The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'

Henigan succinctly explains what the "gun control" lobby's approach is to more "gun crime"--more gun laws! With the new gun laws, we have yet more "gun criminals," and thus more "gun crime," so the "good first step" (the most recent "first step") must be followed up by a second step (but they won't call it that). And so on ad infinitum.

I've written before about "What the Brady Campaign really wants." The above is how I believe they intend to get there, and I fear that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will prove to be a rather small speed bump in their road, at best. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I think it's better than a lot of my recent material.

The continued retreat from the '90%' claim regarding U.S. guns in Mexico

The claim that "90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States" has been thoroughly debunked (I talked about it here, for example). I have also discussed, here and here, various sources of drug cartel weapons that the forcible citizen disarmament lobby would prefer not to talk about.

The "90%" claim has, in fact, been so thoroughly discredited that even those who tried to make political hay of it have been forced to back away from it. Here's Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke:

Rather than argue about percentages, let's focus on the fact that 20,000 trafficked guns from America have ended up at Mexican crime scenes.

[More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I know it looks like I ripped of Days of Our Trailers--and I did get some ideas there, but that's what I was planning to write about even before I saw his piece.

You, too, can be part of a 'hate group'

"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.

"I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.

California 'assault weapon' ban not oppressive enough?

I especially like the last sentence--let's look at it again: "The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing." That's exactly what we have been saying all along about faux "assault weapons"--they're functionally no different from guns that (supposedly) no one is trying to ban. Now the other side is saying it, and it's not hard to see where they're going with that--banning the heretofore legal guns, as well. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.

Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty

Oddly, though, the Brady Campaign itself not so long ago trumpeted that Obama's election heralded an era of much more restrictive gun laws (see "We Win, They lose. Now, Let's Get To Work," or "Barack Obama: I Am Not In Favor Of Concealed Weapons"). Weren't they "adding fuel to this toxic mix," with their "incendiary rhetoric"?

So, as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our free nation, the Brady Campaign continues its relentless lobbying for banning private sales of firearms, rationing the right to buy them, banning useful and hugely popular semi-automatic rifles, and giving the BATFE more money and power with which to abuse gun owners. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Happy Independence Day, everyone.

Minors, the Second Amendment, and incorporation

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Forget the U.S. Supreme Court, and what it may, or may not, rule, if it rules one way or another on incorporation anytime soon. We're still left with the fact that 9th Circuit precedent now holds that the Second Amendment applies to the states, and thus the Second Amendment is at play here (not to mention, as Mr. Reitz points out in his Supreme Court of Washington blog, that Washington's state constitution has its own explicity protection of the right to keep and bear arms).

The question thus becomes one of whether or not the Second Amendment protects a minor's possession of a firearm. Readers might guess that I'll have difficulty finding a way of reconciling shall not be infringed with a lack of protection for such a right. Those readers would be correct. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope it's worth your time.

Brady Campaign acknowledges proposed gun laws violate due process; doesn't care

That the Brady Campaign endorses legislation like United States Representative Peter King's (R-NY) H.R. 2159, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act," and Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 1317 (H.R. 2159's Senate counterpart) is hardly surprising. These bills are, after all, draconian infringements on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and as such, are what organizations like the Brady Campaign exist for.

[ . . . ]

What surprises me, though, is that Brady Campaign Vice President (and ostensible Constitutional law expert) Dennis Henigan acknowledges that people guilty of nothing will be swept up in such nets, and says that doesn't matter. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner--hope you like.

By the way, Days of Our Trailers has a good piece along the same lines--consider yourself as having been given your assigned reading.

Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence presumes to tell people how to worship

What struck me about that press release was not the over-the-top emotionalism of the rhetoric, which is, after all, fairly typical for citizen disarmament propaganda. No, what floored me was the arrogance inherent to telling people that they're worshipping "wrongly," and that their church service is "immoral."

It seems that along with the right to keep and bear arms, even freedom of religion offends OCAGV. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Area gun range fights for survival

That, I believe, is a significant part of the motivation for this kind of harassment. Resistance to legislative attacks on gun rights is still such that such attacks have a long road to hoe. The gun haters can be patient, though, and plan for years in the future. Shut down enough gun ranges, and there will eventually be fewer and fewer peaceable practicioners of responsible gun ownership. Eventually, the numbers will be so few that the gun banning legislative agenda will meet no effective resistance.

That's the goal. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

New Jersey to implement rationing of rights

Unless I'm missing a state or two somewhere, that makes New Jersey the fourth to pass this kind of law (or fifth, if you count South Carolina, which repealed its version of the law in 2004, after finding it to be ineffective at reducing violent crime). The others that still have such a law are California (no surprise there, with it's Brady Campaign Number One Tyranny Rating), Maryland (again, no surprise, with Maryland ranking almost as "high" as California), and Virginia. The fact that Virginia is one of only three (soon to be four) states with such a law is probably a surprise to some. Virginia, after all, is blamed for having "lax gun laws" that contribute toward it being part of the so-called "Iron Pipeline" of guns that end up illegally in places like New York City. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner.

By the way, I know that lately, the blog has had little aside from blurbs advertising my GRE columns. That's not a long term situation--I've just been a bit too busy for both lately. I expect to get back to writing original material here very soon.

'Gun free' Chicago is bleeding out

Ten to fifteen shootings and stabbings every night, at one hospital? Baghdad might be safer than that.

This is the city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. All guns must be registered--and re-registered annually--with the Chicago Police Department. The vast majority of semi-automatic firearms, and all handguns, are "unregisterable" (and thus illegal), unless they were already registered in 1982 (and every year since then).

And yet the city is bleeding to death. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner looks at the irony of hospitals in America's most "gun free" (according to the law) city being unable to keep enough blood on hand to treat victims of violence. Please give it a look.

Restrictive gun laws violate civil rights

That essay was written by Temple University Law Professor David Kairys, who, interestingly enough, specializes in civil rights law, and is known for fighting racial discrimination.

He is, presumably, an educated man, and an opponent of racial prejudice. Why, then, is he in favor of policies that have the goal of disproportionately disarming the very people whose rights he supposedly champions?

Sounds like someone who needs to watch "No Guns for Negroes." Perhaps I'll buy him a copy. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

I wonder if he says 'of the people' in the book

The Brady Campaign is busily pushing Brady Bunch Vice President for Law and Policy Dennis Henigan's new book, "Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy."

June 26 is the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s DC v. Heller decision. It is also the official publication date of an important new book by a tireless crusader in the fight against gun violence in America.

The author, Dennis Henigan, has long been one of the nation’s most prominent advocates for stronger gun laws, appearing dozens of times on national television shows, including 60 Minutes, The Today Show, Nightline, Larry King Live, and Dateline NBC. Henigan founded the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project twenty years ago to represent gun violence victims in lawsuits against the gun industry and his legal team has recovered millions of dollars in damages for victims against gun manufacturers and sellers.

As far as I'm concerned, what is most notable about Henigan is his . . . creative editing of the Second Amendment:



Yeah--that's the guy I trust to give me the straight story about gun laws.

The Brady Bunch press release announcing the book quotes a few parts, including some wisdom from that famous sage, Ozzy Osbourne:

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Henigan counters with Ozzy Osbourn’s [sic] take on that: “If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?”

Perhaps someone should ask Ozzy the reverse question--if guns do kill, and people don't, why send the people, rather than just the guns?

Another bit of Henigan's "debunking":

“But what you really want [is to ban all guns.]” Henigan explains that for the gun lobby, “the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns. The slippery slope argument is the NRA’s primary means of achieving this goal.”

Note that Henigan doesn't actually refute the slippery slope argument, he just claims that the entire logical basis for fighting restrictive gun laws depends on it (notice that every time a restrictive gun law passes, the citizen disarmament advocates call it a "good first step"?). Actually, of course, that's not even remotely true, either. If I thought there were no slippery slope, I would fight against all gun laws, because they're all unconstitutional, immoral, and utterly incapable of serving their stated purpose of stopping violence.

Henigan has to be one of the most unqualified people I can think of for talking about either gun policy or "logic."

VPC inadvertently exposes myth of gun control as 'public safety'

Never mind that, though, my point is that Sugarmann claims that all the gun laws on the books are apparently not "safety measures."

Yet these are sales standards, not product safety standards.

Now wait a second--you mean those tens of thousands of gun laws aren't about safety? I agree, of course, but I didn't expect the forcible citizen disarmament cheerleaders to come out and admit it. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

So much for me being back on schedule--I'm many hours behind, and working frantically to catch up.

Gun rights advocacy not responsible for killings

Crazy, violent, evil people do crazy, violent, evil things, with or without hearing "extemist rhetoric." All three of the perpetrators of the above mentioned murders had some rather serious issues that had nothing to do with anything they heard from Bill O'Reilly or the NRA. Now, the Bob Herberts of the world are trying to claim that simply issuing warnings about impending attempts to attack that right that shall not be infringed is immoral and irresponsible.

That sounds kinda familiar. Perhaps we should call him "Supreme Leader Herbert." [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

My new computer is here, my week from hell is over (just don't even ask), and I expect to be back on my regular schedule now.

When gun bans are not enough--the war on . . . pocket knives?

By the way, a discussion of the illegality of switchblades in the first place, and how to reconcile such a ban with shall not be infringed, is beyond the scope of this article, but it's a discussion worth having.

I realize that this is not the "St. Louis Knife Rights Examiner," but consider what a rule change banning 80% of the folding knives currently on the market implies about what the federal government will do with regard to guns. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. If they can do it to knives, they can do it to guns. Please give it a look.

DHS 'right-wing extemist' report--outrageous before Holocaust Museum shooting, and still outrageous afterward

As David Codrea discusses today, the statists have wasted little time in pointing to the Holocaust Museum shooter as vindication of the now infamous Department of Homeland Security "right-wing extremist" report.

"Does Holocaust Shooting Validate Homeland Security Report?" asks Ed O'Keefe in The Washington Post.

We talked about that report here. Now, with an almost "I told you so" glee, outlets like Politico are propagating a meme:

“I think this latest round of killing once again shows how ridiculous the criticism from the right of the Department of Homeland Security report was. That whole brouhaha was absurd,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center...

“We felt the DHS report was pretty right on,” said Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Holocaust Museum shooter was a dyed in the wool, hate mongering bigot (as well as a federal felon).

The DHS report, on the other hand, while it mentioned genuine threats, such as neo-nazi vermin like Von Brunn, cast a much wider net than that--including military veterans, gun rights advocates, and advocates of secure borders. The report, in other words, equated devotees of the Constitution with self-proclaimed "race warriors."

The conclusion that can be drawn from this atrocity is the futility of trying to stop violence with more gun laws. Von Brunn, being a federal felon, committed another felony by mere virtue of possessing a gun. Even without such a prohibition, carrying a rifle into a Washington D.C. museum would very definitely be illegal.

Evil people commit evil acts, have done so since long before the invention of firearms, and will no doubt continue to do so for as long as humanity exists. For such people, there are few sure cures. Here's one (photo courtesy of Oleg Volk):

Self-defense, the UN, and the 2nd Amendment

Both Congress and the Obama administration have appeared, so far, to be in headlong retreat from the kinds of citizen disarmament laws they have made clear they would dearly love to pass, supposedly in deference to political realities that for the moment, make such attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms too difficult. Groups like the Brady Campaign are growing increasingly strident about that.

With Obama's vocal support for CIFTA, though, I cannot help but wonder if that "retreat" is merely a feint--perhaps the real goal is an international end run around the Second Amendment--and possibly, self-defense itself. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Helmke's growing discontent with the Obama administration

I've written a lot (One hundred days in: citizen disarmament lobby is getting restless, Brady Campaign rhetoric then and now: what a difference six months makes, and More disappointment for the Brady Campaign) about the Brady Campaign's growing impatience with the Obama administration's reticence, so far, with regard to the radical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament favored by the Brady Bunch. I'm starting to think it's becoming quite a sore point with Mr. Helmke, because last week, he expressed his disappointment in, and impatience with, the Obama administration yet again.

Yes, the president has a lot on his plate. Yet not only did then-Senator Obama contemplate this heavy workload, he campaigned for it. As a presidential candidate, he famously said last September, "It's going to be part of the president's job to be able to deal with more than one thing at once."

Keeping this in mind, there is an immediate economic and public health crisis in America that, so far, both the president and Congress have chosen to ignore: approximately 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, plus 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries occur every year in this country.

Yet rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners -- all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and their families.

For his part, the president has also included sincere expressions of "deep sadness" at these tragic losses -- though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.

Paul then goes on to list several tragic shootings that had a high enough profile to warrant public statements from Obama (statements that clearly did not go far enough, in Helmke's view).

Interestingly, one of the incidents Helmke mentioned was the tragedy at Camp Victory, Iraq, in which an unhinged soldier suddenly turned his gun on eight fellow soldiers (killing five), before being taken into custody (Helmke erroneously states that the killer then committed suicide--he did not).

As with the other shootings about which Obama expressed sadness, Helmke claims that "being 'deeply saddened' at gun violence is not enough"--that Obama should join the Brady Campaign in attempting to exploit these murders in furtherance of the agenda to disarm people who have not killed anyone. So what does Helmke want--soldiers to be disarmed?

Anyway, back to Helmke:

Yet up to now, President Obama has been unwilling to do much more than express his deep sadness and send his thoughts and prayers to victims and their families in response to shooting after shooting in this country, repeating gun lobby rhetoric that we should just "enforce the laws on the books," and sidestepping the fact that there are only a handful of Federal laws which make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

He has yet to offer even a hint of his commitment after the Northern Illinois killings "to do whatever it takes" to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

I have little doubt that the Obama administration will eventually show it's true colors, and make a concerted effort to pass more draconian gun laws. In the meantime, though, it's fun as hell to observe the increasing stridency of Helmke and friends.

Celebrating gun rights in the enemy's back yard

This year's speaker should be no less compelling. Attendees will hear Ralph W. Conner, a long-time civil rights activist with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). If readers seem to remember having seen that name recently, it was probably in National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea's announcement of the superb "No Guns for Negroes" DVD, made and released by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), and which featured Mr. Conner. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry to have dropped off the net for the past week. I'm not sure how regularly I'll be posting for a little bit longer. My computer problems are still some way from being resolved, and now I have some health issues, as well--nothing serious, or long-term, I hope, but very inconvenient. I just started antibiotic pills the approximate size of a 230 grain .45 ACP--hopefully they'll be as effective on my bug as Sgt. York's .45 slugs were on the Kaiser's men.