Attorney Alan Gura has filed an opening brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. [More]I'm probably taking the weekend off, but be sure to read David's take on the latest developments in the effort to bring some kind of sanity to Chicago, and in incorporating the Second Amendment.
The_Chef is sounding a bit . . . less than pragmatic. Y'all know I'm something of a sucker for that.
There are lots of gun owners in this country. Many of those gun owners have seen what has happened in Australia, Britain, and other countries where people fell asleep and were not vigilant enough to guard their rights. Many of us, if a ban is passed, will not comply. We will not cooperate. We will stockpile our resources. We will wait. We will train as circumstances permit. We will study. And finally, when pushed far enough, we will defend the right of a people to defend themselves against those who would torment society for "it's own good". [More]
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (let's see--how many are in jail, under indictment, or under investigation for crimes--seven--oops, no--eight?) have made their hostility to the Second Amendment pretty clear.
Charleston SC's Mayor Joe Riley, though, wants to take a bite out of the Fourth Amendment, as well.
Among other things, the city wants the state to:"Warrants? We don't need no steenking warrants!"
• Allow police to conduct warrantless searches of offenders on probation or parole.
• Deny bail for repeat offenders charged with new crimes.
• Bar anyone convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of two years or more from possessing handguns or military-style rifles.
• Create a separate offense for anyone caught with a gun while selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for distribution.
• Increase the punishment for those convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life in prison. The current law carries no minimum penalty and has a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
• Expand current laws governing the illegal use and possession of firearms to include military-style rifles, such as AK-47s.
• Require all criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before they are eligible for parole or release.
I have spent all week writing about national issues, but today, I'm going to bring the focus back closer to this area. A couple of things are coming up in March that would, admittedly, involve a fair amount of travel for St. Louisans, but I believe some would find it well worth it. [More]Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Please give it a look, and encourage others to do the same.
Over at the National Gun Rights Observer, David Codrea has been taking a good, long look at "The Lightworker's" assertion, in reference to gun laws, that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." David quite correctly points out, though, the fallacy of this position.
And we saw one other major disconnect: Despite his assurances that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," made no doubt to convince detached and dull-witted gun owners that he posed no threat, every one of his policy proposals would apply nationwide, across the board.All the proposed new gun laws presented in the Obama administration's "urban policy" would be federal gun laws--applicable, in other words, in both Cheyenne and Chicago, and everywhere else in the country, as well.
This will be a continuation of yesterday's "Welcoming the Obama administration, waiting for the 'government monopoly on force.'" I closed yesterday with Josh Horwitz, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), decrying what he calls the "insurrectionist idea" of the Second Amendment, because it would "infringe" on "the government's monopoly on force." This should start alarm bells ringing furiously among those who love liberty, because what shall not be infringed is, of course, the exact opposite of a government monopoly on force--the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be looked at as the Constitution's very own "monopoly buster," as Tench Coxe explains. [More]Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is up, expanding on yesterday's "Welcoming the Obama administration, waiting for the 'government monopoly on force,' Part I."
On Sunday, Thirdpower wrote about yet another term that is apparently supposed to be even scarier than "assault weapons" (itself a made-up term designed to scare and mislead the public)--now, they're "weapons of war."
That, apparently, is going to be the next buzz-term in the push to ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles.
Speaking of the Miami "AK-47" (probably not a real, fully-automatic capable, AK-47, or it would fall under federal laws much more restrictive than the expired AWB) shootings, Congressman (and Senate candidate) Kendrick Meek has added his voice to those who want to use this crime as an excuse to ban more guns.
U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek said today that last week’s shooting in Miami that left seven injured and two dead shows the need for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons.Just like the old AWB prevented Columbine, Congressman? Oh--never mind--it didn't prevent Columbine, or any of the other shootings involving the firearms in question that occurred during the ban.
“We I [sic] think we should go back to the assault weapons ban, just for the very reason to prevent what happened the day before yesterday,” he said this morning in a brief interview.
“I’ve talked with some community groups about the fact that we cannot allow this kind of violence to continue.For someone so intent on banning so-called "assault weapons," Representative Meek sure commits a great many unprovoked assaults on the English language.
“Definitely when you have these AK-47s in the hands of individuals that are undesirables are [sic] something that should not be tolerated. Of course it needs to be dealt with more sooner [sic] than later because it goes to show you with those high-powered rifles in the wrong hands, it can definitely bring about the loss of life that we just experienced.”
But for now, instead of talking more about the Obama administration and its citizen disarmament agenda, let's talk about the CSGV, and what they stand for.
Josh Horwitz, the group's executive director, explains that in no uncertain terms, in a piece he calls "The Game of Monopoly." [More]
David notes that U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) has vowed to vote against Eric Holder's confirmation as AG, because of his toxic stance with regard to the Second Amendment. David also notes, however, that we'll need more from Sen. Barrasso.
Good for you, Senator Barrasso.Go to the title link, and join in the call to persuade Senator Barrasso to be make more than a symbolic effort to defeat Holder.
But here's the thing. That in and of itself won't cut it.
We need for you to go the next step and put a hold on the confirmation process. Filibuster. Obstruct. Delay. Loudly call on each senator who received an NRA endorsement--including democrats--to join you.
Lord knows Fairfax won't.
That's really the only way Holder's going to be stopped, and you know it.
So anything short of doing what it actually takes becomes pretty meaningless. A cynical person might even deem it risk-free and opportunistic.
You've assumed point on this, which makes you "It."
Please show real leadership.
Hold Holder. [More]
I have to take exception to this title, "Guns and Alcohol Could Soon Mix in New Mexico." The implication, clearly, is that there is some move afoot to legalize the practice of pub crawling with a Glock on one's hip--a practice few would endorse. In reality, the bill, introduced by New Mexico State Representative John Heaton, does nothing of the sort.
New Mexico State Representative John Heaton recently introduced House Bill 105, a piece of legislation that would permit those with concealed carry permits to bring their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol.Nothing there, you might notice, about permitting the "mixing" of guns and alcohol. In fact, the bill would not even allow the carrying of firearms into bars in which the majority of the business is the sale of alcohol.
The NRA is a strong supporter of the bill and today released the following statement:This bill would change the New Mexico law, in other words, that currently mandates defenselessness while in a restaurant that serves alcohol.
"State Representative John Heaton (D-Carlsbad) has introduced House Bill 105, a measure that would permit Concealed Handgun Licensees to protect themselves in establishments that are licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises IF the establishment derives more than 60% of their annual gross receipts from the sale of food."
Gun control organizations, both in the New Mexico and across the nation, have argued that the bill would make the state's bars and restaurants unsafe for workers and patrons. In an Associated Press interview, Brady Campaign senior counsel Brian Seibel called laws that would allow guns to be brought into businesses that serve alcohol "insane."You know what strikes me as "insane," Brian? Prohibiting peaceable people from protecting their lives, and the lives of their families, while in a restaurant, simply because other people might be drinking there.
Yesterday, I discussed the growing effort for a renewed ban of so-called "assault weapons." Such bans invariably incorporate a limit on the magazine capacity--the now expired federal ban stipulated ten rounds as the acceptable limit. The supposed rationale is that without "high capacity" (translation: normal capacity) magazines, a deranged killer will not be able to inflict as much carnage as he would if he had to reload more often. [More]Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up, taking a look at magazine capacity limit laws. Please give it a look, and spread the word.
Have some announcements to make. First, I'm pleased to announce that frequent correspondent, "3per," and crazed builder and shooter of handguns chambered in elephant rifle calibers, "Tom," has started a blog of his own--don't go there if you're the easily frightened sort. That's a guy who is going to liven things up around the gun blogosphere.
Another new gun blogger is Second Amendment and historian scholar David E. Young. There aren't many of us who don't stand to learn something from him.
Finally, this isn't an announcement of anything new--it's grateful acknowledgment of D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan's Liberty Sphere blog. Specifically, the "Second Amendment News Roundup" service he provides on weekdays is a great resource as "one stop shopping" for gun rights politics information. I imagine he puts quite a lot of work into just that part of his blog, and it has been a great benefit to me. Thanks, Doc!
Anyone pleased about the change in rules, made late in the Bush administration, allowing the carrying of a defensive firearm in national parks, might want to hurry up and enjoy it while they can, because the rule change might be short-lived.
Democrats are hoping to roll back a series of regulations issued late in the Bush administration that weaken environmental protections and other restrictions.At the time the change was made, I had trouble getting very excited about it, for this very reason--the rule change was of an administrative nature, rather than legislative, and this is a new administration. In fact, the more cynical part of my nature wondered if this was any more than a bit of political theatre--a bone tossed to gun rights advocates to show us that "See? The GOP does look out for you guys--we can't help it if those bad old Democrats change the rules back again when they take over."
Potential targets include regulations allowing concealed weapons in some national parks . . .
To avoid such problems, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill, the Midnight Rule Act, that would give incoming cabinet secretaries — starting with the Obama administration — greater power to rewrite regulations issued during the final three months of the previous presidency.Let me make sure I have this right: the Bush administration made a rule, which undoes a rule change made by the Reagan administration, but the current administration doesn't like the new change, so they want to pass a federal law in order to make it easier to undo the Bush administration change, thus restoring the rule put in place by the Reagan administration.
“Congress needs to pass the Midnight Rule Act,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement, “to give President-elect Barack Obama the ability to quickly reverse these policies and undo these last, right-wing gasps of the Bush administration.”
One type of proposed federal law that incessantly comes up for discussion is a new federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The last such ban, of course, expired in 2004, after which, suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.My latest St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Until now, I've focused exclusively on local St. Louis area gun rights issues. Starting today, though, I'm broadening the focus a bit. Please give it a look and spread the word.
This time, it's Miami that has provided fodder for the citizen disarmament advocates, with a shooting involving an "AK-47" (I suspect that it was a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, rather than a real, fully automatic one--real AK-47s have been, and continue to be, regulated under laws much more restrictive than the AWB). [More]
Paul Valone is a Second Amendment veteran who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (www.GRNC.org) and who regularly impacts local, state and federal gun laws. He will advise gun rights supporters of impending threats.Please give him a warm welcome.
David's National Gun Rights Examiner column today is important (as they tend to be). Today, he talks more about Obama's wish to have gun prohibitionist extraordinaire Eric Holder confirmed as Attorney General, as well as the efforts (such as they are) to derail that confirmation.
Go. Read. Spread the word.
From ISRA, via Days of Our Trailers:
Over the past several weeks, the ISRA has received several dozen phone calls from irate firearm owners who have been waiting a month or more to have their applications for Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards processed by the Illinois State Police.Since state law requires FOID card issuance to qualified applicants within 30 days of applying, their excuses are not acceptable. Try owning a gun in Illinois without a FOID, and when charged for that "crime," stating that you didn't apply for a FOID because you were too busy and didn't have the money--how well do you suppose that would work?
After making inquiries into the backlog, ISRA representatives were told by ISP officials that inadequate staffing and funding were to blame for the slowdown in application processing. Those same officials were unable to say when, if ever, the situation would improve.
Maybe someone can explain to me how "stronger gun laws" would have stopped this guy from arming himself rather impressively.
In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.Enough to make my gun safe seem a little skimpy. But where did he get it all?
ATF Special Agent Heidi Wallace said much of the recovered ordnance was almost certainly stolen from the military because there is no other place to get it.Really? I figured he just got the stuff from those damned American gun shows. Guess there's only one thing to do: disarm the military.
The renewed discussion about the massive injustice against David Olofson brought to my mind a point that I don't often see addressed.
David's GUNS Magazine article brought it up, but I haven't seen much mention of it elsewhere.
What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”See what I'm getting at? Most commentators who believe in Olofson's innocence (as I wholeheartedly do) focus on the BATFE's and prosecution's lies and dirty tricks--and that is certainly a rich vein.
No matter what the cause.
Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that’s how close you could be to becoming a convicted “gun felon.”
Two children and one adult were killed Friday in a stabbing attack at a nursery school in Belgium, officials said.Violence in Belgium? That's strange--they have such "strong gun laws."
Ten children and two adults were being treated in the hospital after the attack, the Interior Ministry said. It was unclear whether all of them suffered stab wounds. [More]
In today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, we look at St. Louis Mayor Slay (one of Bloomberg's faithful minions), and his enthusiastic endorsement of "microstamping."
Please give it a look, and spread it around.
Also catch David's 'For the children...'--about the Obama plan to require "childproofing" guns.
I've just received word from Historic Arms LLC President Len Savage, who is an expert witness in the case of David Olofson, convicted of transferring a machine gun after his semiautomatic firearm that he had loaned malfunctioned at the range.Go and read the rest, and try to watch tonight.
One of Olofson's attorney's, Herb Titus, will be interviewed live tonight on Lou Dobbs. The program airs at 7:00 pm EST on CNN, so check your local listings in your time zone. I'm told significant information will be disclosed, and hope to have an update to this story soon to include documents just made public.
The title of an article in Reason Magazine, "Speak Softly and Carry a Concealed Handgun: Would a nicer NRA be more effective?" caught me off guard. I've made little secret of my numerous bones of contention with the NRA, but none of them have anything to do with the NRA being insufficiently "nice."
How much "nicer," after all, could the NRA be than declining to grade senators on how they vote on the confirmation of radically anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General? "Well, we'd prefer that you vote against a citizen disarming aspiring tyrant, but if you don't, we won't hold it against you," is pretty darned nice. Contemptible and cowardly, perhaps, but nice.
The Reason article is mostly a discussion of disagreements between Richard Feldman (a former lobbyist for the NRA, with whom he eventually had a messy divorce--complete with book deal). Feldman is the sort who does actually think the NRA needs to be "nicer"--this guy makes Neville Chamberlain look like King Leonidas I.
Come to think of it, I'm not sure I quite understand why he and the NRA can't get along. Maybe it's time for those crazy kids to get back together.
Looks as if Obama's election has spurred not only a huge spike in firearms sales, but is also prompting more people to carry firearms in public. It seems that not everyone expects "The Lightworker" to cure all our social ills, after all.
Please read. Also, read what David has to say about Obama and the "Bill of Rights loophole."
A few of the GOP's Senate Judiciary Committee members have either grown a bit more backbone than I had expected, or are at least going to try to put up a convincing show of resistance to Holder's confirmation.
David has more.
I thought Third Power and I were friends, and thus didn't expect him to force me to start my day with this news:
Beyond the already well established nominations of anti-gun fanatics to Obama's cabinet, we have another for the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. One Cass Sunstein.What do we know about Sunstein? Well, that he's a raving loon, for starters.
He's an "Animal Rights Advocate" in the same vein as PETA to the point that he stated in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions . . .I won't spoil the suspense--follow the first link and (here it is again) and read what Sunstein proposes--it's utterly bizarre.
He also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering.In fact, the example he uses to illustrate his "point" is the gun rights debate.
He also looked at the National Rifle Association (NRA).As I pointed out in my earlier post:
"A group whose members lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker. The group's members, to the extent that they shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control,” says the professor.
It is in this vein that Sunstein sees the advent of the personalisation of information via the Internet as such a threat.
The problem with that thinking, Cass, is that wherever one goes, "the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker"--that's simply the nature of a position that lacks grounding in facts and logic.Nicki, by the way, beautifully eviscerates yet another Sunstein article, in which he laments the rise of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and suggests that even if one accepts that, it should pose no barrier to restrictive gun laws (this was before Heller--I have to admit that he pretty well perfectly described what Heller would do).
Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is "Gun 'buy backs': misnamed and misguided." Please give it a look and encourage others to do so, as well.
David's National Gun Rights Examiner column today, "Dreams of Obama," is a follow-up to yesterday's "Hail to the Chief?"--read 'em both.
Not much information to go on yet, but I wonder how this will be handled?
A man was shot by a resident of a home he was allegedly invading on the West Side late Sunday.This being Chicago, there's a very good chance that the legal hoops through which the homeowner would have to have jumped in order to legally own the firearm with which he defended his life and home were more than he was able and willing to deal with. If that's the case, that "possibility that the shooter would face charges" is a rather good one.
About 10 p.m., a man in his 20s was allegedly committing a home invasion and a resident inside the home at 4453 W. Cortez St. shot him, according to a Harrison District police lieutenant.
Charges were pending Monday morning against the man shot, who was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital in an unidentified condition.
Police have not ruled out the possibility that the shooter would face charges also.
I'll be the first to admit that I am no statistician, and that the endless back-and-forth squabbling seems only to prove that one can use statistics to prove anything one wants to prove. Personally, my belief is that such debates might serve well to show off one's statistical chops, but miss the real point.Please head on over and give it a look.
"The real point," as I see it, is that those private citizens who choose to carry a defensive firearm do not do so with the objective of "fighting crime," but instead have the much more limited aim of defending themselves and their loved ones. [More]
Not bad, considering I just started late last week, and just put up my third column today.
I'm not at all trying to present myself as a potential Pulitzer winner, or even that I'll ever become more than a small voice for the gun rights movement--just trying to hammer home the point that there is indeed a ready audience outside the gun blogosphere for a discussion about gun rights that isn't dominated by people who want to trample them.
We would be crazy not to engage that audience to the best of our abilities.
This is pretty cool:
With millions of Americans now buying guns like never before, one interesting news analysis organization is matching numbers, it seems, for what the armed citizen is really all about, and how he or she plays a powerful role in all our freedoms.My own St. Louis GRE column (which today looks at anti-gun St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay) is the newest and smallest of the bunch, but even it is doing very well in the St. Louis edition of Examiner.com, after only half a week. David's National Gun Rights Examiner (which today talks some more about Eric Holder, and the seeming unwillingness to fight his confirmation on the part of people who should know better) is really kicking butt, as are John Longenecker's LA Gun Rights Examiner and Daniel White's Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.
"Examiner.com’s regular columns to balance anti-gun programs are reaching growing audiences," National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea said today.
Horror stories about small minded, bureaucratic fascism on the part of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) abound--War on Guns alone has documented a bunch. This one, however, strikes me as particularly outrageous:
Mom just called. Dad is being unlawfully detained by Homeyland Security/TSA at Austin Bergstrom airport because we played with .45s this morning before they left to go back to IL and the ion sniffer machine was suspicious of him because he smelled remotely like smokeless powder on a "washed my hands and changed clothes before I drove to the airport" level.The (very justifiably) angry man who wrote that is "Tom," who likes to build and shoot handguns chambered for elephant rifle calibers (and I thought I was nuts).
Welcome to the Police State.
Ain't America Beautiful? Fookin Beautiful place to be! ...especially for shooting enthusiasts that fly commercial.
FWIW: He's a LtCol (USAFR). I thought that Military personnel were allowed to smell like gun powder. I guess he should have worn his uniform instead of dressed casual.
God, it's times like these that make me just want to kick holes in the walls. Him getting fingerf*cked over shooting guns before he even gets to IL today. Jayzus effiin Kee-Riste!
I'm pretty much out of the habit of Sunday posting, but I just want to thank Chris S. for the new banner graphic now adorning the top of Armed and Safe. I'm hopeless with any kind of graphical, artistic endeavor, and so had pretty much just gone with the plainest, most boring appearance a blog could have.
Chris, though, after I "met" him over at Missouri Carry, just volunteered out of nowhere to design a banner, and I think it really dresses this place up.
Chris is involved with Midwest Hunting Source (check 'em out), and has kindly added a link to my St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column on the MHS "Friends" page (Chris also did the graphic work on the St. Louis GRE banner links).
Thanks, Chris.
Be sure to read David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page today, debunking the myth of "easy access" to firearms as a factor driving youth violence.
Got a reply today from Senator Durbin, in response to my attempt to convince him to vote against Holder's confirmation for AG. Being a U.S. Senator, his response wasn't exactly "Up yours," but the message was pretty similar (except in length).
Dear Mr. Hofmann:Frankly, I would have been shocked by any other response from a hardcore statist like Durbin, but I had to try.
Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you.
Over the last eight years, the Department of Justice has garnered a reputation for placing political interests above principle. At this time in our nation's history, we urgently need to restore the Justice Department to its rightful role as the protector of our laws and to renew America's faith in our system of justice. I believe Eric Holder has the experience, independence, and character to do just that.
Early in his career, Eric Holder spent ten years with the Department of Justice, prosecuting corrupt public officials of both parties. He was nominated by President Reagan to serve as a Superior Court judge and filled that position until he was nominated by President Clinton to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997, Mr. Holder was unanimously confirmed by the United State Senate to serve as Deputy Attorney General and held that position until early 2001 when he briefly served as Acting Attorney General.
Throughout his years of public service at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder showed a penchant for independence. As Deputy Attorney General, he advised Attorney General Reno to broaden the authority of independent counsel Ken Starr. Mr. Starr's investigation ultimately led to President Clinton's impeachment. Mr. Holder also recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate President Clinton's Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt.
Mr. Holder's experience, independence, and character have garnered support for his nomination from a variety of law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association. He also is supported by many former Justice Department officials including Larry Thompson and James Comey, who both served as Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush; William Barr, who served as Attorney General under President George H. W. Bush; and former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
I appreciate hearing your views about this important nomination. Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
This LA Times article is mostly about Senator Dianne "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Feinstein's sometimes contentious relationship with her own party.
As Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats celebrate their political ascendancy, Dianne Feinstein is front and center. And that is not always a welcome thing for members of her own party.Gun law issues are given only one short paragraph, and the article's author's take strikes me as a bit odd.
In recent days Feinstein has sent an unmistakable signal to the president-elect and the rest of Washington: California's senior senator will not be taken for granted or hew to the party line simply because that might seem proper at the rosy dawn of a new Democratic era.
She would like to resurrect the federal assault weapons ban she regards as one of her proudest achievements. The ban expired in 2004, when Republicans controlled Congress. But such an effort could put Obama and Democratic leaders in a difficult spot, given their efforts to appeal to a broader swath of voters. During his campaign, Obama largely shied away from the gun debate.I don't doubt that Feinstein is "proud" of her tyrannical efforts; what I question is the idea that she'll have to overcome any meaningful resistance from the Democratic Party leadership to bolster her pride some more.
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.If I look hard at the list of Obama's cabinet appointees, I might find one or two who do not have a long record of rabid advocacy of citizen disarmament, but it certainly doesn't look like a cabinet chosen with the idea of avoiding the gun issue.
I've condemned the citizen disarmament movement's "blood dancing" in response to atrocities committed by sick, evil punks before, but am rarely given such a glaring example of it as this.
Twenty Years Since A Nightmare:That's how a citizen disarmament advocate looks on the "bright side"--if the slaughter of innocent children leads to more restrictive gun laws, that's the price of "progress."
Stockton, CA School Shooting Of 35
Led To Strengthening Of Gun Laws
“Stockton was a critical moment in the history of the fight for sensible gun laws in America,” Helmke said.The Stockton massacre was an unmitigated atrocity, and to portray it as anything else is reprehensible.
My second St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up today, responding to St. Louis Police Chief Daniel Isom's claim that "The Solution is Not More Guns." Please give it a look, and maybe tell a friend.
As to "telling a friend," I have a lot of "Thank yous" to hand out. David Codrea tops the list, first by virtue of the fact that the entire Gun Rights Examiner concept is his baby, then by getting me on board for the St. Louis iteration of it, and finally by promoting it at both WoG, and on his own Gun Rights Examiner column.
Thanks also to Thirdpower, The Welshman, Steve in TN, JR, and Don Gwinn (if I missed anyone, that's just cluelessness on my part, not an intentional slight).
I've never met any of these folks in person, but they have all shown themselves to be true friends.
Thanks--to all of you.
Update: an example of that "cluelessness" I mentioned earlier--thanks, Uncle, and sorry not to have noticed earlier.
Sleeping on the job again; I seem to have neglected to mention that plans for IGOLD '09 are already well underway. "What's IGOLD," you say? I'm glad you asked.
IGOLD stands for Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day--a day for those of us in Illinois who value the right to keep and bear arms to go to Springfield and make our voices heard in the Capitol Building. As gun owners and advocates of the right and responsibility to provide for our own defense, it's only logical that we exercise the right and responsibility to fight the political battles necessary to defend that right. Organizations like the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) do a great deal of good work on that front, but in the end, it's up to individual gun owners (who are, let's not forget, voters) to let our public servants in the Illinois General Assembly know what we want from them. IGOLD is a good way to get that message across, even to those legislators who are a bit hard of hearing.
IGOLD '08 was a great success, with between 2500 and 3000 gun rights advocates getting the message to Springfield. This year, we need to do even better than that. Here's the link (again) to ISRA's IGOLD page. Getting to Springfield can be quite a chore for folks in many parts of the state, but ISRA, Illinois Carry, and Guns Save Life (also known as the Champaign County Rifle Association) have thought of that, too, and have sponsored much of the costs for buses (from 25 starting points!) to Springfield and back--details are here.
Are your gun rights worth one day?
The VPC is (once again) trying to stir up hysteria--this time over large handguns.
Washington, DC—Powerful new handguns called “big boomers” by the gun industry are a growing threat to the nation’s law enforcement officers, a new 36-page study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) reveals. (See http://www.vpc.org/studies/bigboomers.pdf for a copy of the study, see http://www.vpc.org/studies/boomerskeyfindings.pdf for a summary presenting the key findings of the study.) Body armor used by police has been able to stop handgun rounds and saved thousands of lives over the last three decades, the study states, but standard body armor cannot stop rifle rounds. "Big Boomers"—Rifle Power Designed Into Handguns warns that the gun industry is aggressively marketing a growing number of new handguns designed to fire bullets with rifle power. The rounds these guns fire can penetrate all but the most resistant body armor (such as that used in raids by many SWAT teams).There's a lot of garbage to debunk there, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'm just going to make a couple quick points.
A bit of a project is coming to fruition today--with a great deal of help and encouragement from David Codrea, I have landed a gig writing the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner.
Although I live in Illinois, I'm less than 25 miles away from St. Louis, so I have some familiarity with the situation in the area.
Posting here might be light today, because I'm dealing not only with that, but with the Illinois legislative session, and the gun banning bills are already flying thick and fast.
Anyone who spreads the word about the new column will be doing me a huge favor (thanks again, David).
I'll be on the The Steve Gill Show tomorrow morning at 10:30 CST to discuss my Examiner.com reporting on H.R. 45. They must have seen today's WorldNetDaily piece.Be there.
Sadly, given the state of today's GOP, I have to celebrate any resistance at all to Obama's agenda.
GOP setting up roadblocks for HolderDoes today's GOP have a bit of backbone hidden away, after all?
Senate Republicans have invited the son of man killed in a 1975 Puerto Rican nationalist bombing as well as a former FBI agent who investigated two violent groups supporting Puerto Rican independence to appear at Eric Holder’s confirmation hearings.
A third GOP witness is a pro-gun rights attorney from Virginia.
These Republican witnesses signal the direction that Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking member of the committee, will take in trying to derail or delay confirmation for Barack Obama’s attorney general pick. Specter and other top Republicans, including Karl Rove, the former top political advisor to President Bush, have raised concerns about whether Holder can be truly independent from the president. [More]
I have, more than once, tried to get Americans United for Separation of Church and State to act on their stated mission, and go after "Snuffy" Pfleger's blatant politicking from the pulpit.
It seems, though, that AUSCS is only interested in stopping certain kinds of church politicking (and lobbying for citizen disarmament laws, campaigning for anti-gun politicians, and against pro-gun politicians, is apparently not what offends them), because, aside from a vague promise to look into it, I never heard anything from them--until now.
Yep--they want money--in part to help them end "church politicking":
8. Help preserve the ban on church politickingFind another sucker, guys.
The Alliance Defense Fund spent much of last year urging pastors to openly defy the law banning church politicking, eager to get a new test case in the courts. AU must be ready to meet this legal challenge and make sure the ban on pulpit politicking is upheld by Congress.
Just a quick note--David Codrea reminds us that anyone wishing to
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee about blocking the confirmation of Eric Holder for AG had better hurry--the hearing is tomorrow.
I was planning to write about something else today (will probably get to it later), but I've decided that a couple comments left in response to an earlier post merit a more thorough response than is practical in comments. In that post, I castigated the NRA for criticizing Holder for his opposition to "Project Exile."
In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?I actually haven't seen anyone try to argue with my claim that federal gun laws are unconstitutional not only because of the Second Amendment, but also because "gun control" is nowhere listed as one of the federal government's enumerated powers (in other words, I can make my argument without yelling "SNBI!" at anyone). For example:
In principle, I agree with you the federal government doesn't have any constitutional power to regulate possession of firearms by anybody. But if you go onto Capitol Hill and suggest that as a serious policy position you'll get laughed out of every Congressional and Senate office you're invited into.There's more, but most of the gist of it is summed up in those two paragraphs. As I read it, Sebastian acknowledges that all federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, but that's (apparently) a losing argument, hence the NRA's approach of trying to preempt additional gun laws by calling for enforcement of the (unconstitutional) ones already in place.
Project Exile is one of those things I don't really like either, because I don't believe the federal government ought to be exercising police powers. But the Supreme Court disagrees with us on this, and so do both other branches of government. You have to approach things from that reality.
You were, perhaps, expecting the NRA to PRAISE Holder for opposing the program that they support?Believe it or not, I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think what I support (or not) should matter to the NRA. Whether I like "Project Exile," or not, is irrelevant. What matters is that the Constitution doesn't like it.
I can understand your opposition to "project exile" and I agree with it to a certain extent; but your post here seems to be making the rather silly contention that the NRA shouldn't have mentioned it because YOU don't support it.
As promised, GOA is making an effort to mobilize membership to fight against the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General. I hope they have more on the way than that, but it's a start.
In other developments, I did finally get a reply today from the NRA in response to my dismay over their seeming unwillingness to get involved. I'll start with what I sent to them.
I am convinced that Eric Holder would be the most anti-gun Attorney General in history. I am disappointed to have seen no effort on the part of the NRA fight his confirmation, or to mobilize membership to do so.To which they replied:
This, I can only assume, is tacit acceptance of Eric Holder as AG. That is utterly unacceptable.
The NRA bills itself as the most important gun rights advocacy organization in the country, but I am simply not seeing that.
Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann
Dear Mr. Hofmann,Um, yeah--I saw that letter, Angus. Nice job--criticizing Holder for his opposition to your brand of infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Alright, I admit it: the "Leave the NRA alone; fighting this isn't their job" people were right--I should have realized that LaPierre and friends would attack him for being not supportive enough of federal gun laws.
We are vehemently opposed to Holder's nomination and are working with a number of U.S. Senators to try and prevent his appointment. Eric Holder is a radical enemy of the Second Amendment, and we will do what we can to keep him out of office.
Please review this recent letter Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox sent to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter:
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf
Cordially,
Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots
(click to enlarge)
Congress has wasted no time in trying to exploit the power that the Constitution does not give the federal government to regulate firearms. Today, I'll be talking about the "Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009," introduced in the Senate by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and in the House by Representative Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX). These bills were just introduced yesterday, and are so new I can't even find numbers for them, much less details.
We do, however, have something of a guide as to what to expect, in the bills of the same name introduced last year, S. 2867/H.R. 5869. Looking over those, I'll acknowledge that as attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms go, this is fairly small potatoes.
Still, the bills call for millions of dollars of additional funding for the BATFE, and the hiring of more BATFE stormtroopers. Yeah--that's what we need--to take millions more dollars from taxpayers, and use the money to buy more jackboots for us to either kiss, or have placed on our necks.
By the way, the Senate version already has some co-sponsors, including anti-gun extremists Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and John McCain (R-AZ). Yep--that's right--I'm calling John McCain an anti-gun extremist. If casting a vote for a ban of "assault weapons," and continued, active support for closing the mythical "gun show loophole" isn't anti-gun extremism, there would not seem to be a gun law that isn't a "reasonable restriction."
These bills are ostensibly intended to reduce the violence in Mexico (and sometimes spilling across the border), stemming from fights over the profits created by the "War on Drugs." It has become fashionable, of late, to blame this violence not on the universally failed programs of prohibition, but on "lax gun laws" in the U.S.
By the way, apparently Mexico is considering banning toy guns, now. If they do, how long before we hear calls to reform our "lax toy laws" in the U.S.?
As I said, this bill, as noxious as it is, would be a fairly minor attack on liberty. For a look at a vastly more ominous bill, check out today's Gun Rights Examiner (should be daily reading anyway).
WoG has more.
Well, whaddya know? The NRA has decided against dead silence as the best approach to the existential threat to private gun ownership that would be posed by an Eric Holder Attorney Generalship. Better late than never?
Decide for yourself:
In contrast to that case, Mr Holder was among those in the Clinton administration who strongly resisted a national expansion of Project Exile, a successful anti-crime program in Richmond, Virginia that used true "zero-tolerance" federal prosecution of convicted felons, drug dealers and armed robbers to achieve a remarkable reduction in that city's murder and violent crime rates. Despite the program's success in Richmond, Philadelphia, and other cities in which it has been implemented, Mr. Holder dismissed NRA's and congressional efforts to implement it nationwide as a "cookie-cutter approach."In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?
I've written about (and again here) the NRA's being too precious to risk getting a bloody nose in the fight to block the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General. Sadly, tacit acceptance of a nightmare for gun owners is the sort of thing I've come to expect from the NRA.
What I didn't expect, though, is active support on the part of an NRA board member for Holder's confirmation (more here). In his letter (pdf file) to Senator Leahy, Barr had the audacity to praise Holder with regard to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
However, I never had reason to question his personal and professional integrity, or his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.Granted, the position of one NRA board member is not necessarily the position of the NRA leadership as a whole (actually, the NRA seems to have decided on a strategy of boldly not taking any position whatsoever--"800 lb. gorilla of the gun rights movement," indeed). Still, any organization that would tout Barr as a member of their "winning team" would seem to be a prime candidate for a coaching change, at the very least.
"The attorney general nominee, Mr. Holder, has got serious questions to respond to with regard to his role in the . . . pardons at the end of the Clinton administration and some other matters," McConnell said yesterday. "Beyond that, I don't anticipate trouble for the new president's nominees."That's funny--I keep hearing that we should just shut up and get used to the inevitability of Holder's confirmation.
Don't have time for much today, so this is just going to be a quick update to yesterday's post.
New information indicates that our "gun criminal," Phillip Dominguez, tried very hard to comply with California's byzantine, draconian gun laws, and apparently almost managed it.
Dominguez said he didn't think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammo were in separate, locked boxes.One would think that would appease the "authorities"--the guns were rendered useless for self-defense, just the way the statists like it.
He showed officials the paperwork proving the assault rifle was registered and gave them the keys and combinations of all the lockboxes, he said. The Bushmaster "Shorty," a semiautomatic rifle modeled on the military's AR15, was the reason he was finally arrested.Well . . . yes and no. There was no threat, apparently, of the Bushmaster being used to shoot anyone, but to statist thugs bent on utter domination of the
"It posed no threat to nobody," said Dominguez.
Dominguez said he got state permission to own and use the assault rifle last month . . .He got permission for the exercise of that which shall not be infringed, just as the Founding Fathers intended he should have to, I'm sure.
. . . but the approval letter didn't mention it was illegal in California to make a pit stop while transporting the weapon from his home to the gun range.Ah--there's your mistake, Mr. Dominguez--you somehow failed to realize that when you transport a so-called "assault weapon," even if you have jumped through all the little, unconstitutional hoops, you sacrifice the right to travel freely.
That code requires that "registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations," according to the Web site of the California attorney general's office.
Horrific terrorist attack thwarted:
A motorist with 16 guns and at least 700 rounds of ammunition in his pickup truck was arrested Friday at a vehicle checkpoint as he entered Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.Or maybe not.
[ . . . ]
The man was arrested for investigation of felony transporation of an assault rifle, he said.
Holcomb said there was no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport and was apparently there to pick up someone.As the man's rapidly deteriorating legal situation sinks in, I imagine he would agree.
"He just made a very bad decision and should not have been carrying those weapons," Holcomb said.
The FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Los Angeles Police Department are investigating whether the weapons were properly registered.Now that's an efficient use of law enforcement assets--it only takes a large city police department and two federal agencies to determine whether or not the precious paperwork was done.
"While much more must be learned, this incident demonstrates why security measures at LAX are so critical," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice).Exactly, Jane--without such measures, this man might actually have gotten away with his non-intent to cause harm.
Not really gun rights commentary--I just thought this was funny.
"While the officers have gone through a block of instruction assembly and disassembly of the weapon, how to clean the weapon and how to clean the weapon and how to maintain the weapon," Lt. Soliz said.Nothing wrong with that, I guess--"take care of your rifle, and it will take care of you," and all that. Oddly, though, the article didn't mention anything about the officers being trained in using the rifles.
On Wednesday, I asked readers to (among other things) contact the NRA, GOA, and CCRKBA about joining the Firearms Coalition in providing organized resistance to the confirmation of Eric Holder as AG. I, of course, conducted my own correspondence with them.
Today, I got a reply--Gun Owners of America says they're on it. I'll start with what I wrote them on Wednesday.
I am convinced that Eric Holder would be the most anti-gun Attorney General in history. I am disappointed to have seen very little effort on the part of GOA to fight his confirmation, or to mobilize membership to do so.And now, the reply:
This, I can only assume, is tacit acceptance of Eric Holder as AG. That is utterly unacceptable.
The GOA bills itself as the most hard-hitting gun rights advocacy organization in the country, but I am simply not seeing that.
Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann
Kurt,Maybe not quite as quick as I'd like, but it's action--rather than excuses about being "too big to risk losing," or something like that. Actually, I haven't heard even that much from the NRA (I have, instead, heard this), but that seems to be the gist of what others in a position to know are saying (also read about Western Rifle Association's conversation with the NRA).
GOA is 100% opposed to the Holder nomination. The reason you haven't seen anything from us as of yet is merely a function of timing.
Here is just a PARTIAL list of what we are and will be doing:
* An official notice of opposition send to every Senate office...with a warning that the confirmation vote will be used for our Congressional ratings (already sent)
* Detailed and lengthy face-to-face meetings with numerous Senators and their staff (ongoing)
* A press release which will lead to GOA spokesmen taking to the airwaves to drum up opposition (scheduled for this coming Monday)
* Op-Ed pieces (release dates flexible)
* GOA alerts to get the grassroots involved (first one scheduled for Monday or Tuesday)
So, we're definitely not in the remain-silent camp regarding this particular battle, nor is there any "tacit acceptance" -- there is unalterable opposition. Please watch your e-mail for upcoming opportunities to make your voice heard.
In liberty,
--Craig.
Craig Fields
Director of Internet Operations, GOA
And another one down. This time Baltimore's Sheila Dixon:
A grand jury indicted Dixon on 12 counts, including four counts of perjury and two counts of theft over $500. She was also charged with theft under $500, fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary and misconduct in office.That would be Mayor Sheila Dixon of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and she's been a busy little gun grabber, and as I said in the title, she comprises half of the Maryland contingent.
I see that "The Lightworker" has named Virginia Governor Time Kaine as the new Democratic National Committee chairman. What do we know about him?
Well, one thing I know is that he considers 377 rounds of ammunition in the hands of a private citizen to be a "cache" that "authorities" should be able to "monitor."
In general, Kaine said, he is troubled that Virginia law allows any individual to stockpile ammunition with no way for authorities to monitor the cache. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, began his rampage with 377 rounds of ammunition, according to police.And guess what--the leading candidate for the Republican National Committee chair probably doesn't disagree.
Yesterday, I praised STI for joining Barrett Firearms in cutting off the criminal government of California (and yes--in violating the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, California has violated the supreme law of the land--that's criminality, in my book). I very deeply admire the moral courage of any commercial enterprise willing to voluntarily sacrifice its bottom line, out of a sense of moral responsibility and reverence for the Constitution.
After giving it some more thought, though, it occurs to me that a much sterner test could soon be coming. I refer, of course, to the coming storm of federal citizen disarmament laws (and/or unilateral rulings by an unelected official--very possibly one with a huge chip on his shoulder regarding the Second Amendment) with which we are now faced.
Barrett, especially, does a great deal of business with the federal government, mostly in .50 caliber rifles. What happens if/when the Brady Bunch gets its way in regard to those (from page 14)?
Congress should enact strong legislation that closes the loopholes in the previous assault weapons statute and restricts civilian ownership of other weapons that were originally designed for military use, such as .50 caliber sniper rifles that have the range and power to bring down aircraft. High-capacity ammunition magazines and armor-piercing bullets should be similarly restricted.I'm sure the business Barrett did with the California government was substantial, but it could hardly compare to what they earn in sales to the feds.
I trust that no one who reads this blog needs to be told that Eric Holder would be the most rabidly hostile AG gun owners have ever seen.
However, as David Codrea points out, the Second Amendment isn't the only part of the Bill of Rights that offends Holder--the First Amendment also seems to annoy him.
The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate... We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing but it seems to me that if we come up with reasonable restrictions; reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.Now, we learn of his willingness to go after the Sixth Amendment.
...Holder strongly suggested that, when deciding whether to indict a corporation — and indictment can be a death sentence for companies in certain businesses — they consider whether the company has "cooperated" in the investigation. "Cooperation" was partially defined by whether the corporation agreed to waive the legally protected attorney-client and work-product privileges...including corporate counsel's discussions with employees. Another factor, suggested Holder, would be "whether the corporation appears to be protecting its culpable employees and agents" by advancing or paying those individuals' attorney fees. A further sign of possible noncooperation would be whether the corporation kept the employees on the payroll or entered into a joint defense agreement with any of them. Put simply, the Holder Memo suggested that, by facilitating the ability of employees to continue working and to vigorously defend themselves, the company was demonstrating a noncooperative attitude that could get it indicted.But I've found some good news. Even after extensive searching, I haven't found any indication that he has tried to suppress the Third Amendment.
War on Guns has already covered the theft of shotguns and AR-15s from Contra Costa Sheriff's Department cars (does that mean that "patrol rifles" instantly transformed into "assault weapons"?).
I just have a couple observations to make, gleaned from this article. The first is this beautiful bit of bureaucratese uttered by BATFE spokesthuggette (what--that's not a word?) Nina Delgadillo.
"It's disturbing ... when you're talking about someone stealing (weapons) from a law enforcement agency," said Nina Delgadillo, a special agent with the San Francisco Bay Area division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Once a weapon is stolen, it has a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult for us to trace."Two things: 1) a stolen weapon doesn't have "a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult to trace"--it's gone; and 2) notice that her biggest worry is that the feds can no longer keep track of the guns--interesting priorities, eh?
The weapons reported stolen, particularly the rifles, could be valuable in the illegal arms market because of state assault weapon restrictions implemented at the beginning of the decade, said Brian Rodgers, general manager of the Antioch Armory gun shop.What--you mean prohibition fosters black market demand? Who would have guessed? Who could have imagined that the laws that make California the Brady Bunch's highest rated state would provide a lucrative incentive for crime?
As I contemplated yesterday, I'm experimenting with a somewhat changed format. What I'm looking at doing is having one of my typical long, rambling, conciseness-challenged posts, for the continued "enjoyment" of the gluttons for punishment--probably posted in the morning, and followed throughout the day by shorter posts dealing with other things that I come across and think are worth commenting on.
This post will be the first of that kind, although I can already tell that it's going to run longer than I'd planned.
It seems that the Mumbai attacks have caught the attention of the Department of Homeland Security (I would certainly hope so), with the idea that it could happen here.
U.S. cities are vulnerable to an attack like the gun-and-grenade assault that terrorized Mumbai for three days and killed 179 people, the White House homeland security adviser said on Wednesday.Hmm . . . what could be done to reduce the danger of that kind of attack in the U.S.? As it turns out, Ron Paul has some thoughts about that.
Ken Wainstein told a Washington think tank the Mumbai attacks in November showed the effectiveness of a low-technology coordinated assault on an open city.
"You can envision that happening in any American city, and it's chilling when you think about it," Wainstein told policy-makers and others in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's the kind of thing that is all too realistic anywhere in the world."
India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.I'm glad that at least elements within the Bush administration are giving some thought to the possibility of a small-arms massacre type attack on a soft target on U.S. soil, by terrorists. I would have been considerably more glad, though, if some thought had been given to this before . . . oh, I don't know--appointing "Maximum Mike" Sullivan to run the BATFE, or using the Solicitor General to try to sabotage a Supreme Court affirmation of the individual nature of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
As most readers are probably aware, Barrett Rifles, in the wake of the California ban on .50 caliber rifles for private citizens, defied the myth of gun industry greed, and sacrificed the bottom line, out of reverence for the Constitution and a sense of moral obligation. By that, I mean they refused further sales to any unit of California government, because by violating the Constitution, the California government has itself become a criminal enterprise, and Ronnie Barrett will not knowingly arm criminals.
This was, as far as I know, an unprecedented display of both patriotism and moral courage, and I have ever since considered Ronnie Barrett something of a hero.
Now, he has company, as after suffering "a long train of abuses and usurpations," STI has adopted a similar policy (pdf file). Here's an excerpt:
As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an inexpensive undertaking. We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company. When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough. While our sales to Law enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.This, I am sure, is something of a financial hardship for STI, but certain things are more important than the bottom line. It takes moral courage to act on those priorities, and STI, like Barrett, clearly has plenty of that.
Every new piece of information I come across related to Eric Holder provides yet more reason to fight his confirmation, so if any readers are getting tired of "all Holder, all the time," they're just going to have to deal with it. By the way, want one more reason for gun owners to fight this appointment tooth and nail? How about a move to give the AG the power to ban guns at will?
I'll start with some great work by JR, at A Keyboard and a .45, in putting together this contact list for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are the folks, in addition to your own U.S. Senators, who need our letters, calls, and emails laying out the objections (of which there are a bunch) to this appointment.
On Monday, I provided a copy of the letter I wrote to my own (although I don't enjoy claiming him) Senator Durbin, said letter not even mentioning gun rights, because Durbin is just as enthusiastic about trampling them as Holder is. That was probably not the best idea on my part, because a) if I had waited a day, I could have drawn from David Codrea's much better list of points; and b) as David points out today, it's probably best that everyone write his/her own letter, rather than us sending a "canned" letter. When composing the correspondence, mention gun rights concerns, or not, depending on how hostile to such concerns the particular Senator in question is. You can get an idea about that by checking the NRA Candidate Grades and Endorsements and the GOA Senate Ratings.
Mike Vanderboegh challenges us to shake our supposed "leaders" in gun rights advocacy out of their lethargy, and get them to issue an "all points bulletin" to mobilize folks for the Holder-holding effort. Jeff Knox, of the Firearms Coalition, has been leading the charge--the NRA and GOA, not so much. That needs to change. Light 'em up:
NRA web contact form
GOA web contact form
CCRKBA email address
Finally, and in a break from Holder, I'm thinking about a format change here at Armed and Safe. Most days, I do one fairly long post, about one topic, and if anything else comes up that day, I leave it for later. If I see it as really important or time sensitive, I'll add another post. It seems that most of my favorite gun bloggers, on the other hand, tend to write several posts per day, although each might be no more than a paragraph or two. I'm thinking it might be time for me to try to follow suit. I mention that mainly so that if I do it, readers won't be too surprised, but if anyone has any thoughts one way or another about the idea, lay 'em on me.
. . . Says Mike Beard, president of a group that would reduce us to no more than subjects. I have written much about Mike Beard's Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--especially that group's startling and chilling assertion that government must have a monopoly on force. This week, though, he says that "You Are a Citizen," in a blog post that tries to sell itself as a celebration of American liberty.
To make his "point" (being generous here), he quotes the late Molly Ivins (herself no friend of the only sure means of defending freedom).
A few years ago, Molly wrote an essay exhorting Americans not to be cynical, to treasure the most magnificent political legacy any people has ever received.As far as it goes, I would call that some of Ivins' better work--she at least makes a valid point that freedom is wasted on those unwilling to do the work of enjoying the liberties paid for with so much blood and sacrifice.
In her words, we inherit certain powers and rights just by being born in this country:...For more than two hundred years people all over the world have been willing to die for a chance to live by these ideals. They died in South Africa, they died at Tiananmen Square ... You have more political power than 99% of all the people who have ever lived on this planet. You can not only vote, you can register other people to vote, round up your friends, get out and do political education, talk to people, laugh with people, call the radio, write the paper, write your elective representative, use your email list, put up signs, march, volunteer, and raise hell. All your lives, no matter what else you do...you have another job, another responsibility; you are a citizen. It is your obligation and requires attention and effort. And on top of that you should make it into a heck of a lot of fun.
Let us make one more New Year's resolution: to have a heck of a lot of fun pushing the Obama administration, the new Congress and our state legislators to seek creative solutions to the tired old problem of gun violence. It is our duty as citizens. Happy New era!I don't know how much "pushing" the Obama/Biden administration (and this "New era's" Congress, and many state legislators) is going to need to seek these "creative solutions" (what might those be, anyway--"creative solutions" like giving a rabidly anti-gun Attorney General the power to unilaterally "ban guns at will"?).
There's some New Jersey "logic" for you. I don't know if even Illinois legislators are brazen enough to make a claim like that, but that's what a "study," released by a "non-partisan" group in NJ claims--"NEW ANALYSIS: ASSAULT RIFLE BAN WOULD ENHANCE RIGHTS OF BATTLEFIELD RE-ENACTORS." The group in question is the Office of Legislative Services (OLS), and the proposed law under discussion, New Jersey A-2116, is actually a ban on .50 caliber rifles (including in-line muzzleloaders) and handguns.
So "How," you ask, "would such a law enhance rights?" I'll just let OLS explain:
The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services (OLS) analysis found the legislation would enhance the rights of battlefield re-enactors. That’s because it includes an exemption for antique and muzzle loading firearms with a caliber greater than 60 that use a traditional flintlock or cap lock and rely on black powder.Ah, well that explains it, then; it makes it easier to re-enact the Revolutionary War. On the other hand, it does make it more difficult to actually fight a battle to throw off modern tyranny, but we are apparently to believe that that's a small price to pay. If I seem to be trivializing Revolutionary War re-enacting, that's not at all my intention--I think it's a fine way to honor the courage and sacrifice that won American liberty, and established our national and cultural identity.
A popular firearm for Revolutionary War re-enactors is the Brown Bess, a .75-caliber muzzleloader that, it turns out, is actually illegal to possess under state law.
One of the most important political fronts right now in the fight to defeat forcible citizen disarmament is blocking the nomination of rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder's confirmation as Attorney General. David Codrea is hoping to mobilize gun rights advocates (which tends to be a more monumental task than it should be--and I'm as guilty of being slow to act as anyone) here and here, and also with today's Gun Rights Examiner column, here.
In taking up this endeavor, David joins Jeff Knox, who has been sounding this alarm for a while now (here, here, and here).
Mike Vanderboegh (here and here) and Western Rifle Association have also been getting the ball rolling. I'm sure I'm missing some, but you get the idea--Eric Holder as Attorney General, as part of an Obama/Biden administration, with the Congress we have coming in, would be an absolute nightmare for the gun rights movement--but it's not a done deal, and can be stopped, with sufficient resolve and willingness to get involved on our parts.
The problem for me is that my United States Senator (my only U.S. Senator, for the moment, unless the appointment of rabidly anti-gun Roland Burris, by rabidly anti-gun and nearly unimaginably corrupt Governor Blagojevich, succeeds soon) is rabidly anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin. Obviously, all the excellent reasons to oppose Holder's nomination laid out in the above links won't help--he, no doubt, sees Holder's radical agenda of citizen disarmament as a good thing.
Therefore, I decided to point out some other reasons to oppose Holder's appointment. The letter I came up with will hopefully be convincing to a statist like Durbin. Keep in mind that I don't hold some of the sentiments implied in the letter (referring to tax evasion as "nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people," for example), but I think that Durbin might be receptive to them. Not especially honorable, perhaps, but as David says, "Any chair in a bar fight." Anyway, the following is what I'll be sending to Senator Durbin. Perhaps others with rabid statists for Senators might see something in it they can use.
Dear Senator Durbin,Follow the above links, and let your senators know that you will be holding them to their obligation to refuse to confirm clearly disastrous choices for important Cabinet positions. Those who cannot be bothered to do so will have no one to blame but themselves.
As you are no doubt well aware, the Senate will soon be tasked with determining the suitability of President-elect Obama's choice of Eric Holder for United States Attorney General. Frankly, I would have difficulty imagining a less suitable choice, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to refuse to confirm his appointment.
As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder played a significant role in securing the presidential pardon of billionaire financier Marc Rich, whose tax evasion crimes constitute nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people. Some dismiss Mr. Holder's role in that pardon as nothing more than obedience to former President Clinton's quite legal (if extremely ill-advised and distasteful) prerogative, but the evidence points to Mr. Holder having played a large part in the pardon*.
Perhaps even worse is the prominent role Mr. Holder played in the granting of clemency to sixteen FALN terrorists. In an era when Americans face nearly unprecedented danger from terrorists, it would be the height of madness to entrust the Department of Justice to a man with anything less than a relentless drive to hunt down and stop every violent, radical extremist who threatens the safety, and indeed the very lives, of American citizens.
In the trying days that lie ahead, the United States will certainly need an Attorney General with vastly better judgment than can be counted on from Eric Holder. Senator Durbin, as your constituent, I urge you to fulfill your responsibility as a United States Senator, and block this dangerous appointment. Failure to do so would be an inexcusable dereliction of your duty to the American people. History never looks kindly on such failings.
* "Pardon is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee," New York Times, Dec. 1, 2008
Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann
The Violence Policy Center is now loudly proclaiming that the door-to-door seizures of legally owned firearms in New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, was apparently somehow a good thing, in light of a recent article in the far left The Nation magazine, claiming that white, racist (and armed, of course) vigilantes waged a campaign of terror against innocent black victims of the storm. The article, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," describes some indisputably horrid behavior on the part of armed white people.
Herrington shouted at the other men to run and turned to face his attackers: three armed white males. Herrington says he hadn't even seen the men or their weapons before the shooting began. As Alexander and Collins fled, Herrington ran in the opposite direction, his hand pressed to the bleeding wound on his throat. Behind him, he says, the gunmen yelled, "Get him! Get that nigger!"I'll admit to having some reservations about accepting at face value these "revelations," in a magazine that makes little secret of having an agenda, of events of which (as far as I know) there hadn't been a hint previously.
The most important part of my earlier post today was my urging to get involved with choosing the questions that will (hopefully) be asked of the aspirants to the chair in tomorrow's debate.
Since then, a great many good questions about what the candidates would do to thwart the citizen disarmament advocates have been submitted. Please keep voting for those questions.
Along related lines, there's a straw poll up now (with the clearly anti-gun Michael Steele currently holding a narrow lead over the clearly pro-gun Ken Blackwell).
Blackwell may not be the only good choice, but Steele is certainly a wrong choice--let's knock him down a few pegs.
A bit of a mixed bag of things I should have taken care of already:
David Codrea will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio today at 2 PM (Eastern). The topic will apparently be predictions on gun rights politics for 2009 (a somewhat frightening prospect, but no less important for that).
Also (and there's real time pressure here), if one registers at RNCDebate.org (a quick, painless process, that doesn't require one to provide personal or sensitive information), one can help determine what questions will be asked in tomorrow's debate (1:00 PM Eastern) for the Republican National Committee chairmanship. If you spend two minutes on it, you're taking your time--there's that little excuse to not bother. David Codrea asked (HTML code isn't allowed in the submissions on the RNCDebate website, but I inserted some links in the quote below, for the sake of clarity):
I want an unequivocal statement from each candidate on the right to keep and bear arms. I should note that Mr. Blackwell looks good*, and Mr. Steele's bizarre advocacy that "society should draw line" about the right to own semiautos** makes him about as acceptable to gun owners as Barack Obama. How about the rest of the field? No equivocation, please! It will be recognized and held against you. * "Gun Rights and Presidential Politics," Townhall.com, Nov. 26, 2007 ** Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006I, being an unapologetic plagiarizer when it suits me, asked pretty much the same thing, and Pistolero has a good question, as well. Time is running out on this, folks, and I hope the importance of it is obvious. By the way, in addition to submitting questions of your own, once you register, you can vote on questions already submitted. "Yes" votes on the three questions linked to above would be greatly appreciated.
A longtime nemesis of gun rights (and thus liberty) in Illinois, state Commissar Senator Dan Kotowski (whom I have discussed often) was interviewed last month by the citizen disarmament advocacy organization he once directed, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV). ICHV's website is laid out rather awkwardly, and I can't link directly to the interview, but at the moment, it's the top item here.
The interview is pretty much what one would expect ("Guns are bad, mmkay?"), but the last question sheds some light on what Kotowski apparently considers the next front in the war on the peaceable armed citizenry of Illinois.
ICHV: In your view, what should the gun control movement be focusing on in the coming years?So, California-style "safety" requirements, New Jersey-style "smart gun" requirements (just don't even get me started), and . . . "trigger pulse standards"? Being the generous sort, I'll give Kotowski the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's no Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy, and that it was whoever at ICHV who did the interview who mistook "trigger pull standards" (meaning, presumably, that guns would be required to have triggers too heavy to fire accurately) for "trigger pulse", rather than Kotowski himself.
Sen. Kotowski: We have to think outside of the box. It's not just about focusing on owners, since the vast majority are law abiding, but making sure that the gun industry is looking out for the health and safety of children. How can we get this industry to be more accountable? That is where the battle will be waged.
In the next year or two, we have to show that there are reasonable ways to keep our kids and families safe. In Illinois, for example, we need to give the Attorney General authority to approve health and safety standards for loading indicators, drop fire tests, finger-printing recognition software, and trigger pulse standards.
I had pretty much made up my mind to step away from the rancorous, and apparently endless, debate between the "pragmatists," on the one hand, and the "3 percenters," on the other. It's an argument that will pretty clearly never be "won" by anyone, except perhaps the citizen disarmament advocates. After catching up on my reading of the Sispsey Street Irregulars, however ("catching up" being necessary after my month-long break from involvement with the gun rights issue), and seeing the intensity of vitriol* some of the more outraged "prags" have seen fit to direct at Mr. Vanderboegh and his "merry band," I feel compelled to once again wade into the fray.
In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathies are very strongly and unabashedly with the "3 percenters," although to count myself actually among them would be to give myself vastly too much credit, considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor. Still, if Mike and the rest don't object to me referring to myself as an "honorary 3 percenter," I'll gratefully do so.
As far as the "prags" go, I don't consider them cowards, or collaborators, or many of the other insults that "3 percenters" have tossed their way. I do consider them vastly overly optimistic about the prospects of gun rights prevailing through solely "within the system" activism. They remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain, with the Heller decision being their Munich Agreement (and by the way--don't give me Godwin's Law--that ain't what this is about).
And this brings me to the source of my confusion. The "pragmatic" strategy, apparently, requires gun rights activists to count on the Constitution for protection against people who have made it absolutely clear that they consider the Constitution to be so much Charmin substitute. At least one "prag," for example, has railed against some other gun rights advocates, for their refusal to vote for one of the chief architects of one of the most brazen attacks on the First Amendment in recent history.
I have frequently criticized proponents of restrictive gun laws for their bizarre "strategy" of attempting to use laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless. I can't really see much of a difference between that, and counting on the Constitution to protect freedom from those bent on subverting it.
* Some examples (just a couple, of many):
"Three Percenters" are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.and;
I love this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” nonsense from the .3-percenters. Fine: I’m against you. Not in principle, actually, but just in the childish, moronic way that you draw attention to yourselves. Typical, from people who’ve never actually had to fight a war against an oppressive state.
Pathetic bunch of losers.
A couple days ago, I wrote about Robert Smith, Jr, who, in a blog he writes for The Detroit News, contends that the Founding Fathers were wrong to extend Constitutional protection to the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and who indeed argues that we should "Ban All Guns." I wasn't the only gun rights advocate to take exception to this advocacy of such an attack on liberty--Pistolero, David Codrea, and Mike Vanderboegh (must read) have all weighed in on the subject.
Some of the criticism came not in blogs, but in comments left at the site of Mr. Smith's opinion piece. Now, it seems that another Detroit News blogger, Libby Spencer, thinks the criticism is out of line (excerpt follows):
Nonetheless, the point is, most people who are for gun bans don't have experience with hunters or recreational gun owners. Their only knowledge comes from the real dangers of inner city use in the commission of crimes. When you respond to the slightest whiff of disagreement with hateful pile-ons such as we're seeing in the comment section now, you not only make supporters of your rights like me want to rethink my position but also solidify the fears of those who would ban guns altogether.In other words, it seems that Libby, although supposedly one of the "supporters of [our] rights" (she can keep her "support," as far as I'm concerned), thinks that we should be polite in defense of our fundamental rights.
If you don't want to be treated like a raging pack of trigger happy hotheads, don't act like one. A little civility in making your case would go a long way.
RSS/OPML
/PHP
|
Free Wayne Webring 
|
Stumble it!
