fellow ISRA members and Illinois Gun Owners from all across Chicagoland to join me. I'm also making a special appeal to those who have ties to this part of the metro area. It's important to me personally that we have strong representation there." Weisman concluded.
Background info: The owners of Chuck’s have been long-time defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, they have paid dearly for supporting your rights. Chucks was the primary target of Mayor Daley’s $433 million lawsuit against the 2nd Amendment. Although the Daley suit failed, Chuck’s was forced to bear huge legal costs to defend their business - and to defend the 2nd Amendment. Chuck’s has also been harassed ceaselessly by anti-gun church groups and the gun-hating media - including “60 Minutes.” Rev. Jackson and Fr. Pfleger have marched twice on Chuck's Gun Shop in the recent weeks, including May 26, when Fr. Pfleger called for John Riggio to be "snuffed out." The ISRA has an audio copy of his turn at the microphone, which you can download and listen to. (550KB mp3 file)
ISRA is calling upon gun owners to make the return trip to Chuck's Gun Shop to take a stand for the right to keep and bear arms. Please do the following:
1. Plan on gathering at Chuck’s Gun Shop & Range, 14310 South Indiana Avenue, Riverdale, IL, at 12:30 PM on June 23rd for a counter protest against Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson. Click here for a mapquest map.
2. While at Chuck’s, express your solidarity with the owners and, if you can, make a purchase. No matter how small, your loyalty to Chuck’s will be greatly appreciated.
3. Prepare to peacefully confront anti-gun protesters with the truth. Don’t be shy about defending what you know is rightfully yours.
4. If possible, take photographs of the anti-gun protesters and send copies to webmaster@isra.org.
5. Please post this alert to every Internet blog and bulletin board that you belong to. Encourage all your friends and fellow shooters to join in this counter-protest against the gun grabbers.
Only you can defend your rights from destruction by guys like Fr. Pfleger and Rev. Jackson. The gun grabbers must not attack our rights with impunity. You are the gun owner who will stand up and be counted. Make sure that you are there Saturday, June 23rd at Chuck’s Gun Shop.
Riverdale police called the rally “peaceful” and said no investigation was warranted.In contrast, when people send FAXes containing nary a threatening word to
ISRA Asks Senator Kotowski to Explain State Police Infringements on First Amendment Rights of Illinois Gun OwnersNote that people are receiving visits from the police not for threatening Kotowski (which I acknowledge would warrant a police response), but for merely expressing unhappiness with his legislative agenda. By the way, for some superb commentary about this from a fellow Illinois gun rights blogger (how did I fail to notice him all this time?), stop in for a lesson with the Armed School Teacher.
CHICAGO, June 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following was released today by the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA):
The ISRA is expressing great concern over reports that Illinois State Police (ISP) detectives have been visiting the homes of people who phoned or faxed Sen. Dan Kotowski (D-Park Ridge) to express opposition to gun control legislation sponsored by the senator. The ISRA has recently conducted a thorough investigation into one complaint, and is gathering additional information on as many as several dozen other reported incidents of police questioning citizens who have spoken out against gun control legislation.
In the case investigated thus far, the respondent reports that ISP detectives arrived at his home, unannounced, and informed him that their visit was in response to faxes he sent to Sen. Kotowski. The detectives then went on to ask the citizen questions about his mental health and other personal matters. Although the citizen was not arrested, he reports that he feels that the detectives were there to deliver the message that it's not a good idea to criticize Dan Kotowski or the gun control measures Kotowski supports.
"The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to petition the government for the redress of grievances," said ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. "Of course, the manner in which citizens exercise that right must not include any threats of harm against elected officials."
"When we first heard about the ISP visits to homes of people who had sent faxes to Sen. Kotowski, we were concerned that some folks may have acted inappropriately," continued Pearson. "However, upon inspection of the faxes in question, we see absolutely no reason for the ISP to visit citizens' homes -- other than to possibly put a damper on the citizen's desire to participate in the legislative process."
"At this time, we are asking Sen. Kotowski to produce any evidence he may have which illustrates threatening behavior on the part of citizens who have received ISP visits," said Pearson. "If Sen. Kotowski cannot produce any such evidence, then we will be asking Attorney General Madigan to conduct an investigation into the apparent use of the ISP to suppress the First Amendment rights of persons who express opposition to gun control legislation."
Saturday, June 23rdAny gun rights activists who can get to Riverdale Saturday, you know what to do.
March to Chuck's Gun Shop
Please call the Rectory for more information and to reserve a place on the bus.
I hate guns. I recognize their sad neccessity [sic], for law enforcement, and soldiers.Because only law enforcement officers and soldiers are ever faced with people who would try to kill them, Steve? And if we do bestow a monopoly on force upon law enforcement and the military, do you think that there's not just a teency chance that we will have enabled our own subjugation?
But I have absolutely no comprehension how a human can enjoy killing a creature and call it sport.Ahh--the old "the only legitimate use for guns is for 'sporting' purposes" argument. I suppose one could make a sport out of self-defense, and the defense of liberty, but I think that such an endeavor would be in rather poor taste. By the way, are you a vegetarian (herbivore, in other words), Steve--or do you hire your killing done, but consider yourself morally superior to those who kill their own meat?
I regularly hear from folks on an email list, many of them conservatives and libertarians, that guns are lovely pieces of engineering and should be appreciated. They prattle on about various loads and calibers. I think they are certifiably insane.So--an appreciation of firearms is grounds for declaring a person "certifiably insane"? And people wonder why gun rights activists are unhappy about legislation that would expand the role of mental health evaluations in determining whether or not a person may enjoy his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
All the arguments by people who want to keep guns in their houses fail even casual scrutiny to me.So you would have us leave them outside?
Statistics, while open to interpretation, show far more danger from those guns than any perceived benefit."Perceived benefit(s)" like the ability to survive, and prevail in, an attack by predatory criminals? "Perceived benefit(s)" such as having the means to rein in an out-of-control government?
To me, it's a bit like any addiction: one will torture logic to support the addiction, no matter how harmful. These people just want to have guns around.Don't worry, Steve--if we do "torture logic," your writings should be quite safe. If our refusal to surrender the means to defend ourselves, our families, and our liberty is an "addiction," don't bother trying to rehabilitate us--we're going to continue to revel in it.
I think that's crazy.
Action Alert for Saturday, June 16, 2007:By the way, thanks for the plug, David.
Mobilize AGAIN to Protect Your Gun Rights at Chuck's Gun Shop
Late breaking news: We've just received word that Reverend Jesse Jackson & Operation PUSH is going to protest again at Chuck's Gun Shop, 14310 S. Indiana, Riverdale, IL on Saturday, June 16th. This is three weeks after the highly publicized protest at the same location where Jesse's pal, Fr. Michael Pfleger from St. Sabina called for the "snuffing out" of Chuck's owner, John Riggio. It's been predicted that Pfleger will return for a repeat performance.
Many of you have followed the news about Pfleger's threat and wished that you could have been at Chuck's on May 26th to show your solidarity. Tomorrow is your chance. If you're not sure what kind of a threat this is to gun rights, we suggest that you listen to Pfleger's screaming diatribe recorded at Chuck's Gun Shop last time. Here is the link to our copy of the audio. It's a small (550KB) mp3 file.
Background info: The owners of Chuck's have been long-time defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, they have paid dearly for supporting your rights. Chucks was the primary target of Mayor Daley's $433 million lawsuit against the 2nd Amendment. Although the Daley suit failed, Chuck's was forced to bear huge legal costs to defend their business - and to defend the 2nd Amendment. Chuck's has also been harassed ceaselessly by anti-gun church groups and the gun-hating media - including "60 Minutes."
ISRA is calling upon gun owners to make a return trip to Chuck's Gun Shop to take a stand for the right to keep and bear arms.
As a show of support for Chuck's, and as a rebuke to Jesse Jackson and his liberal gun-grabbers, we are asking all Illinois gun owners to do the following:
1. Plan on gathering at Chuck's Gun Shop & Range, 14310 South Indiana Avenue, Riverdale, IL, at 1:00 PM on June 16th for a counter protest against Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger.
2. While at Chuck's, express your solidarity with the owners and, if you can, make a purchase. No matter how small, your loyalty to Chuck's will be greatly appreciated.
3. Prepare to confront anti-gun protesters with the truth. Don't be shy about defending what you know is rightfully yours.
4. If possible, take photographs of the anti-gun protesters and send copies to webmaster@isra.org.
5. Please post this alert to every Internet blog and bulletin board that you belong to. Encourage all your friends and fellow shooters to join in this counter-protest against the gun grabbers.
Only you can defend your rights from destruction by guys like Jesse Jackson. The gun grabbers must not attack our rights with impunity. You are the gun owner who will stand up and be counted. Make sure that you are there tomorrow, June 16th at Chuck's Gun Shop.
"The Second Amendment is one of the clearest statements of right in the Constitution," Benjamin Wittes, a guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution, acknowledged in a discussion Monday. "We've had decades of sort of intellectual gymnastics to try to make those words not mean what they say."Mind you, Wittes is not a gun rights advocate--far from it.
Wittes, who said he has "no particular enthusiasm for the idea of a gun culture," said that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.Not exactly a "cold, dead fingers" type, obviously--but even so, he still acknowledges that the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution.
"Rather than debating the meaning of the Second Amendment, I think the appropriate debate is whether we want a Second Amendment," Wittes said.Wittes, though no ideological ally of the gun rights movement, possesses intellectual honesty and moral courage lacking in many of his fellow civilian disarmament lobbyists, who continue to cling desperately to the "collective rights" myth (Congressman Moran, for example).
Wittes said the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to bear arms meant more when it was crafted more than 200 years ago than it does today.Because tyranny and government sponsored genocide never happen anymore? If you believe that, I can offer you a marvelous bargain on a pair of breeding mules.
Modern society is "much more ambivalent than they [the founders] were about whether gun ownership really is fundamental to liberty," he said.Try disarming us, Ben, and find out just how "much more ambivalent" we are.
"One of the things that they believed was that the right of states to organize militias, and therefore individuals to be armed, was necessary to protect the liberty of those states against the federal government," Wittes said. "This is something we don't really believe as a society anymore."I guess it slipped my mind--can someone tell me just when this guy was endowed with the authority to speak for society? As a member of society, I know his statement certainly doesn't represent what I believe.
But challenging the Second Amendment on the basis that society's circumstances have changed since the drafting would similarly open up to question all other constitutional rights, according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, who also participated in Monday's discussion.Then again, civilian disarmament advocates would like to be able to get around those rights as well (First Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment), when it suits their purposes.
"The techniques that are used to show that the Second Amendment really doesn't have any contemporary relevance are absolutely available to anybody who wants to show that aspects of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment have no contemporary relevance," he said.
Barnett recommended that gun control advocates "not favor methods of interpretation [to criticize the legitimacy of the Second Amendment] that you wouldn't want to put in the hands of political opponents."The current administration is subject to a great deal of criticism (justifiably so, to my way of thinking) for its propensity for executive power grabs, with little regard to their Constitutionality. Is it not odd that many of the people who object the most loudly to the more sinister provisions of the so-called "Patriot Act," the erosion of Posse Comitatus, etc., are in many cases the same people who would grant the government a monopoly on the use of force?
U.S. House of Representatives - June 13, 2007Covered just about everything, didn't he? From his unhappiness with the idea of restoring rights to military veterans, to his (increasingly discredited) view that the Second Amendment exists to protect some mythical "collective right," to his fatuous hysteria about .50 caliber rifles and so-called "assault weapons," I am left wondering if he had been given three minutes, if he would have gotten around to condemning BB guns, as well.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee for yielding.
I will vote for this. I was a co-sponsor of this. And certainly Mrs. McCarthy deserves credit for bringing it to the floor.
But I do have concerns as the chairman does. That this needs to be very tightly regulated because it is quite liable to allow thousands of people who should not have access to guns to be able to do so by dropping their mental health treatment.
There are 190,000 veterans who because of their experience in combat have had serious mental illness problems. But it appears that if they drop the treatment that they have been in, they can become eligible to purchase guns. Again much of this is going to be in the regulation and the good judgment of states to make it work properly.
It is not a gun control measure as Mrs. McCarthy stated. It does nothing about the fact that we have hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and tens of thousands of people dying of by those guns, the vast majority are innocent victims every year. More so than in any civilized nation.
It doesn't address issues with regard to the Second Amendment where the Supreme Court has made it clear there is really not a right for individuals to own guns but rather for states to have well regulated militias. These are issues that need to be addressed at some point by our country.
But this bill hopefully will address the very egregious situation where a person, a court had determined to be mentally deranged was allowed access to firearms that he never should have gotten. There are other problems in other states that could have allowed such a thing to happen. Hopefully this bill will clean up this record keeping system with the sufficient resources made available.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this Congress ought not be allowing people to buy assault weapons, 50 caliber sniper rifles, and weapons that clearly are used for military purposes not for purposes of recreational hunting.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will pass unanimously and at this point it should. Thank you.
It's been a month since 16-year-old Blair Holt, son of a Chicago Police gang investigator and a Chicago fire captain, was shot and killed riding the bus home from high school.I'm not sure why anyone would have expected a person's family to render him bulletproof, but thanks for clearing that up, Martha. I might point out that Chicago's draconian gun laws also "proved no hedge against 'gun violence.'"
Like Bill Cosby's son, Michael Jordan's father, Serena and Venus Williams' sister, and Chicago-area Congressman Bobby Rush's son, family proved no hedge against gun violence for Holt.
But do the 21 Chicago students killed by guns since September -- two from Blair Holt's school -- mean Chicago's gun ban doesn't work as gun lovers contend?Well, since you ask, yes, yes, yes (although you do realize that very little effort is currently being made to lift the extreme restrictions on fully automatic weapons, don't you?), and yes.
(And since it doesn't work, should we be allowed to buy 18 guns at once to protect ourselves? Including automatic weapons? And weapons from unlicensed dealers to avoiding background checks?)
Or does it mean that suburban gun shops are arming the city from its borders and stoking and profiteering off the violence?Gun shops sell guns--the proprietors have neither the ability or the responsibility to read the customers' minds about their intentions, or to divine the future about how a gun will be used.
Father Michael Pfleger, the outspoken pastor of Chicago's St. Sabina Church, known for defacing tobacco and alcohol billboards in his church's neighborhood, believes the latter.True, he is a known vandal--a criminal in other words--does that lend him some kind of authority that us non-vandals lack?
Pfleger is not alone in seeing the bodies pile up while the gun lobby croons about the Second Amendment.I have never known gun rights activists to "croon." We do mobilize to defend our rights. There was a time--not so long ago--when standing up for rights was a respected tradition in this country.
The Mayor himself has gotten nowhere with gun legislation thanks to suburban and downstate politicians in thrall to the gun lobby.The downstate legislators who vote against Daley's efforts to impose Chicago-style "gun control" over the entire state are "in thrall" to their constituents, just as they should be.
Pfleger got few Valentines for his trouble. In fact he got swift boated. The Illinois State Rifle Association issued a press release trumpeting, "Chicago Priest Calls for Murder of Gun Shop Owner" (murder as in "snuff") and launched a media event.The truth hurts, I suppose. If Pfleger wishes not to be accused of trying to incite murder, he should probably refrain from publicly exhorting mobs to "snuff out" businessmen and legislators.
But unfortunately the tactic does work. Recently, Pfleger's superior, Cardinal Francis George, felt compelled to share his nonsupport for the priest by telling Chicago newspapers that "Publicly delivering a threat against anyone's life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest."So the Cardinal is wrong, for (rather mildly) rebuking a priest for making public threats of violence?
Is the world's most powerful religious organization bowing to the gun lobby? Like the world's most powerful legislative body has?World's most powerful legislative body? Is that what we have? I'm pretty sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
The NRA insisted that it was not a "gun control" bill because it does not disqualify anyone currently able to legally purchase a firearm.So "gun control" isn't really "gun control," if it mandates an enlarged bureaucracy for enforcing old "gun control" laws, rather than imposing new restrictions? I hadn't known that.
The NRA has always supported the NICS, said the organization's executive vice president, Wayne LaPierre.Yeah--I know you have, Wayne. Care to explain why you've never supported something vastly better, instead?
The only dissenting vote in the short House debate on the bill was voiced by GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul of Texas. He described the bill as "a flagrantly unconstitutional expansion of restriction on the exercise of the right to bear arms."Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Bloomberg built up Mayors Against Illegal Guns from a 15-member outfit into one with 225 municipal leaders.Which is apparently not enough to make the recruitment of foreign mayors out of the question.
New York has sent test customers to states that shrug at dummy buyers who are plainly stocking up to bootleg trunk-loads of firearms into cities with sterner gun laws, mainly for the criminal trade, and especially for gangs."Plainly," eh? Were they wearing T-shirts or windbreakers emblazoned with "New York gun trafficker," or something similar?
The supplier states are concentrated in the South and, embarrassed and thus in high dudgeon over the resulting disclosures, some are starting to enact statutes against the practice."Some are"? I know Virginia has passed such a law, but I have not heard that any other states have introduced similar bills. I'm not saying that none have, but I wonder how many this "some" is.
All this has triggered, so to speak, eruptions of denunciation, often in the gun crowd's usual colorful language . . .Damn it! No one sent me the memo--all this time I've been posting my blog in a black font, not knowing that as a member of the "gun crowd," I'm supposed to use "colorful" language.
. . . and has sparked mocking protests like the Bloomberg Gun Giveaway raffle in Virginia, ha-ha.The gun shop owners are not billionaires, like their tormentor, and nor do they have the monetary resources that can only come from the taxes collected from the citizens of the largest city in the U.S.--the raffle provided a much-needed infusion of cash to fight the legal war that Bloomberg has declared on them.
Professor Barry Pless, editor of Injury Prevention, said he felt compelled to include the paper immediately following the deaths of 32 people in a shooting incident at Virginia Tech University in April.This, I suppose, is better than the Brady Bunch's immediate reaction, which was to send a mass e-mailing asking for money. Probably even a little better than Carolyn "I don't know what barrel shrouds are, but I want to ban them anyway" McCarthy's introduction of H.R. 1859. Both of these actions were taken before the bodies were even removed from the scene.
He writes: 'This study represents a small but critical step towards truly effective gun control in a country where the culture of guns verges on the incomprehensible."A small but critical step"--would that be anything like "a good first step"? You know--every gun law ever passed or proposed is hailed as "a good first step."
'Although there is no evidence that the deranged shooter obtained his guns from a gun show, the implications for prevention seem evident.Stating that "there is no evidence" that Cho got his guns from a gun show is certainly one way of putting it--another, more instructive, way would be to state that we know conclusively that he did not get either one of his firearms from a gun show, any more than Middle Eastern militants do (also here), the Brady Bunch notwithstanding.
'They reveal the greatly increased risks of deadly weapons being sold at shows in states that lack California's regulations.Yes, commerce does tend to be more robust when not smothered by regulation--I suppose we are to believe that this is a bad thing?
'Even in the US it seems odd to permit undocumented gun sales while fussing about undocumented immigrants.'Undocumented immigrants like the gentlemen who planned to attack Fort Dix? Mustn't fuss about them.
The bill, called “Blair’s Bill,” would require licensing of all individuals who own guns, and create a national registry tracking gun sales and ownership. Congressman Bobby Rush, who has also been personally affected by gun violence, plans to introduce it in Washington later this week.Wonderful--now, Constitutional rights must be licensed, and Big Brother must know where every firearm is.
In Blair’s memory, a mentoring group is going to visit Julian High School to try to encourage young people to resolve conflicts peacefully. But Rush and his supporters say tougher gun laws are the solution to the crisis.This "solution", of course, ignores the fact that the killing occurred in Chicago, home of some of the most insanely draconian gun laws in the country.
"Blair's Bill will implement an nationwide program of licensing," Rush said. "Blair's Bill will assist law enforcement in tracking the flow of guns and require those who possess them to be trained in gun safety."Yeah--that's the problem--gang-banger punks don't know how to murder people safely.
Blair's Bill that would have its critics, notably the gun lobby.Yeah--that's one way to put it. Personally, I prefer to think of it as the freedom lobby who will criticize this abomination, and fight it with everything we have.
