Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Friday, May 15, 2009

How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps

It's brilliant, really:

Step 1) Form a rabidly anti-gun administration, and have at least one prominent official float the idea of a draconian new gun law. Check.

Step 2) Imply that those who most vehemently oppose such legislation are potential terrorists. Check.

Step 3) Point to those potential terrorists as justification for the very laws that supposedly provoked the would-be "terrorists." Checkmate. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and encourage others to do so, as well.




Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:00 AM 1 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Carolyn McCarthy wants to disarm Ted Kennedy?

Actually, that may not be a bad idea--he is, after all, directly responsible for more innocent deaths than most American gun owners combined--but I digress.

I'm talking about McCarthy's "No Fly, No Buy Act of 2009," which would mandate that anyone on the TSA's "no fly" list also be put on the "prohibited purchaser" list used for a NICS check.

Today, May 13, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04) and Steve Israel (NY-02) will host a press conference to announce the introduction of the No Fly, No Buy Act, which seeks to close the ‘terror gap’ by preventing people whose names appear on the Transportation Security Administration’s terrorist “no fly list” from being eligible to buy guns. At the event, Reps. McCarthy and Israel will be flanked by law enforcement officials and will be joined by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to highlight the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of people that are known or suspected terrorists and their continued commitment to fighting to strengthen gun violence prevention laws that protect police and our communities.
This seems a bit redundant on McCarthy's part--she is already a co-sponsor of H.R. 2159 (which I discussed here, as did David Codrea, here).

The main difference between the two bills, as far as I can tell (the "No Fly, No Buy" text is not yet available) is that H.R. 2159 would leave it up to the Attorney General to make the decision to cancel the Bill of Rights for an individual, while "No Fly, No Buy" would make it an automatic process. I'm having trouble deciding which of the two bills is more virulently treasonous.

On the one hand, H.R. 2159 would empower the Attorney General (the rabidly anti-rights Attorney General Eric Holder, no less)--an unelected official--to unilaterally cancel a person's Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. On the other hand, McCarthy's bill would make the notoriously error prone "no fly" list (remember Ted Kennedy, and all these folks?)--not to mention abuse prone--the arbiter of whose rights should be denied.

McCarthy's press release lists some examples that supposedly bolster the case for such legislation. Let's take a look.
Individuals with ties to terrorists have bought guns in the past and used them to kill Americans. Some notable incidents:

In the summer of 2007, six terror suspects were arrested for plotting an attack on Fort Dix after trying to buy an assortment of M-16s, AK-47s, and handguns from a government informant. On December 22, 2008, five of the six suspects were convicted of conspiracy to kill U.S. military personnel - three of those convicted were sentenced yesterday to life in prison without possibility of parole. The sixth suspect pleaded guilty in October 2007 to providing firearms to illegal aliens, and was sentenced to 20 months in prison. In addition, four of the five suspects convicted of conspiracy were also convicted of illegal gun possession.
Except those geniuses hadn't "bought guns in the past and used them to kill Americans." They were caught (with the help of an alert clerk who was suspicious of their "training video" they wanted converted to digital format), before killing anyone, while trying to buy guns on the black market--this legislation would have made exactly zero difference.
On February 23, 1997, Ali Abu Kamal opened fire on the observation deck of the Empire State Building with a handgun purchased in Florida in violation of federal law, killing one tourist and wounding six others before killing himself.
He used a handgun purchased "in violation of federal law"--so we're to believe the killing could have been prevented by making the purchase a violation of two federal laws?
On March 1, 1994, Rashid Baz shot and killed 16-year old Ari Halberstam on an on-ramp to the Brooklyn Bridge. Baz was armed with a machine gun, a 9 MM pistol, and a "street sweeper" shotgun.
And the source of the machine gun (which also was bought in violation of federal law) would certainly not have sold it to someone on the list, right?
On November 5, 1990, El Sayed A. Nosair assassinated Rabbi Meir Kahane in a Manhattan hotel with a .357 revolver with a defaced serial number. Nosair was linked to the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Gun shops around here are lame--I can never find "a .357 revolver with a defaced serial number" when I go gun shopping.

In other words, not one of McCarthy's examples seems likely to have been preventable by the legislation she is introducing (legislation that would, of course, still be blatantly and evilly unconstitutional, even if it were demonstrably effective at achieving the stated objective). Keep in mind also that to get even those four examples, she had to go back more than eighteen years.

New York state--home of Mayor Bloomberg, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Steve Israel, Rep. Peter King (a Republican), Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Sen. Kirsten ("pro-gun") Gillibrand. Maybe Illinois isn't quite as bad, relatively speaking, as I've made it out to be.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 10:31 AM 1 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Not just Mexico anymore: Congressman Eliot Engel expands the '90%' meme to Jamaica

Perhaps because more and more of the public is catching on to the fact that "90%" of the Mexican drug cartels' guns do not come from the U.S., Engel is looking for a new angle (sorry--couldn't help myself), and is now applying the "90%" figure to Jamaica, as well. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like it.




Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:00 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

What we're up against in Illinois

If anyone is wondering just how bad Illinois can be with regard to firearms laws (it is, after all, ranked only 9th most draconian by the Brady Campaign, with only twenty-eight of a possible one hundred tyranny points), take a look at Illinois House Bill 182. HB 182, as amended in the House, would make an extremely modest concession to gun rights--all it would do is legalize carrying a firearm (or taser, stun gun, etc.) in a home where one was invited.

It would not start Illinois down the "slippery slope" toward legalized public carry of firearms (as if that would be so horrible); it would not allow anyone previously prohibited from owning firearms to do so, etc. I never mentioned HB 182 here before, because frankly, it would be such a minor "victory" that I didn't find it all that interesting.

The House clearly thought it was pretty uncontroversial, too--it passed there on a vote of 72-45.

Now, though, if has fallen into the Senate's claws, where rabidly anti-gun Senator Don Harmon (D-Oak Park) has filed an amendment that would mean it only applies in one's own home (which, of course, makes the entire bill meaningless, since it's already legal to have a gun in one's home).

Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence would like that amendment, because even the tiny concession to gun rights offered by the House version offended them. This is what they had to say (before the Senate amendment):

Bill: People invited to your house can bring their handgun

One recent development that we did not support concerned HB0182, which was passed out of committee in the Senate and is now in a position to be voted on before May 31 in the Senate. The bill has already been passed out of the House.

The bill extends where people can possess a handgun. What it says is that it would not be a violation to carry a firearm in a legal dwelling or a place where you are an invitee. In other words, if you are invited to my house, this measure basically says you are not only welcome -- but you can come with your own firearm.

From ICHV's perspective, this is a bad bill. When we invite someone over to our house, we are inviting them to come over -- not inviting their gun to come over.
This is a blatant misrepresentation (a lie, in other words) of the bill. Nothing in the bill would force the host to allow visitors to bring guns--if the house (or apartment) rule is "no guns," that would be the resident's choice.

Here's the Illinois State Rifle Association's (ISRA) take on it:
URGENT ALERT - YOUR IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

CULLERTON/DALEY SEEK TO GUT PRO-GUN BILL

As many of you may know, House Bill 182 easily passed the House recently with 72 votes. HB182 is designed to clarify the unlawful use of weapon statutes to avoid cases where innocent gun owners are arrested and charged for handling firearms in homes other than their own. As we’re sure you’d agree, this is an entirely sensible piece of legislation. Apparently, 72 members of the Illinois House, on both sides of the aisle, agree with you as well.

Well, once the HB182 passed the House, it moved over to the Senate for consideration. Now, Senate President John Cullerton and his gun grabbing pal, Sen. Don Harmon (D- Oak Park) have latched on to HB182 and are attempting to destroy the bill by adding hostile amendments.

HERE’S THE PROBLEM . . .

If Cullerton gets his way, this is what could happen to you:

Let’s say your Aunt Betty is throwing your Uncle Joe a 50th birthday party. You go over to Uncle Joe’s house for cake and ice cream. Uncle Joe begins opening his birthday gifts – one of which is a nifty .45. Uncle Joe asks if you’d like to see the pistol and hands it over to you. Bad move! Under the Cullerton/Harmon hostile amendments to HB182, you could now be arrested, tried and convicted of unlawful use of a weapon. It doesn’t matter if you have a FOID card, or that you are not committing any other crime. The mere fact that you touch a firearm in Uncle Joe’s house could get you arrested and tried. Does that sound reasonable to you?

HERE IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO PROTECT YOUR GUN RIGHTS:

1. Call your Illinois senator IMMEDIATELY and politely tell him/her that you are a law-abiding Illinois firearm owner and that you would like your senator to vote “NO” to any amendments to HB182. If you need to find out who your senator is, you can find out at this link on the State Board of Elections website:
http://www.elections.il.gov/DistrictLocator/SelectSearchType.aspx? NavLink=1

2. Pass this alert on to all your gun-owning friends and tell them to make calls as well.

3. Post this alert to any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you belong.

Thanks!
That's Illinois for you.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 3:06 PM 3 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Missouri campus carry bill needs help

The Missouri legislative session ends this week, and the opponents of armed self-defense are clearly determined to stall the bill's further progress beyond that time. A vigorous fire needs to be lit under Missouri state senators, to push them into expediting passage of the bill.

If that doesn't happen this year, Rome wasn't built in a day, and important groundwork has been laid for passage of this life-saving measure. We will be back, and we shall overcome. [More]
Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.




Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:38 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Prospective State Department legal Adviser: RKBA is 'needlessly provocative'

If the efforts to subject American citizens to draconian international gun laws, under the provisions of CIFTA, DDTC/ITAR, and the UN Firearms Protocol are not enough to cause concern, take a look at Harold Kohl, nominee for State Department Legal Adviser.

Harold Koh, the nominee for Legal Adviser to the State Department, supports “the global regulation of small arms” and a “global gun control regime.” And he believes it is “needlessly provocative” for any U.S. representative to refer to the right to bear arms when speaking to a foreign audience: the very mention of the Second Amendment, apparently, is offensive. That has very serious implications for domestic policy, but what does Koh want to do with the legal, international arms trade? The answer is simple: he wants to ban it.
Chew on this, Harold--if you think people are going to be offended by being told about the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, wait 'til they get a load of what I propose the American people prepare themselves to do with that right.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 2:35 PM 2 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Gun laws and unintended consequences

Instead, I refer only to the unprecedented, sustained spike in firearm and ammunition sales since the election of Barack Obama. Since the election, even those who have no interest in gun issues (whether on the pro-rights side, or in favor of restrictive gun laws) can scarcely have avoided hearing and reading innumerable accounts of the vastly accelerated rate at which the American people are arming themselves.

The primary reason for this, of course, is concern that draconian gun laws are on the way, and that the window of opportunity for legal acquisition of firearms and ammunition is closing. Talk from government officials of banning so-called "assault weapons," heavily restricting gun shows, gun registration, ammo registration, etc., only reinforces that kind of thinking. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you (and a friend!) like it.



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 5:43 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Monday, May 11, 2009

Helmke's 'middle ground'--somewhere between total citizen disarmament, and near-total citizen disarmament

According to the Fort Wayne (has Paul mentioned--recently--that he was mayor there?) News-Sentinel, "Helmke strives for middle ground on gun rights, control."

“Gun control is a topic that people don't like to talk about in any sort of rational way,” he said, noting some favor outlawing all private gun ownership, while others say there should be no gun laws. Helmke favors a middle ground. He would limit how many guns people can buy at one time, ban sales of semiautomatic rifles and increase law oversight of gun sales.
That's the newspeak version of "middle ground"--rationing of Constitutional rights, banning the most popular (and useful) rifles made, and inserting the government's intrusive proboscis into what we euphemistically refer to as "private" commerce.

In other words, anything short of a total ban, on all guns, is "middle ground."

That ground isn't in the middle of anywhere I want to go.

As Days of Our Trailers reminds us, according to Helmke's Brady Campaign, even restrictions on completely passive defensive gear (body armor), would fall in the "middle ground."
"There are no background checks, no federal regulations unless you are a violent offender—and even then you can buy them at gun shows or online," says Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center To Prevent Gun Violence.
Speaking of Helmke--he and the VPC's Josh Sugarmann are apparently not the only contestants for the "Saddest Clown" title--The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial staff is going to make an effort, as well.
Big-city mayors and handgun-safety advocates have every right to be fed up with President Obama's track record so far on initiatives to help end the carnage from gun violence on the nation's streets.

Even in the aftermath of a number of grisly mass murders, the president made clear that his administration would not push to reinstate the assault-weapons ban that Congress and former President George W. Bush allowed to expire in 2004.

Now, Obama has taken a pass on repealing the Bush-era laws that shield gun traffickers and their suppliers. In cities such as Philadelphia and Camden, that's like reaffirming a death sentence for the hundreds of people slain each year by gunfire.
How, I wonder, does one "reaffirm a death sentence" for people who have already been slain--is Obama mandating that corpses be given lethal injections?

Like Helmke and Sugarmann, the Inquirer's editors apparently want the president to retain legislative power, in addition to his executive powers, judging from their insistence that he ban "assault weapons," restrict gun shows, and repeal the Tiahrt Amendment.
The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't need to be tweaked; it needs to be scrapped - if the nation has any hope of stemming the flow of illegal guns. An updated assault-weapons ban should accompany that move, along with a federal ban on gun-show weapons sales without background checks. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, monthly limits on legal handgun purchases should be enacted.
In a bizarre new twist, though, the Inquirer apparently wants him to control state policies, as well. Rather a lot of power to just hand over to a president--especially one whose track record supposedly leaves them "fed up."

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 10:20 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

When martial arts skills are not enough

Ms. Emerson was tough as nails, a skilled fighter ("120 pounds of pure tough," as described by her self-defense instructor--who, by the way, acknowledges the fact that martial arts skills constitute but one facet of  a complete self-defense preparedness program), gutsy to a degree beyond my ability to even fathom, much less hope to emulate--and she was still subdued, raped, and eventually brutally killed (bludgeoned to death with a tire iron), by a 60-year-old man of less than imposing physical presence, whom she had already disarmed.

Again, I am not trying to discourage women, or anyone else, from seeking instruction in unarmed combat skills, and I do not mean to imply that the course offered by St. Louis Self Defense and Fitness is the wrong place to acquire those skills. My point is that unarmed self-defense skills should be considered an adjunct to armed self-defense training, rather than a substitute. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. It's a bit of a departure from my typical stuff, in that it's not, strictly speaking, really about gun rights. I still flatter myself with the idea that I made, as best I can, a valid point. Please give it a look, and spread the word.



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:17 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Friday, May 08, 2009

NRA sabotaging grassroots effort for defensive handgun carry in Illinois?

HB2257 started off with good promise, the sponsor reported he felt sure he could garner the 60 votes needed to pass it out of the House. So it came as a huge shock and disappointment to learn from legislators that the NRA was actually lobbying against it.

When contacted by lllinoisCarry the NRA-ILA lobbyist confirmed the NRA-ILA was indeed lobbying against the bill and vowed to kill it. The reason given for the opposition was that the bill did not include statewide preemption, that it would create a patchwork of ordinances all across the state which could be detrimental to license holders, and it would ultimately be vetoed by Gov. Quinn and still need 71 votes for a veto override. Therefore we should continue to wait and work toward a change in the political makeup of the IL legislature. [More]
My first ever two column day at St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Some will no doubt dismiss this as part of my well established difficult relationship with NRA leadership, but that's not what this is about. I deliberately kept myself out of this fight as it developed, precisely because because of that. There comes a time, though, when silence is betrayal.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:46 PM 1 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Paul Helmke and Josh Sugarmann vie for 'Saddest Clown' title

Last week, Thirdpower bestowed upon Josh Sugarmann the apt title "sad clown." This was in reference to Sugarmann's complaints about what the gun haters view as foot-dragging on the forcible citizen disarmament lobby.

He's upset that the new administration hasn't followed through on their promises to ban guns and instead have recognized the political reality that doing so would hand Congress back to the Republicans on a silver platter. He wants O to use his executive powers and bypass the legislature since there's virtually no chance of getting anything passed there currently.
Thirdpower also pointed out Helmke's similar sadness.

I also wrote a bit about both Josh's and Paul's laments.
Apparently, both Helmke and Sugarmann want Obama to exercise legislative powers he no longer has, in addition to his executive powers, judging from their calls that he pass a new "assault weapons" ban, and close the "gun show loophole."

The anti-gun jihadists are finding it more and more difficult to hide their frustration over the decision, by both the White House and most of Congress, to wait for the time to be ripe before striking on the anti-gun agenda.
Now, Helmke has a new complaint: "Obama Administration Fails to Remove Gun Lobby Language from Budget."
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is profoundly disappointed that President Obama has failed to follow through with his promises for 'openness' by reaffirming much of the so-called Tiahrt Amendments.

This means a continuation of the reckless Bush-era policies that endanger public safety and make it easier for criminals to obtain illegal firearms.
It's almost as if Obama knows that the citizen disarmament lobby wasn't a factor in getting him elected, and that there's no point in burning political capital just to appease them.

If that's true, Helmke and Sugarmann could end up being very sad clowns.

Days of Our Trailers has more on Obama's broken promises.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 10:37 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Another push to ban 'assault weapons'--what will 'pro-gun' Kirsten Gillibrand do?

But McCarthy said that next week she plans to introduce an assault weapons ban - legislation that is anathema to the NRA and that could pose a problem for Gillibrand.
It will "pose a problem" for her, alright. Her choices will be to a) utterly complete the job of declaring herself an enemy of liberty, by supporting what probably amounts to the most draconian (and the most hated, in the eyes of millions of gun rights advocates) anti-gun measure with any chance of passage; or b) alienate her new friends, who will drop her like a burning skunk if she doesn't continue to prove her loyalty to the citizen disarmament agenda.
"I think the assault weapons bill will be a test," McCarthy said Wednesday in an interview.
Indeed it will. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Hope you'll give it a look, and not find it a waste of your time.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:59 AM 5 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Thursday, May 07, 2009

The anti-gunners and New Math--more on the '90%' lie

Busy day today, so in addition to getting my blog post up hours later than usual, I'm taking the lazy route, and will just have a couple comments about David's Gun Rights Examiner article today.

First, read the article, if you haven't already--it's definitely worth the time.

In it, he quotes an Associated Press article, "Mexico cartel weapons cache stymies tracing." We've kinda talked about that before--while many would have us believe that "90%" of the guns seized from Mexican drug cartel gunmen were bought on the U.S. civilian market, in actuality, no one has any idea about 90% of the seized guns, because only a fraction of those have actually been traced.

That brings us to the AP article telling us this:

In all, the military has 305,424 confiscated weapons locked in vaults, just a fraction of those used by criminals in Mexico...
. . . and this . . .
The Mexican government has handed over information to U.S. authorities to trace 12,073 weapons seized in 2008 crimes...
In other words, we don't have trace data for even four percent of the seized guns.

In an even bigger death blow to the "90%" lie, U.S. gun dealers account for nowhere near 90% of even that tiny percentage.
About a third of the guns submitted for tracing in 2007 were sold by licensed U.S. dealers.
So that puts us at about 1.3% of the seized guns being traced back to the U.S. civilian market--and the liars of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby are still pushing the "90%" myth. That would mean they're inflating the numbers by a factor of 67.5. Hell--if you're gonna lie, lie big, I guess.

Oh--one more thing.
Indeed, the ATF gave the AP data showing the average "time to crime" - the time between when a gun was sold and when it was seized in a crime - is 14 years.
There was something going on fourteen years ago . . . don't tell me--I'll remember in a second. Oh yeah--now I remember--fourteen years ago, there was a federal ban on "assault weapons" in place (and a longer-standing import ban). Somehow, we're supposed to believe that a new such ban will help disarm the cartels this time.

For the gun prohibitionists (David calls them the "gun grabber cartel"--I like it) to pass a new such ban, the American public will have to swallow a huge pack of lies. Spread the word--don't let the lies go unchallenged.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 3:44 PM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

H.R. 2202: bribing gun owners into defenselessness at home

My concern is that measures such as this will perpetuate the flawed notion that safety--particularly child safety--is enhanced not by teaching responsibility, and respect for the power of firearms, but by keeping them inaccessible. That attitude has, in fact, become so well entrenched that it's widely accepted as a matter of course. Don't try to sell that idea to the Carpenter family, though. I have already discussed that tragic story (as has my Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner colleague, Paul Valone, in much greater detail), so I won't do so again here. Suffice it to say that neither "Child Safety" or "Home Security" was served by keeping guns locked up, and not quickly accessible.

Finally, although the title I used for this article calls this measure a bribe, a more cynical view of taxation might lead to calling it something else. Taxes, after all, take your money from you. H.R. 2202 would simply provide the gun owning taxpayer with the means to appease the IRS with less money than they would otherwise take. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. I hope you'll consider it worth your time.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 5:08 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Less and less public support for more restrictive gun laws

The Houston Chronicle has more bad news for Paul Helmke and the forcible citizen disarmament lobbyists.

Amid a wave of publicity about drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border and police killings in U.S. cities, more Americans than ever oppose new government efforts to regulate guns.

Recent polls show shrinking support for new gun control measures and strong public sentiment for enforcing existing laws instead. So strong is the shift in public opinion that a proposed assault-weapons ban — once backed by three in four Americans — now rates barely one in two.

Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, told reporters Tuesday that “every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control.”

A CNN poll conducted in April found that 39 percent of Americans wanted stricter gun control laws, down from 50 percent in 2000. Another 46 percent said the gun laws should stay as they are, while 15 percent said they should be loosened — up from 9 percent in 2000.
This is just the sort of thing the Brady Campaign doesn't want to hear (and more importantly, doesn't want anyone else to hear), as can be seen in Helmke's complaint about the Gallup Poll survey showing declining support for new gun laws (my emphasis).
What Gallup should do in the future is try to replicate the polling results of other surveys that examine Americans' attitudes toward the wide variety of gun violence prevention policies that, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, are "presumptively lawful" after the Supreme Court's decision, while gauging the desire of Americans to see those proposals enacted into law.
As I pointed out, a scientific poll doesn't try to "replicate the results" that someone's agenda dictates--but Helmke clearly wasn't interested in science.

Since then, the news has just gotten worse for Helmke, with a CNN poll--taken after the shootings that Helmke thought (hoped?) would prompt numbers more to his liking--showing an even more marked decline in support for more draconian gun legislation, a Pew Research poll showing the same trend, and now the Houston Chronicle article.

Worse yet for Helmke and pals: politicians are reading about this, too.
Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, called diminished public support for gun control measures “a good thing.” He said the recent poll findings would help lawmakers “resist pressure from this administration to pass more gun control legislation.”
Does the truth hurt, Paul?

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 11:10 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Carrying a defensive firearm should not require surrendering one's privacy

In response, I would first point out that lack of a carry permit can hardly be thought of as compelling evidence that the person in question is not carrying a firearm. Secondly, what I think "seems like a legitimate question to ask," is "What if you're an abuser, and you want to know if the person whom you are abusing is carrying a concealed weapon?"

In conclusion, while protection of the privacy of carry permit holders is a welcome development, I cannot help but think about how this entire debate could have been avoided, by simply not requiring a permit in the first place for exercise of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 4:07 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gets something right

This is something I wouldn't expect from Massachusetts: "SJC calls illegal gun possession victimless."

The Supreme Judicial Court yesterday ruled that illegal gun possession is a "passive and victimless crime" and that those charged with having illicit firearms cannot be held without bail as a danger to society.

In a 4-to-1 ruling, the state's highest court rejected the law enforcement strategy of Bristol District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter to cut down on gun violence by seeking pretrial detention for every person charged with illegal gun possession in his jurisdiction, which includes New Bedford.
Sutter's "strategy" for fighting violent crime (David Codrea discussed it here) was to lock up violators of any regulatory gun law for months on end, while they awaited their trial. This being MA (tied for third most draconian state in the nation, according to the Brady Bunch), falling on the wrong side of the innumerable regulatory hurdles is quite easy to do, even by people with exactly ZERO violent intent.

Of course, not all the justices got it right.
Five of the court's seven justices heard the case. In a stinging, lone dissent, Justice Judith M. Cowin ridiculed the court's conclusions, saying the ruling ignores the reality that illegal guns are at the heart of crime in the state.

"When a handgun or automatic weapon is involved, the purpose of the firearm is to injure or kill; there is no other reason for that weapon's existence," Cowin wrote. "We have recognized in various contexts that firearms are, by nature and design, dangerous instrumentalities."

The majority, Cowin wrote, "reduced to its minimum, that is simply a reiteration of the tired slogan that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' We know this to be a dangerous oversimplification. The fact is that people kill people with guns, and in a substantial number of cases those guns are unlicensed."
No judicial activism there, obviously.

I would like to be able to praise the court (apart from Cowin) more, but until they take the next, obvious step--acknowledging that a victimless "crime" is no crime at all, and thus overturn these laws, they are not getting the job done. Still, with the 9th Circuit incorporating the Second Amendment, and the MA Supreme Judicial Court ruling that "illegal" possession of a gun harms no one, the courts have been giving me some pleasant surprises of late.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 9:47 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

A new way to ban guns--brand everyone as 'terrorists'

In summary, legislation like King's H.R. 2159 would empower the government--actually, considering our current Attorney General, one rabidly anti-gun official within the government--to cancel a person's right to keep and bear arms, if the government claims to suspect that person of being a terrorist. At the same time, the government is showing a tendency to regard a wider and wider swath of the citizenry as potential "terrorists."

I suppose saying this might render me suspect (as if I were not already), but that's a confluence of trends that I find deeply alarming. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 3:21 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Monday, May 04, 2009

Mike Vanderboegh gets some more free advertising

I believe that being despised by the despicable is as good as being admired by the admirable, and that being the case, Mike Vanderboegh is racking up the unintended endorsements. I've talked often in the past about the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), and their open advocacy of a monopoly on force.

That advocacy, indeed, is what I see as the most notable characteristic of that bunch. The other citizen disarmament groups clearly want the armed might of the government to be well beyond the people's ability to realistically challenge, but are a bit less eager to publicly acknowledge it. Not so with the CSGV--whose executive director, Josh Horwitz, is now promoting a book he wrote on that very subject--Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea.

And that brings me to today's topic--on the above page, advertising the book, is the category, "Insurrectionist Talk." There, Mike is featured not once, but twice, with links to both Monopoly (or, Slouching Toward ‘Nut Cuttin' Time.’), and "Kill All They Send..."--both excellent reads (as I've come to expect from Mr. Vanderboegh. Too bad they seem to have missed And you thought this was a comedy? -- "El Guapo" & "El Jefe" Ride Again with Guns, Democracy and the "Insurrectionist Idea."

And we can't forget the Brady Campaign. Back in August, they had this (among other things) to say about him:

In the wake of the Vanderboegh letter, to one degree or another, armed revolt has been treated as a legitimate policy answer to popular gun control measures by one blogger after another in the gun community - rather than denounced as immoral or as street-corner gibberish uttered by one who wears a tinfoil hat.
Mike Vanderboegh is fast becoming one of the statists' most feared bogeymen. My admiration continues to grow.

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 1:46 PM 5 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Is it even possible to 'reform' the BATFE?

The bill's introduction in the Senate, this time, with a Democrat as the first co-sponsor, perhaps signals an increase in Senate support for this important measure. I must confess to a rather strong dose of skepticism on that score, though--in 2006, the very similar H.R. 5092 seemed likely to pass, but virulently anti-gun Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was able to block it unilaterally, despite Republican control of the Senate. With the Senate now firmly under (filibuster-proof) Democrat control, and with even "pro-gun Democrats" like U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillbrand (D-NY), who, as a U.S. Representative, was a co-sponsor of H.R. 4900, now saying that she would not support it as a Senator, I have my doubts. [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope it's worth your time.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 2:48 AM 1 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

Friday, May 01, 2009

Giving credit where it's due: Montana's Governor Schweitzer does the right thing

Early last month, both houses of the Montana legislature passed a bill that will exempt from federal regulation firearms made in Montana, and which are intended only for sale in Montana. At the time, I expressed some uncertainty about whether Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) would sign the bill.

I am pleased to say that I was wrong to doubt him.

''It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,'' said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.
Exactly right, Governor.

Let's see just how far the feds are willing to go in their rape of the interstate commerce clause.

A BATFE spokesthuggette apparently hadn't yet received guidance on what to say about this development:
Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.
Am I to understand, then, that something that is made in-state, to be sold and kept in-state, can be regulated by the feds as "interstate commerce," if that item is portable, and thus can be moved out of state?

The citizen disarmament lobby is predictably coming unhinged (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they're allowing their more or less permanent unhinged status to be more evident).
''Guns cross state lines and they do so constantly, and this is a Sagebrush Rebellion-type effort to light some sort of fire and get something going that's pleasing to the gun nuts and that has very little actual sense,'' said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Does it just make you mad enough to threaten to shoot someone, Petey?

The New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence is also providing us with the enjoyment of its anguished bleating.
But Montana is not the only state looking to make it legal for dangerous people and children to buy guns. Similar legislation has been introduced in Alaska, Texas, Colorado, and Tennessee. This week, a Texas House committee held hearings on a bill that would not only exempt Texas-made firearms, gun accessories and ammunition sold within the state from federal gun regulations but would also add the provision that the Texas Attorney General’s office defend any Texans who are prosecuted by the federal government because of this law.

Putting aside the fact that exempting guns from federal regulations is an incredibly bad and recklessly dangerous idea, these bills fly in the face of everything this country stands for. They are meant to undermine our federal system of government. If states can exempt themselves from federal gun laws what else can they opt out of?

Let's hope the courts act quickly and decisively to shut down this clearly unconstitutional law. Shame on legislators for supporting these bills that are not only dangerous, but blatantly anti-American.
You got that? The Tenth Amendment is "anti-American." And "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength," right?

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 10:25 AM 1 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!

What the Brady Campaign really wants

As I pointed out yesterday, Helmke's mention of "stockpiling private arsenals" prompted me to wonder if the Brady Campaign is now advocating limits on the total number of firearms and/or the amount of ammunition a citizen may own. That, in turn, reminded me that such limits would not be a new objective for the Brady Campaign.

Enter S. 1878 (from the 103rd Congressional session), the "Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994," sometimes referred to colloquially as the "Brady Act II." [More]
That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Hope you like it, and tell a friend.

Posted with thanks to Bob S., for asking the question that inspired this article, and to Thirdpower, for reminding me of one of the provisions of Brady II.

Digg me?



Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

Posted by Kurt '45superman' Hofmann at 3:54 AM 0 comments

Stumble UponStumble it!
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)