RINO Mark Kirk seeking more power to disarm YOU

Regular readers know I am no fan of Congressman Mark Kirk (R-10th Illinois Congressional District). Theoretically a "Republican," he is as big an enemy of the right to keep and bear arms as just about any Democrat in Congress.

According to the Illinois State Rifle Association, Kirk wants to gain more power to pursue his radical agenda of citizen disarmament.

ISRA ALERT – REP. MARK KIRK NEEDS TO HEAR FROM GUN OWNERS

As many of you may know, 10th District Congressman Mark Kirk is certainly no friend of the law-abiding firearm owner. Over the years, he has supported every gun bill to come down the pike. Most recently , he sponsored federal legislation that would revive and toughen the Clinton “assault weapons” ban.

NOW MARK KIRK WANTS TO BE EITHER YOUR NEXT GOVERNOR, OR YOUR NEXT U.S. SENATOR

While Mark Kirk is trying to make up his mind, you have an opportunity to give him a piece of yours. On Saturday, April 25, 2009, Mark Kirk will be holding a town hall meeting on “Combating Gangs in the Suburbs.” Of course Kirk's plan to combat gangbangers centers around law-abiding gun owners giving up their gun rights.

MARK KIRK NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU THAT YOU WILL NOT TAKE IT ON THE CHIN ON BEHALF OF THUGS AND GANG BANGERS

If Kirk is going to run for state-wide office, he needs to understand that he must represent everyone in the state – not just the latte-lovers of the 10th District. The Blago-backlash will certainly impact the 2010 campaigns of both Senator Roland Burris and Governor Pat Quinn. Therefore, it's up to YOU, the law-abiding firearm owner, to give Mark Kirk a lesson in the significance of the 2nd Amendment. So, here's what you have to do to help ensure that gun rights remain at the forefront of both the Senatorial and Gubernatorial campaigns in 2010.

1. Be sure to attend Mark Kirk's Town Hall Meeting. The meeting will be held on Saturday, April 25th at 2:00 PM. The location for the meeting is the Palatine Township Center, 721 Quentin Road, Palatine, Illinois.

2. When you arrive at the Town Hall Meeting, quickly seek out Mark Kirk. Identify yourself as a law-abiding Illinois gun owner.

3. Politely ask Kirk direct questions about his views on private firearm ownership. Ask him why he introduced the legislation renewing the Clinton gun ban. Ask Kirk if he knows that there are over 1.5 million law-abiding firearm owners in Illinois and whether he realizes that, as either governor or senator, he would have the obligation to represent their interests.

4. Ask any other questions that you feel are pertinent.

5. Be sure to wear IGOLD shirts, buttons and/or hats.

6. Please pass this alert along to your gun-owning friends.

7. Please post this alert on any and all Internet blogs or bulletin boards to which you may belong.

NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A RESIDENT OF THE 10TH DISTRICT TO ATTEND

REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE IS YOUR MOST POTENT WEAPON IN THE BATTLE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT YOUR GUN RIGHTS.

This guy needs to be run out of office--not elevated to a higher one.

The sad state of the 'Republican' Party in the 10th Illinois Congressional District

I've made no effort to hide my contempt for U.S. Congressleech Mark Kirk (R-IL), of the 10th Illinois Congressional District. A tail-wagging lap-dog of Mayor Bloomberg's, he introduced a bill to ban so-called "assault weapons" last week. Actually, one does not even have to be a gun rights advocate to see that he's a freedom-hating, wannabe petty tyrant--he also wants to turn Social Security cards into Real IDs.

Basically, he's your standard neo-con authoritarian, in the mold of Giuliani, or Congressman Peter King (R-NY), hoping to parlay hysterical fear of "Islamic Terrorists" into the willing surrender of Constitutionally guaranteed, absolute, fundamental human rights. As such, I consider him a loathsome, contemptible slug, but not someone worthy of even enough respect to justify outright enmity. Imagine my surprise, then, when I noticed that a Mark Kirk fanboy blog linked to my last post about Kirk, referring to me as an example of one of Kirk's "mortal enemies."

Kirk also has made mortal enemies of the gun advocates.

This, you have to understand, was an expression of pride in (Brady Campaign-endorsed) Kirk's gun banning extremism, in a post indignantly (and correctly) refuting Kirk's Democratic challenger's (Dan Seals) apparent assertion that Kirk has only recently gotten on board with the forcible citizen disarmament agenda.

Probably foolishly, I decided to leave a comment, in order to try to clear the air a bit. The comment turned into a bit of an argument, and if what I have seen from most of the folks who comment on that site is at all indicative of Illinois 10th Congressional District "Republicans," Kirk might be just the guy for them (although I can't really see how Seals wouldn't be just as good, to their way of thinking)--they just love the comforting embrace of big government.

If this is what the Republican Party is coming to, let's get the Whig-like outright extinction of the party out of the way now, so we can get on with the business of replacing it with something, you know . . . American. While we're waiting for that to happen, 10th District voters who value liberty aren't going to do any better than Allan Stevo.

War on Guns has much more.

Bloomberg's Congresspets serving their master well

War on Guns today points out that the reason an op-ed in the Three Village Times newspaper (New York) is so fawningly supportive of another of Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy's attempts to set the Constitution on fire is that it is a word-for-word reprint of her press release. McCarthy's bill (H.R. 6676) would require criminal background checks simply to work in a gun store.

WoG also mentions that one of McCarthy's partners in unconstitutionality is one of my perennial favorite neo-con citizen disarmament advocates, Mark Kirk. He's been a busy little wannabe tyrant this summer, introducing a bill to ban so-called "assault weapons" a couple months ago, and following that up recently with H.R. 6664.

The purpose of H.R. 6664, apparently, is that it gives us more things we can refer to as "loopholes"--the better to scare Suzy Soccer Mom with, my dear. The "loophole" in question this time is--I'm not making this up--the "fire sale loophole." The idea here is that after a gun dealer loses his license (for "willfully" having forms filled out with the letter "Y," instead of the word "Yes," for example), he would, under Kirk's bill, be prohibited from selling his guns as a private seller--even though, without a Federal Firearms License, that's exactly what he would be. Hopefully, this will solve the problem of not enough gun dealers starving to death once the BATFE has wantonly crushed their livelihoods.

Kirk's press release describes it this way:

“If a gun dealer loses its federal firearms license, we should be more vigilant about the connection to criminal activity – not turn a blind eye and open a floodgate of guns on our streets,” said Congressman Mark Kirk, co-chair of the Congressional Task Force on Illegal Guns. “We should not give a pass those who would arm violent gang members and threaten the safety of our communities. In the northern suburbs of Illinois, there are now more than 2,000 documented drug gang members. Through ATF trace data [that would be the ATF trace data you and your puppet masters claim is made unavailable, right?] , we clearly see a relationship between these gangs and certain gun shops. By closing the fire sale loophole, we’ll prevent those gun dealers who flaunt [I believe the word you're looking for is "flout," genius--I don't guess it would be reasonable to ask that those who presume to write laws we must obey know something of the English language] our laws from arming violent drug gangs that threaten the safety of law enforcement and our communities. I’m honored to have the backing of Mayors Bloomberg and Menino and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition for this vitally important common-sense legislation.”

I don't guess I had better complain too loudly to Kirk about this, though--his pal McCarthy has probably taught him how to deal with that.

Speaking of Mark Kirk . . .

I'm a very easygoing guy, but when someone does manage to annoy me (and few things annoy me like attacks on my Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human rights), I tend to have difficulty letting it go in a hurry. That being the case, it should probably surprise no one that even after expressing my contempt for Congressman Mark Kirk (R-IL) twice in the last week, I'm still not done with the little aspiring overseer.

I've also talked more than once about H.R. 2074, Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) bill to allow the attorney general to unilaterally block gun sales to anyone he or she wants to disarm, by the simple mechanism of placing the would-be gun purchaser on the "terrorist watch list"--a list that is already well over half a million names long. The attorney general, of course, is not an elected official, but under H.R. 2074, would have the power to block gun sales to someone without a conviction, without an indictment, without so much as an arrest--so much for "innocent until proven guilty."

I bring this up again because, although it comes as no surprise, I hadn't realized until just now that Kirk is a co-sponsor of H.R. 2074. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only who has noticed how easy it has become to be categorized as a "Homegrown Terrorist."

Under H.R. 2074, pushed by "Republicans" King and Kirk, that's how easy it would be to be denied the ability to legally arm oneself. I don't think that's an accident.

Bloomberg has cultivated some pet Congresscritters

I like to make fun of Bloomberg's movement's irrelevance (and more recently here), but I should admit that they have managed to domesticate (and perhaps even housebreak) a few members of Congress. These include Carolyn "I don't know what a barrel shroud is, but I demand we ban them" McCarthy (D-NY), Peter "too many mosques" King (R-NY), and (what would gun prohibitionist movement would be complete without an Illinois politician?) Mark (don't have a catchy name for him yet) Kirk (R-IL). Mark, in fact, put out a press release yesterday, to mark the occasion of his becoming a minion of mayors.

Following an ad hoc congressional hearing on illegal guns in Washington, U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, local and law enforcement officials today called for federal action to combat the rise of illegal gun trafficking in the Chicago area.

Following Bloomberg's script perfectly, Mark explains the four laws that must be inflicted on the entire country, in order to stop Chicago gang-bangers from shooting each other.

• Close the gun show loophole. Unlicensed individual gun sellers and “occasional sellers” are not required to perform background checks on gun purchasers. The weapons used in the Columbine school shootings were purchased at a gun show without background checks;
• Require gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on all gun-handling employees;
• Close the fire sale loophole that allows dealers whose licenses have been revoked to continue to sell their inventory without conducting background checks; and
• Close the “terror gap” that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited purchasers of firearms.

Let's look at these one at a time, shall we?

1) Close the gun show loophole

Perhaps it would be instructive to look at a Department of Justice study report, Firearm Use by Offenders, showing what percentage of "crime guns" were purchased at gun shows:

Purchased from a retail store 8.3 percent
Purchased at a pawn shop 3.8
Purchased at a flea market 1.0
Purchased in a gun show 0.7
Obtained from friends or family 39.6
Got on the street/illegal source 39.2

Let's be generous, and lump flea markets in with gun shows. That gives us a whopping 1.7%. Yep--that sounds like the key to stopping the violence. But wait--I thought gun shows were "arms bazaars for criminals." Actually, a convicted gun trafficker explained why he assiduously avoided the private vendors.

They all knew that in Virginia, they could avoid the background checks if they purchased secondhand guns from private sellers - either at gun shows or through the classifieds.

But, Headlam said: "We never bought from any of them. That one-on-one stuff gets too complicated. People want to have a conversation. They get all skeptical. For real, it was less hassle at a gun shop. Show your two forms of ID, fill out the forms and that's it. No questions asked. Besides, new guns were my thing. They were more in demand on the other end."

But why let the non-existence of a problem stop us from passing a law to solve it?

2) Require gun dealers to perform criminal background checks on all gun-handling employees

What's a "gun-handling employee," I wonder? Does that include people who handle packaged firearms? If so, we need to force shipping companies to screen their employees, as well.

By the way, is there a big problem on the national level of gun shop employees trafficking firearms?

3) Close the "fire sale loophole" that allows dealers whose licenses have been revoked to continue to sell their inventory without conducting background checks

If a gun dealer's license is revoked, he no longer is a dealer--he is a private gun owner, trying to sell some unneeded guns. If the real goal here is, as it appears to be, ending private sales altogether, then come out and say so--even the Brady Campaign is honest enough to do that.

Actually, if "fire sales," by former dealers whose licenses have been revoked, are such a problem (and I'd love to see some numbers on that), maybe it would be a good idea for the BATFE to stop its jihad against dealers, systematically eliminating almost 80% of them since 1994. A good first step in addressing this problem is H.R. 4900, the "BATFE Modernization and Reform Act." Currently, the BATFE has two approaches for dealing with dealers who (almost always accidentally) violate the rules--warnings, or license revocation. H.R. 4900, besides bringing some desperately needed accountability to the agency, would give them some regulatory tools in between those two extremes.

And then, my favorite--

4) Close the “terror gap” that leaves those on the terrorist no-fly list off the list of prohibited purchasers of firearms

I've talked about this before--to give the Attorney General (not even an elected official) the power to unilaterally deprive citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without a conviction, without an indictment, without even an arrest, is to abjectly surrender our system of justice based on the precept of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt. Besides, the grotesquely bloated "terrorist watch list" doesn't exactly inspire confidence

Congratulations, Mayor Bloomberg--your pet Congressman is well trained.

Gun-grabbing Senate candidate Mark Kirk also grabs unearned military honors

Not a great time to be caught in this kind of lie, Congressman--not only right when Richard Blumenthal is still trying to recover from revelations of his invented military heroism, but on Memorial Day weekend, too.

So what does this have to do with gun rights? Mark Kirk may be the most ant-gun Republican in Congress. He sponsored a bill to ban so-called "assault weapons" in 2008 (and another bill to close something he calls the "fire sale loophole" He's a co-sponsor of H.R. 2159, to give the Attorney General unilateral power to block gun purchases by anyone he designates a "suspected terrorist." He's one of the most active Congressional supporters of NYC Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, voicing support for closing the mythical "gun show loophole," and requiring background checks to work in a gun store. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a read (a digg?) and tell a friend.

Yet another bill to ban so-called 'assault weapons'

Back in April, I mentioned one of Bloomberg's pet Congressleeches, Brady-endorsed Mark Kirk (R-IL). He's a hardcore freedom-hater, and that's without even getting into his support for a Real ID-like revamping of the Social Security Card.

Last week, he introduced another bill to ban so-called "assault weapons," H.R. 6257, which I believe to be a word-for-word reprise of the ban that expired in 2004. That makes it somewhat less broad than H.R. 1022, and thus presumably more easily passed. It only has three co-sponsors so far, but it's one we need to watch.

More importantly, Illinois 10th Congressional district voters need to get Kirk out of Congress this November. His Democratic opponent, Dan Seals, is probably no better for gun rights (although I can't find specific mention of his positions on gun issues), but a vote for him would help remove a hardcore anti-gun Republican from Congress. For those who share my inclination to tilt at windmills, there's Allan Stevo (independent), running on a pro-Constitution, pro-gun platform.

It's time to start campaigning for one of those two (in other words, campaigning against Kirk), to get one of the most anti-gun Republicans out of Congress.

Guess who likes McCain!

At risk of giving the (badly mistaken) impression that I would not be very unhappy with an Obama presidency, I still can't bring myself to shut up about how little enthusiasm I would have for the alternative.

We know about McCain and the "gun show loophole," McCain and the Lautenberg lifetime gun ban, and I'm doing my best to not allow anyone to forget about McCain's vote to extend the AWB. What I was not aware of (but perhaps should have surmised) is the degree to which everyone's favorite Mayor for Forcible Citizen Disarmament respects McCain.

At a press conference with U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk [him again] on gun-control, Bloomberg spoke positively about Barack Obama's position on guns, but he also praised John McCain.
"I have known John McCain a lot longer than I have known Sen. Obama," he said. "I can say nothing but good things about Sen. McCain."

Obama or McCain. No wonder Bloomberg, Helmke, et al. are so pleased about the upcoming presidential election. It's hard to see how they could lose. Maybe the Kool-Aid guzzler David found can explain how I'm mistaken.

That means, of course, that it's equally hard to see how liberty advocates can win--at least under these rules. Hope everyone has plenty of ammo.

By Illinois standards, this is kind of a big deal

In most parts of the country, formal endorsement on the part of the state Republican Party of the right to carry a defensive firearm would hardly be cause for celebration--it's something one would expect. This is Illinois, though, where the Republican Party sends statist, gun banning dolts like Mark Kirk to Washington. In other words, standards are quite a lot lower here. That's why we're forced to count as progress even as backhanded an endorsement of self-defense (more on that in a minute) as this (pdf file).

Specifically, we endorse:

Continued use of the Firearm Owners Identification system and use of criminal and mental background checks by licensed firearms dealers;

State pre-emption of local ordinances which impede the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms (see the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution);

We strongly endorse and support the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the U. S. Constitution. We believe every citizen (American) has the right to keep and bear arms. No state city or local law should be allowed to infringe upon this right;

Enactment of “Concealed Carry” legislation offering permits to properly trained, law-abiding citizens to bear concealed weapons for personal protection

It starts off pretty badly, obviously, with an endorsement of the continuation of the egregious FOID program. That was almost enough to make me stop reading, right from the beginning.

It gets better, though. Illinois is one of the few states without state preemption of firearms laws, and as a result, places like Chicago (and to a lesser extent, all of Cook County) are subject to gun laws even more draconian than those imposed on the rest of the state. It's therefore encouraging to see the state GOP finally going on record as being committed to changing that.

The claim to "strongly endorse and support the 2nd Amendment . . . " is hard to take very seriously, considering the first point of endorsement, but this being Illinois, I doubt they even see the paradox.

Then, the (sort of) big one--concealed carry. Not all that long ago, bringing concealed carry to Illinois was what I lived and breathed for. Over time, I have come to realize that getting the government to license a fundamental, human right is hardly the enormous victory I once thought it would be. Still, as I keep saying, this is Illinois, where merely slowing down the pace of new infringements is something of a victory.

The Illinois GOP is in tatters, with Democratic majorities in both legislative houses and in the governor's mansion (if he actually lived there, but that's another story), so their endorsement isn't exactly likely to carry the day, but perhaps this means that Republicans--Illinois Republicans--are finally starting to take gun rights seriously. This could be good for both gun rights and the Republican Party.

A bit of good news from Tuesday--the culling

Gun rights advocates didn't get a lot to celebrate out of the November 4th elections, but the news isn't all bad.

For example, Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT), the only Republican U.S. Representative in New England, is gone. Why is that a good thing? Shays was one of the four co-sponsors (all of whom call themselves "Republican") of Congressman Mark Kirk's (R-IL) "Assault Weapons" ban bill, H.R. 6257. Another co-sponsor, Congressman Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) did not seek reelection.

For all I know, their replacements might be just as bad as, or conceivably even worse than, those two on gun rights issues. I think that's beside the point. The point is that the Republican Party needs occasional reminders from those whom they're supposedly representing (you know--working for), about the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and that right's place in the Republican Party platform. Shays is one such reminder.

As for Christopher Shays--he's presumably not happy about being made an example. Cheer up, Chris--the first Quisling got the firing squad.

A 'Thank you' would be nice, Brady Bunch

Had a visit early last evening:

(click to enlarge)

You might notice that they haven't bothered updating their IP address name since the days when Pete Shields said:

The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.

But there's no slippery slope--right, Brady Bunch?

But I digress--the point I'm getting at is that shortly after that visit looking at this post of mine, they posted this:

In 2004, as part of the final Senate bill S. 1805 as amended, Sen. McCain also once voted to extend the assault weapons ban for 10 years (though he has since said he is against such a ban).

You're welcome--but I guess I shouldn't count on getting a few bucks from George Soros or the Joyce Foundation for my research, eh?

I'll be interested in seeing if anyone in the gun rights movement (or "gun lobby," as we're often referred to) decides to accuse me of treason, for helping to destroy the myth of McCain's pro-Second Amendment credentials. Interested, but not terribly concerned--I've been accused of worse things than helping one statist gas-bag get defeated by another. In truth, I seriously doubt McCain will need my help to lose to the Lightworker--he seems to have that task well in hand.

Still, if anyone wants to grossly overestimate (ridiculously grossly overestimate, really) my influence, and "blame" me for McCain getting his backside handed to him in November, I'll take it. I would definitely be able to live with the idea of being thought of as even a tiny part of the reason the Republican Party finally learns to stop inflicting candidates like McCain (and Mark Kirk) on us.