County update: more progress

Somehow, I failed to notice until now that Effingham County hitched itself to the freedom train back on the 18th. For those following along, that makes 10 counties that have passed resolutions condemning Chicago-style "gun control." Here, then, is the newest map:
(Click to enlarge)

Additionally, I am told that Massac County will vote on the resolution on Tuesday, July 3rd. Pope County is set to vote on it on the 10th, and confidence is very high that it will pass.

That map gets prettier all the time, doesn't it?

Where the immigration and gun rights debates meet

I have, for the most part, kept this blog out of the debate about illegal immigration, because Armed and Safe is pretty exclusively about gun rights, and how those are violated by gun legislation (this post is about the closest thing to an exception). Generally speaking, I think any connection between the immigration debate and the gun rights debate is fairly tenuous. Today, though, I'll discuss a tragic intersection of the two issues.

This past Monday, Schanna Gayden, a 13-year-old honors student in Chicago, was killed in broad daylight, for the "crime" of being on a playground that marked the battle line between two rival gangs. The shooter proved to be not much of a threat to his enemies in the other gang, but was lethal to the innocent child.

Predictably, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley blamed America's "gun culture." This, of course, is the same Chicago Mayor Richard Daley who over a year ago decreed that Chicago become an immigrant "sanctuary city," in which police and other officials are expressly forbidden from checking into the immigration status of the people with whom they deal (that last link is to an article about the fact that the entire county of Cook may join Chicago in abetting illegal immigration).

What does Daley's (and by extension, Chicago's) contempt for U.S. immigration laws have to do with Schanna Gayden's senseless killing? One of the two suspects, and the leader of the gang responsible, is in the U.S. illegally. Mwenda Murithi, of Kenya, came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1999. That visa expired long ago, but here he remains, only to order the shooting that killed the young girl.

Murithi, who in the eight years he has been in this country has accumulated 28 arrests, including four felonies, has clearly had plenty of dealings with Chicago police, but since they have been ordered to not care about his immigration status, deportation was never in the cards for him (and since our "justice" system allows people with such lengthy crime dossiers to run free, he was not in prison here, either).

Schanna Gayden was not killed by America's "gun culture"--responsibility for her slaying lies at least in part with Daley's mandated contempt for our national borders.

Senate Appropriations Committee displays common sense; Bradys, VPC display hysteria

Mayor (and Aspiring Supreme Being) Bloomberg and his allies were dealt a telling blow yesterday when the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Shelby Amendment (by a nearly 2 to 1 margin). This amendment is basically the Senate equivalent of the Tiahrt Amendment--the defeat of which seems to be Bloomberg's main purpose in life.

Actually, the Shelby Amendment contains even more protection of sensitive gun trace data than the Tiahrt Amendment does, and thus has the civilian disarmament lobby in an even more apoplectic state. Here, for example, is what Kristen Rand, of the Violence Policy Center has to say:

Adds Rand, “Keeping crime gun trace data secret puts the whims of the gun lobby ahead of the needs of local officials and law enforcement who are desperate for information that will help them fight illegal gun trafficking.

What she fails to mention is that the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, supports the continued protection of this sensitive information, and that when she mentions "the needs of local officials," she is referring to the ability of local officials to wage a campaign of predatory lawsuits against the firearms industry.

The Brady Bunch is, if possible, even more melodramatic:

“Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee chose the gun lobby over America’s police and local officials, making a bad law that has hurt law enforcement even worse.

“The Committee restored a provision that prevents communities from knowing the truth about corrupt gun dealers and illegal guns, and added even greater restrictions on law enforcement access to crucial crime gun information.

“At a time when crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence in our neighborhoods, this action is a step in the wrong direction.”

In their call to action (accompanied by their standard call for money), we see this:

At a time when violent crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence, the Senate Appropriations Committee's actions are inconceivable. But not surprising, given the gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members.

"The gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members," eh? That would seem to be an odd statement for the Bradys to make just one day after crowing about what they had claimed to be a rising tide of restrictive gun legislation:

While common sense gun measures have moved forward, gun lobby proposals to weaken gun laws have foundered. The gun lobby has had very few successes, and a number of high profile failures, including defeats in states like Florida and Georgia where they have traditionally been successful.

Sounds as if Paul (Helmke) might be suffering from rapid mood swings, or something (is that bipolar disorder?). I think that can be treated--he might not be able to buy firearms, but I guess that's no big loss to him.

New Illinois gun rights blog

I would like to point folks to Gun Owners Against Violence, by a sister in the civil rights struggle against civilian disarmament in Illinois.

Any who doubt that this is indeed a civil rights struggle need only read this excellent history lesson.

With folks like this on our side, I grow more sure every day that We Shall Overcome.

The investigation begins

The alleged death threats against Commissar Senator Kotowski (discussed here and here) are now in the news. The article is titled "Investigation begun of threats to Kotowski"--perhaps that means that the real investigation has finally begun, and that the Illinois State Police are done wasting time and resources with the harassment of people who have given no reason to believe that they threatened anyone.

The following line caught my eye:

Most of the threats referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation, Kotowski said this week.

Most of the alleged threats were in reference to his civilian disarmament agenda? Some folks would have us believe that all the alleged threats came from the gun rights movement. I wonder if Rich Miller and friends would have ISRA apologize for and condemn those other threats, as well. I also wonder if the threats unrelated to gun legislation will receive the kind of investigative attention as those supposedly from gun rights advocates, or if instead, they'll be blown off, like the threats issued by "Snuffy" Pfleger, in front of hundreds of witnesses (and which were recorded).

The article then makes a rather odd assertion.

During the current spring session, Kotowski, of Park Ridge, successfully introduced proposals to tighten restrictions on high-capacity gun magazines and .50-caliber rifles. Both bills have received wide support and are awaiting final approval in the House and Senate respectively.

Wide support? The .50 caliber ban bill was never brought up for a vote--presumably because its supporters didn't believe that they had the votes. That was before May 31st, when it would only have needed a simple majority. Now that it needs a 3/5ths majority, its chances of going anywhere during the overtime session are minimal, at most. The magazine ban bill did just barely squeak through the Senate, but again, was never brought up for a vote in the House--presumably for lack of support.

Another of the article's claims that I find a bit dubious is this one:

Kotowski is himself a victim of gun violence and, prior to his election in November 2006 over incumbent Republican Cheryl Axley of Mount Prospect, he was executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

By "victim of gun violence," are they referring to the fact that he was mugged? The fact that a couple thugs (one of whom was armed) took twenty bucks from him bestows upon him the authority to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?

A bit later, we get to why Kotowski believes that it's ISRA's fault that he has been threatened.

"The ISRA needs to take responsibility for inciting people. They created a climate where this is acceptable to some people by telling their members that my legislation takes guns out of the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq, that I'm 'dancing in the blood' of the Virginia Tech shootings," he said, referring to previous ISRA press releases opposing his efforts to pass new gun control legislation.

Let me make sure I have this right--ISRA's expression of rather unflattering sentiments about Kotowski--without ever endorsing threatening behavior or violence "incites" people to do those things? Does that mean that gun rights advocates should not be allowed to express our abhorrence for those who wish to disarm us? That hardly sounds like the position of "a strong proponent of the 1st Amendment right to free speech," as Kotowski has claimed to be.

I wonder how careful the article's author was in his quoting.

In the days after ISRA's June 18 response hit the Internet, Kotowski said three death threats appeared online, including one stating that, because of what he's trying to do, Kotowski should feel that "his life is in danger."

It is certainly possible that the article is referring to a quote other than the one I know of ("Sounds to me like Sen. Kotowski deserves to be threatened."), but if not, it would be a case of misquoting that would seem calculated to put a much more sinister light on what was said.

I don't believe in threats of violence as part of the political process, but I am proud to express my utter contempt and loathing for elected officials who would use their power to usurp fundamental civil rights.

Deacons for Defenselessness causing hardship to Riverdale

The mayor of Riverdale, IL (home of Chuck's Gun Shop), although a proponent of strict gun laws herself, takes issue with the harassment campaign engineered by Jesse Jackson and "Snuffy" Pfleger against Chuck's Gun Shop.

A suburban mayor is speaking out against a protest in her village last weekend. That demonstration ended with the arrests of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Father Michael Pfleger. They have led two protests at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale. The mayor there says the demonstrations have cost the village thousands of dollars.

The mayor says resources spent on protecting protesters' rights and safety will be better spent elsewhere, in particular, trying to prevent gun violence. This was all sparked by an incident over the weekend, a protest of a gun shop in Riverdale.

I do not contest the right of people to protest whatever they feel compelled to protest. The Constitution protects such speech, and I would not want to live anywhere that such protections were not provided by law.

Still, when the protests are damaging to the very people they're ostensibly intended to protect, perhaps a different approach is indicated.

Mayor Evans has expressed interest in accompanying the Deacons for Defenselessness to Springfield, where the legislating is done (Blagojevich's and Daley's wishes and delusions notwithstanding).

If it's new laws they want, their protests should be where laws are made--not at Chuck's, where they are obeyed.

Latest county pro-2A resolution update for Illinois

Check out this video from a news segment about the introduction to the Champaign County Board of the kind of resolution I have been tracking (most recently here)



That makes nine counties (Shelby, Brown, Pike, Schuyler, Hancock, Johnson, Randolph, White, and Greene) with the resolution on the books, and at least another nine that have it proposed for consideration on the county board agenda. Probably close to two dozen more have an effort underway.

(Click to enlarge)

Daley, Blagojevich, Kotowski, and all the rest of you aspiring tyrants, get off the tracks--a train is coming.

Update on Ohio newspaper publishing concealed carry licensees' identities

Check out the Liberty Sphere blog again today, to see an update to the situation (mentioned yesterday) involving the Sandusky, Ohio newspaper that has decided its anti-defense agenda is more important than privacy and public safety. It seems that some Ohioans are fighting back.

By the way, while we're on the topic of newspapers competing for the Christian Trejbal Award for Irresponsible, Agenda-Driven "Journalism," it seems that a Connecticut newspaper is trying to force municipalities to release the names and addresses of everyone who applies for a concealed carry permit (state law already protects the identities of those who receive the permits--this is an attempt to make an end run around that privacy protection).

Can't they find any--you know--news to print?

UPDATE: Speaking of Christian Trejbal, look who stopped by--

Perhaps Christian was hoping to find that he had some fans.

How to pass "gun control" legislation: stay the hell away from facts and logic

Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, is, as far as I can tell, a treatise on the need to stay away from facts and logic in political debate, and to focus instead on emotion. That, anyway, seems to be the gist of this excerpt, focusing on so-called "gun control" (i.e., civilian disarmament). To be honest, I think Westen has the right idea--when pushing an agenda so divorced from reality and rationality (and Constitutionality) as public safety through state-mandated defenselessness, facts and logic would certainly be things to avoid.

He apparently decided a demonstration was in order, waiting only until early in the third paragraph to let rip with a stunningly blatant lie.

They didn't mention that the Republican Congress had let the Brady Act, which banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons, sunset in 2004.

Actually, this is several lies, all in one short statement. First, the "Brady Act" dealt with background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales--not with semi-automatic firearms in general (many semi-automatics are not handguns, and many handguns are not semi-automatics). The criminal background check element of the Brady Act is still in force to this day, and although the five day waiting period is no longer in effect, it expired not in 2004, but in 1998, when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented.

What sunset in 2004 was the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (a term invented by rabid civilian disarmament advocate and VPC executive director Josh Sugarmann). This law did not "ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons"--many semi-autos were unaffected by the law, and even the "banned" firearms were completely legal for civilian ownership and sale, as long as they were manufactured (or imported) before the effective date (Sept. 13, 1994).

One could argue, I suppose, that Westen was not lying, as I accused him earlier, but simply wrong, but if he is this far off in his understanding of guns and gun laws, I would argue that representing himself as an authority on these issues is rather dishonest in and of itself.

The next lie, although breathtaking in its mendacity, is pretty standard fare for the civilian disarmament advocates.

If ever there was an issue on which Americans are of two minds, it is guns. Most Americans believe in the Second Amendment, but most Americans also support a host of restrictions on gun sales and ownership.

So most Americans support a right of the people that shall not be infringed, but they "also support a host of restrictions" on that right? In other words, apparently, Americans are largely unaware of the plain meanings of common English words.

A bit later, we come to this puzzling sentence:

The notion of being defenseless doesn't sit well with southern and rural males, whose identity as men is strongly associated with the ability to protect their families.

Are we to infer, then, that "the notion of being defenseless" does sit well with northern and urban males (and all women)? If so, that would seem to be an attitude we should seek to change, rather than to exploit.

What civilian disarmament advocacy piece would be complete without a breathless reference to terrorism? Fear not--here it comes.

You can't fight a war against terrorists if you grant them unrestricted access to automatic weapons on your own soil.

Who gets "unrestricted access to automatic weapons" in this country? Since 1934 (and the National Firearms Act), automatic firearms have been extraordinarily heavily regulated, with the regulations becoming even more onerous and draconian with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and still more so with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Perhaps Westen somehow failed to notice the conspicuousness of the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. in which automatic weapons (or any other firearms, for that matter) have been used.

He even goes so far as to include kind of a miniature manifesto regarding firearms, that he thinks Democrats should use.

Our moral vision on guns reflects one simple principle: that gun laws should guarantee the freedom and safety of all law-abiding Americans. We stand with the majority of Americans who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt and protect their families. And we stand with that same majority of Americans who believe that felons, terrorists, and troubled teenagers don't have the right to bear arms that threaten the safety of our children. We therefore support the right to bear arms, but not to bear arms designed for no other purpose than to take another person's life.

The lies come fast and furious in that little gem. First, more restrictive laws do not "guarantee the freedom"--they actively attack it. Secondly, no law can guarantee safety--even a well-crafted law designed to promote safety can only work when it is not broken. To end the breaking of laws, one would have to eliminate criminals. That seems rather unlikely.

Toward the end, Westen really gets into the emotional symbolism he is promoting, suggesting that the Democrats "put every Republican in Congress on record as caring more about the blood-soaked dollars of the NRA than about the lives of our children."

The very last paragraph is the most stunning, in which Westen actually acknowledges that telling the truth is a losing proposition for civilian disarmament advocates.

If you can't speak the truth and win elections, you need to learn another language. The language that wins elections is the language of the heart.

That just about says it all, doesn't it?

Ohio newspaper publishing names of concealed carry licensees

Rather than typing up the details, I will just point readers to the Liberty Sphere, where I found out about this newest outrage.

The Liberty Sphere, by the way, is worth a daily look just for their Second Amendment News Roundup every weekday. If you haven't bookmarked the site yet, you oughtta.

Yeah--that's the example I want to follow

If the civilian disarmament lobbyists were correct, one would think that in Great Britain, where even Olympic target shooters have to leave the country to practice, one would find an idyllic haven from violence and mayhem. A UK News article titled "Gun and knife murders out of control" paints a grimly different picture.

Local communities were being blighted by run-away violence as gang members who believe they are "untouchable" carry guns and weapons as a matter of routine to carry out crimes and to settle scores.

But that's impossible--gun laws are much too strict there for that to be happening. Everyone knows that the violence in the United States is a direct result of our "loose gun laws," and that guns actually cause violence.

Luckily, there is something that can be done. Not only are British lawmakers unencumbered by anything like our Second Amendment, law enforcement is apparently free of worries about anything like Fourth Amendment rights, as well.

Now as a matter of "urgency," police should carry out random and targeted stop and search to catch weapon wielding thugs backed up with the introduction of a mandatory five year prison sentence for those carrying illegal knives - the same penalty as carrying guns.

It's sounding better and better over there all the time, isn't it? Well, you know, except for little things like this:

Victims of Crime Trust director Norman Brennan said Britain was quickly gaining a reputation as being one of the most violent countries in the Western world, scarring communities and leaving millions in fear of crime.

But don't let that scare you--if you are attacked, you can at least defend yourself by . . . um, let's see . . . screaming for help, or something. Of course, anyone who might otherwise be willing to help will most likely also be unarmed, but I guess he or she could join in with the screaming, or something.

Luckily, most of the murders are committed with something other than guns (it's gun homicides that should really outrage us, of course--if murderers are forced to use some other means, than the good guys must be doing something right)

. . . knife homicides out number gun homicides by three to one. If these measures were introduced it would greatly reduce knife crime and consequently save lives.

I could swear that I keep hearing that if we make guns hard to get, violent death rates would plummet--who could have guessed that violent people would find other ways to wreak their carnage?

Yep, it sounds pretty safe in Jolly ol' England, alright--as safe as Virginia Tech.

Wayne Fincher gets 6 1/2 years for Criminal Patriotism

I just now got the bad news. The link in Mr. Codrea's post is already dead--I guess the media doesn't consider the imprisonment of the citizenry, for the crime of upholding the Constitution, to be particularly newsworthy.

Here is an article that is still available.

Judge Jimm Hendren made the ruling on Fincher's sentencing, opting to impose the minimum recommended sentence according to federal sentencing guidelines, which set his imprisonment at between 78 and 97 months. Hendren also put Fincher on two years' probation once he leaves prison and required him to pay the government $1,000.

Fincher's court-appointed attorney, Shannon Blatt, asked Hendren to consider Fincher's poor health and that of his wife and sentence Fincher to house arrest or probation. Hendren said given the severity of Fincher's crimes he could not allow such a lenient sentence.

How very generous of the judge.

We also learn that Fincher could have lessened the punishment, by licking the hands of those who consider themselves our masters.

Hendren said Fincher would have faced a more lenient sentence had he entered into a plea agreement with the federal government.

So, it would seem that not only is Fincher to be imprisoned for his patriotism, but his imprisonment will be longer because he is unapologetic about it.

I would think that if there are actually people in the world who "hate us for our freedoms," they can start liking us now.

Never a dull moment with the Deacons for Defenselessness

As alluded to (here, here, and here) last week, yesterday saw yet another grandstand performance by the Deacons for Defenselessness and Injustice, Jesse Jackson and Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger. This version of their absurd little circus featured the additional element of the civilian disarmament advocating clergymen getting arrested for criminal trespassing.

Jackson, in turn, has tried to press assault charges against shop owner John Riggio, who Jackson claims shoved him. Apparently, Riverdale police who saw video footage of the incident were unconvinced that evidence of the assault alleged by Jackson was sufficient for an arrest.

The encounter between Riggio and the clergymen who wish to cut off his family's income did not, apparently, start off with so much rancor, and in fact Riggio invited the two inside to discuss what is involved in a firearms sale.

Owner John Riggio said he told Jackson and Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church, that they could enter the store but that he would only let the two in.

"I was going to explain to Jackson and Father Pfleger how to get a gun license and explain to them how the laws work, basically go through a regular sale with them," Riggio said.

Jackson and Pfleger declined the invitation, claiming that their lives would be in danger if they entered (the "gun rights supporters are scary" card seems a popular one to play these days).

In another article, oddly enough, Jackson claims to have been "locked out" of the shop.

"The police believe that store has a right to lock us out and that is not offensive to push us physically," Jackson said.

Only this bunch could claim to have been "locked out," by the man whose invitation to come inside they had just declined.

Jackson and Pfleger accomplished what I imagine to have been their goal all along, to get arrested, and thus bully their way onto the national stage with their strange vendetta against Riggio and his family.

They have already announced that their harassment campaign will continue next Friday, June 29th, at noon. Any Bill of Rights supporters in the area who can get off work are encouraged to be there.

As always, check out The Armed School Teacher's take on this.

Reminder: Chuck's Gun Shop under siege again--be there

Just a reminder of what I mentioned Monday and Wednesday--"Father" Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger (and most likely Jesse Jackson, as well) will be leading yet another mob of people calling for the demise of Chuck's Gun Shop. Even if Pfleger has learned better than to call for the "snuffing out" of its owner (I wonder when the state police will visit him), he will still be advocating that its owner and employees lose their livelihoods, that their families lose their incomes, and that people who depend on Chuck's for their self-defense needs be rendered defenseless.

On that last point, I propose that Pfleger, Jackson, and other, like-minded clergymen form a new organization. They could call themselves the Deacons for Defenselessness and Injustice (to show their diametrical opposition to these guys).

As a fellow Illinois gun rights blogger points out, it would seem that Jesse has switched sides in the Civil Rights battle. I wonder what price he exacted for the turning of his cloak.

Answering some critics

It seems that some folks have taken exception to some of the statements I have made about everyone's favorite civilian disarmament lobbyist-turned Illinois state senator, Dan Kotowski.

You can see more of this type of vitriol here (Kotowski treating the state police as “his personal goon squad), here (”Commissar” Kotowski) . . .

I'll acknowledge sloppy wording on my part in claiming that Kotowski was using "the state police as his personal goon squad"--a junior senator does not really have the power to make the state police do his bidding, so it would have been more accurate for me to say that the ISP is playing the role of Kotowski's goon squad, entirely of the department's own volition. If it would make anyone would feel better to receive my sincere and humble apologies for the misstatement, please consider them given. I suppose that what I am trying to admit here is that I was wrong to blame Kotowski for the ISP visits and interrogations of people who had clearly issued no threat whatsoever--that blame lies with the ISP. As for the "Commissar" thing--hey, I crossed it out--don't be so sensitive.

I simply do not buy the explanation that a few (very few, I would wager) threatening calls/FAXes from hotheaded idiots justifies an investigation of people who have given exactly zero reason to believe they were behind said threats. As for the "hotheaded idiots" I just mentioned, apparently one of the criticisms leveled at both ISRA and bloggers like me is that we have not done enough to condemn such threats.

Kotowski and his office staff received threats during the first few months of the Spring Legislative Session, most of which specifically referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation. “If Illinois State Rifle Association members were as law abiding and anti crime as they claim, then they would be the first to condemn these threats and help to champion the cause for measures designed to get guns away from those with criminal intent.”

This, despite the fact that ISRA's first press release on this matter said:

Of course, the manner in which citizens exercise that right must not include any threats of harm against elected officials.

My first post about this issue included an acknowledgment that such threats "would warrant a police response"--which I had kind of hoped would make clear that I disapprove of such threats. Toward the end of the same post, when I urged readers (I must be up to three or four of them by now) to contact Kotwoski, I made clear (I hope) that it was vital to be careful to keep the messages absolutely, utterly without threats of any kind.

I suppose I was guilty of the overly optimistic assumption that it would go without saying that the vast majority of us do not condone threats of physical violence. Clearly, I presumed too much. So now, to be absolutely clear, I will try to leave no doubt whatsoever that I categorically condemn anyone who would make threats of physical violence against those with whom one disagrees. It is a boneheaded move from a tactical standpoint, and more fundamentally, is not civil behavior. I hope anyone who made such threats is caught, and that the punishment is severe. I would think, by the way, that the likelihood of catching the perpetrators would be increased if police manpower and resources were not wasted on investigations of people whose only known contacts with the senator had not contained threats.

I should also amplify the point that The Armed School Teacher made so well--that if gun rights advocates are being blamed for threats that were either never made, or had been made by agents provocateurs aligned with the other side, with the intention of discrediting the gun rights advocacy movement, it would not be the first time. I am not claiming that this is what is happening here--only that it has happened before.

Finally I will reiterate my disappointment that the very well documented calls to "snuff out" both a legal businessman and state lawmakers are, apparently, considered unworthy of investigation, while alleged threats (the evidence of which we are so far being asked to take on faith) have triggered investigations of people who were never thought to have made them. I simply do not see how anyone could argue that gun rights advocates in this state are frequently on the short end of a profound double standard.

People tend to take that kind of thing personally.

More news from the police state

Looks as if the Illinois State Rifle Association and I are thinking similarly these days (a situation that has definitely not always been the case in the past). In this press release, ISRA makes a point similar to one I made Tuesday--that "equal protection under the law" is anything but--at least in Illinois. Here, in part, is what ISRA had to say:

"The Pfleger situation brings to light an interesting double standard," continued Pearson. "Earlier this week, the ISRA released the results of an investigation into the apparent harassment of gun owners by the Illinois State Police. In these cases, gun owners were treated to visits to their homes by state police detectives because they had sent faxes to Sen. Dan Kotowski expressing opposition to gun control legislation sponsored by the senator. Based on our investigation, there was not even the slightest hint of a threat conveyed in the content of the subject faxes. Nonetheless, these citizens had to bear the embarrassment of having the police show up at their homes with the additional strain of having to answer humiliating questions about their mental health and personal lives. In contrast, when Fr. Pfleger publicly advocated the "snuffing" of state legislators, the Illinois State Police turned a blind eye and a deaf ear. One would think that Sen. Kotowski would be especially sensitive to threats against legislators, yet his anti-gun alliance with Pfleger has left him totally mum on the priest's dangerous remarks."

This, of course, is in reference to what could be interpreted as Kotowski's use of the state police as his personal goon squad. On the NRA's "Cam & Company" show last night, in a telephone interview with Tom Warchol (who was visited by the state police because of his utterly cordial FAX to Commissar Senator Kotowski, about Kotowski's attacks on the Second Amendment), Warchol stated that Senator Pamela Althoff had told him that the state police had visited five-hundred people as part of their "investigation." [UPDATE: Mr. Warchol apparently misspoke (or misunderstood Senator Althoff) when he said that the police had visited 500 people--apparently the 500 is in reference to the number of calls and FAXes received by Kotowski--I still don't have information on the number of people caught up in the ISP's "investigation."]

Are we to believe that everyone who has expressed dismay to Kotowski about his odious, subversive, unconstitutional agenda is a "person of interest," because of what one or two idiots (supposedly) said by FAX or phone, while at the same time, Pfleger, who very publicly, on camera, in front of hundreds of witnesses, called for the "snuffing out" of a businessman and legislators, is of no interest to the police?

And some people wonder why many gun owners are distrustful of the government.

Illinois has too many jobs, too much tax revenue, and . . . the people here are more violent than in other states?

This article refers to the sad reality that the constant threat of ever more draconian firearms legislation in Illinois has already driven one manufacturer of fine pistols and rifles (Les Baer Custom) to relocate out of state, but also has the rest seriously considering similar moves.

Let's not mince words here. Illinois is a mess. With less than a week and a half left in the extended legislative session, agreement on a budget is a distant fantasy. Governor Blagojevich, too good for the taxpayer funded Governor's Mansion in Springfield (to which he insisted be added a heated driveway, costing the taxpayers $720,000--despite the fact that he doesn't live there) , commutes by plane between the capital and his Chicago home several times per week, costing the taxpayers nearly $6000 every time, for his "workdays" (some of which are about three hours long), trying to goad legislators into passing his pipe dream of a budget. Pension funds are raided willy-nilly, schools are grossly under-funded, and yet our wise lawmakers want to force good jobs and tax revenue out of the state.

The most interesting part of the article, though, comes at the end.

T[h]om Mannard, executive director of Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, said he wants to see compromise between legislators and gun manufacturers.

"It's a delicate balance," he said. "You could have a bill that prohibits the sale of assault weapons in Illinois, but allows the manufacturers to continue to manufacture and sell outside of Illinois. The current measures don't allow that."

It's a little surprising to see the head cheerleader for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence calling for "compromise," but let's analyze what Thom is saying here. Apparently, so-called "assault weapons" are too dangerous for Illinois residents, but not for people who live in other states. Now that is a simply fascinating assertion, and as an Illinois resident, a rather insulting one. It's also an opinion not shared by many other states. By virtue of concealed carry licenses issued by Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, I can legally carry a concealed handgun in twenty-three states. That's right--although my own state mandates that I be unarmed and helpless, twenty-three others, in which I have never paid taxes, trust me to do so. If Illinoisans are so inherently violent and unstable, almost half the country seems unaware of the fact.

Thom would also seem to be undermining the arguments of what I thought would be many of his ideological allies, most of whom claim that restrictive gun laws in one state are rendered much less effective by less restrictive gun laws in other states. Isn't Thom afraid that even with a ban in Illinois, these naughty "assault weapons" could be sold in another state, and work their way back, illegally, to this state?

I plan to ask the ICHV about that, and will be sure to post any response.

Did someone say people aren't buying guns like they used to?

If one were to believe (for some reason) the Violence Policy Center, one would probably come to the conclusion that the gun industry is teetering on its last legs.

JR, at a Keyboard and a 45, has noticed that for at least one major U.S. gun manufacturer, nothing could be further from the truth.

Hmm--misleading statements (if not outright falsehoods) from the civilian disarmament lobby. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked!

Updated details on newest March of the "Snuffy" Brigade on Chuck's Gun Shop

As mentioned Monday, "Father" Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger will be leading yet another siege of Chuck's Gun Shop, in Riverdale, Illinois this coming Saturday (June 23), apparently at 1 PM.

The Illinois State Rifle Association is once again organizing a counter-protest:

Action Alert for Saturday, June 23, 2007: Counter-Protest at Chuck's Gun Shop, the 3rd Time in 4 Weeks

ISRA has found out that Fr. Michael Pfleger is going to march yet again at Chuck’s Gun Shop, 14310 S. Indiana, Riverdale, IL on Saturday, June 23rd. This is four weeks after the highly publicized protest at the same location where he called for the "snuffing out" of Chuck's owner, John Riggio. He will probably bring Reverend Jesse Jackson with him.

Many of you have followed the news about Pfleger's threat and wished that you could have been at Chuck's on May 26th to show your solidarity. Some of you took advantage of the short notice to come out to Chuck's last weekend. ISRA 1st Vice President Mike Weisman was there to stand with John Riggio and the counter-protestors at both marches. He's going to be there again, and he's urging all gun owners who can do so, to come to Chuck's this Saturday.

"Chuck's Gun Shop is a part of my own personal history with firearms. I first went there over 25 years ago, when I lived in the city. The staff helped me get my first FOID card." Mike Weisman said, "Chuck's Gun Shop as been part of the community in the south suburbs for decades, it's a vital, family-run business that should stay and serve the community in the decades to come."

"So I'm going back there this Saturday, and I'm calling on my fellow ISRA members and Illinois Gun Owners from all across Chicagoland to join me. I'm also making a special appeal to those who have ties to this part of the metro area. It's important to me personally that we have strong representation there." Weisman concluded.

Background info: The owners of Chuck’s have been long-time defenders of the right to keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, they have paid dearly for supporting your rights. Chucks was the primary target of Mayor Daley’s $433 million lawsuit against the 2nd Amendment. Although the Daley suit failed, Chuck’s was forced to bear huge legal costs to defend their business - and to defend the 2nd Amendment. Chuck’s has also been harassed ceaselessly by anti-gun church groups and the gun-hating media - including “60 Minutes.” Rev. Jackson and Fr. Pfleger have marched twice on Chuck's Gun Shop in the recent weeks, including May 26, when Fr. Pfleger called for John Riggio to be "snuffed out." The ISRA has an audio copy of his turn at the microphone, which you can download and listen to. (550KB mp3 file)

ISRA is calling upon gun owners to make the return trip to Chuck's Gun Shop to take a stand for the right to keep and bear arms. Please do the following:

1. Plan on gathering at Chuck’s Gun Shop & Range, 14310 South Indiana Avenue, Riverdale, IL, at 12:30 PM on June 23rd for a counter protest against Michael Pfleger and Jesse Jackson. Click here for a mapquest map.

2. While at Chuck’s, express your solidarity with the owners and, if you can, make a purchase. No matter how small, your loyalty to Chuck’s will be greatly appreciated.

3. Prepare to peacefully confront anti-gun protesters with the truth. Don’t be shy about defending what you know is rightfully yours.

4. If possible, take photographs of the anti-gun protesters and send copies to webmaster@isra.org.

5. Please post this alert to every Internet blog and bulletin board that you belong to. Encourage all your friends and fellow shooters to join in this counter-protest against the gun grabbers.

Only you can defend your rights from destruction by guys like Fr. Pfleger and Rev. Jackson. The gun grabbers must not attack our rights with impunity. You are the gun owner who will stand up and be counted. Make sure that you are there Saturday, June 23rd at Chuck’s Gun Shop.

Be sure to enjoy some more excellent commentary from the Armed School Teacher.

Keep in mind what we're up against, folks--but never doubt that We Shall Overcome.

How's that for a double standard?

I can't believe I forgot to make this comparison this morning.

"Father" Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger publicly threatens, on TV, in front of hundreds of witnesses, to "snuff out" not only a lawful businessman, but lawmakers with whom he disagrees, as well. What is the police response?

Riverdale police called the rally “peaceful” and said no investigation was warranted.

In contrast, when people send FAXes containing nary a threatening word to Commissar Senator Dan Kotowski, expressing displeasure with his unconstitutional agenda of civilian disarmament, a state police investigation (and intimidation campaign?) is immediately launched.

Ah--the naive fantasy of "equal protection under the law."