The war on freedom in Illinois heats up

OK, I gave everybody a break from my complaints about the bills oozing their way through the Illinois Politburo legislature, but the break is over now. Our fearless leaders have been busy in their efforts to turn the Bill of Rights into their own personal Charmin substitute. They have also gained a new (or at least this is the first I've heard of them) accomplice, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV).

The ICPGV has conducted what they refer to as a "statewide poll." Not surprisingly, the results of their "poll" indicate enormous support for the draconian laws that are currently being debated. From the ICPGV's press release:

The bipartisan team of Overbrook Research (R) and Lake Research Partners (D) conducted the statewide poll of 603 voters, as well as additional surveys of 300 voters each (1,200) in four state senate districts. Support for the proposed gun laws was equally strong in all four districts, with majorities favoring each of the policies whether heavily Republican or Democrat.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that we live in a republic, and not a democracy--precisely because of the danger of the tyranny of the majority, in which 51% of the people can agree to strip the other 49% of their rights--perhaps I can be forgiven for having some doubts about this "poll." For one thing, almost two thirds of it was confined to four Senate districts. Illinois has 59 Senate districts. No mention is made of which four (or just over 1/15th of the total) districts were polled--any takers on a wager that the Chicago area was quite heavily represented?

One of my friends at Illinois Carry noticed something that I find interesting:

I just did a little research on the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV).

The first thing that struck me is Evanston is in the 708 area code and the phone number given is 773 - a Chicago number.

Checking further I found that the phone number, 773.885.2726, is a Sprint cell phone.

Does anyone besides me wonder why they use a PO box instead of a real address and a cell phone instead of a landline?

My suspicious nature tells me this is a shell organization.

Contact Information
Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (ICPGV)
A Project of Legal Community Against Violence
P.O. Box 7077
Evanston, Illinois 60204
773.885.2726
info@icpgv.org

As mentioned earlier, I had never heard of this group before yesterday (and I try to keep track of anti-gun organizations, particularly in Illinois). Quite a coincidence that they would appear--seemingly out of nowhere--just when the legislative session is debating more gun laws.

By the way, speaking of the proposed ban on .50 caliber rifles, I've mentioned my admiration for Ronnie Barrett before. After his address to the Illinos Senate Tuesday, that admiration has become even greater.

March 20, 2007

Honorable Senators

We have much in common. You have sworn an oath to uphold the United States Constitution, in its entirety, and I have spent over 25 years working to preserve the 2nd Amendment of that same Constitution. If we examine the “fifty-caliber” issue in this context, I am convinced that you and I will come to the same conclusion, and that you will act on principle and truth.

Historically, the anti-gun movement loses when there is intellectually honest debate on outright gun bans. The most recent example was in a Federal Appeals Court where the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional. Those wanting to take our rights are then forced to take them a little at a time and use fear and “big lie” rhetoric to deceive legislators. Fortunately, only those politicians either unable to understand the issue, or lacking the courage to seek the truth, are vulnerable to this tactic. The “big lie” is that banning fifty-caliber rifles will somehow make Illinois citizens safer and protect our infrastructure from terrorists.

The truth is that if fifty-caliber rifles are banned, firearms businesses and their manufacturing jobs will leave your state, the rights of law-abiding citizens will be infringed, infrastructure will not be protected and court action is certain. Since passage would be contrary to the Bill of Rights, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing would be forced to cease servicing and selling to any government agency in the state. I am mindful of the consequences of creating an overpowering government force by limiting its citizens’ access to powerful arms.

The proposition of trading the illusion of security for freedom is not a new folly. Recall the gang violence of the 1950’s. In that case, politicians seeking the spoils of “feel good” legislation banned the self-opening knife. First, the knife was demonized by giving it an evil name, "switchblade". Then the voting public was told that the switchblade was itself the problem rather than the violent felons that killed with it. The public was conned by politicians into believing that the citizenry would be safer by simply banning switchblades. We all know that gang violence is still a serious social problem. It is painfully obvious that the cause of the problem is not a knife that opens with one hand.



Now comes the modern day switchblade; a big rifle. Along with it are politicians who blame it for hypothetical problems to which it has no connection. The fifty-caliber rifle is demonized as an evil “super-gun”. Dishonest rhetoric wrongly portrays it as having wildly destructive capabilities exceeding Hollywood’s best action film. Skillfully manipulating the fearful and the easily duped, the cunning claim is that only the evil “super-gun” can pierce terrorist targets such as aircraft, fuel depots and fuel trucks. The new “big lie” is that common rifles are impotent and only the fifty-caliber is a threat. The truth is that any common centerfire deer rifle is capable of disabling these targets.

Unless Senators are willing to support the preposterous idea of confiscating all of the deer rifles in Illinois, banning just fifty-caliber rifles will do nothing to protect targets of terrorism. Current Illinois gun laws address every conceivable form of real-world firearm abuse. Federal law already categorizes fifty-caliber (and smaller) rifles as “small arms” and governs their use as well. And because crime statistics clearly show that fifty-caliber rifles are almost never used by criminals, the obvious questions are these; how would the citizens of Illinois benefit by your banning fifty-caliber rifles and how much money shall Illinois spend enacting an ineffective law that is likely to be challenged in court?

Unfortunately, we can look to California to see the results of a similar plan. Because an equally flawed argument was used to ban fifty-caliber rifles there, those legislators who fell for the “big lie” are now suffering the effects of unintended consequences. Their plan has turned into an extravagant waste of taxpayer’s money and new equally capable calibers have emerged that are fully compliant with their new law.

If you agree to let the “fifty caliber” argument be won or lost on its own merits, you will find that passing this provision is not in the best interest of your constituents. Further, I encourage you to resist the temptation to pass this provision in exchange for dropping other provisions. Freedom is not for barter.

Our common interest is to uphold the freedoms our forefathers won for you and me and we are together now fighting to maintain. I am sure you can see that it is both counter-productive and morally wrong to trade an illusion of security for any of our freedoms.

I am asking you to oppose banning fifty-caliber rifles because it is the right thing to do.

Ronnie Barrett
Owner and CEO
Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc.

I fear that Mr. Barrett's powerful words fell on many deaf ears. That would be very bad news for this state.

Please read these entries at War on Guns, as well:
Common Tyranny
A Matter of Time

UPDATE: I've mentioned the Joyce Foundation before. Well, it looks as if they've had a hand in the formation of our new gun rights suppression lobby group, the ICPGV, which is, as they state, "a project of Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV)". LCAV, in turn, has gotten a cool $125,000 from the Joyce Foundation. I guess it's good to know that our rights are at least not being sold cheaply.

Senator Levin ignores some inconvenient truths

There is yet another name to be added to the list of civilian disarmament advocates who hope to exploit the ill-considered words of Jim Zumbo as a club with which to bludgeon private gun ownership in America. Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has, since May of 1999, spoken at least once every week that the Senate was in session about what he perceives as a need to ignore the part of the Bill of Rights that most offends him. Would anyone like to venture a guess as to which part that would be?

Yesterday, Levin quoted Zumbo's infamous blog. Like the rest of those who would have law-abiding Americans disarmed, Levin was, of course, thrilled to have gained what he would like to call a new ally in the jihad against homeland defense firearms. For this "support" to come from someone who had (at least until recently) commanded great recognition and respect within the hunting and shooting communities was even better.

Levin could not fail to acknowledge that Zumbo's public thrashing of many of his fellow shooters sparked a strong reaction. Like just about every other aspiring Second Amendment rights violator, Levin mischaracterized the massive grassroots groundswell of righteous indignation as a vicious, calculated campaign, orchestrated by the NRA.

The reaction from NRA officials was swift and callous. They immediately severed all ties with Mr. Zumbo. His TV program on the Outdoor Channel was canceled, and his longtime career with Outdoor Life magazine ended. In addition many of his corporate ties to the biggest names in gun making, such as Remington Arms Co., were terminated.

Never mind that the NRA's reaction was anything but "swift"--the NRA remained silent through the first several days of outrage from gun owners all over the country, and only severed ties with Zumbo when it became clear that the situation was not about to just "go away." Simple economics drove the reaction from Zumbo's other sponsors--thousands of emails and phone calls threatening boycotts tend to be noticed.

What Senator Levin was very careful not to quote was Zumbo's later acknowledgement that he was utterly wrong to demonize these firearms, and his complete retraction of statements critical of them. Levin then continues his convenient glossing over of Zumbo's reversal.

We all owe Jim Zumbo a debt of gratitude for his forthrightness, his honesty and his courage. We must put the safety of our communities first by taking up and passing sensible gun legislation that includes renewing the assault weapons ban."

Keep in mind that Zumbo never argued to ban the possession of so-called "assault weapons." He advocated that their use no longer be permitted for hunting:

I say game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods.

"Game departments should ban them from the prairies and woods"--not the national or state legislatures should ban them from homes, business,or vehicles, or even from our churches, city parks, or playgrounds.

Zumbo made the grave mistake (which I believe he now hopes to correct) of doing our enemies' work for us, in dividing gun owners into warring camps. He did this out of the belief that possession of "sporting firearms" would be less threatened if it was not tied to possession of "scary" ones. This is clearly false--as soon as the "assault weapons" are gone, his scoped hunting rifles will become "sniper rifles" in the sensationalist jargon of the civilian disarmament crowd.

The other side will use overheated rhetoric and outright lies to further their agenda. Such tactics can be frighteningly effective. To stand against them, all shooters must stand together.

Misunderstanding Down Under

Sometimes it can be amusing to read what folks in other countries think of America, guns, and the Second Amendment. What they have to say is generally not very complimentary, but it is consistently entertaining.

This rambling op-ed piece in the Sydney Morning Herald is a prime example. From the title, "Gun lobby scores a win in court," it looks to be an article about the federal appellate court ruling that finds the Washington DC handgun ban to be unconstitutional. To an extent, that is what it's about, but that's only one of the issues mentioned.

In fact, the first half dozen or so paragraphs are devoted to Jim Zumbo. Nothing really new was mentioned here, unless you count this sentence:

After more than 60 years with Outdoor Life, Zumbo was sacked.

Zumbo is, I believe, 68 years old, so if he has been writing for Outdoor Life for more than 60 years, he was certainly a precocious child.

Next, we get a quick paragraph about Mitt Romney's sudden conversion to gun rights advocacy (and if you believe that, I have a pair of breeding mules I'd like to sell you), and the NRA's apparent support for him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. His suddenly cozy relationship with the NRA is worthy of it's own look, but that's a topic for another day.

Finally, near the bottom of the first page (of two pages total), the topic turns to something bearing a resemblance to the title.

In a 2-1 judgement, the court ruled that the Second Amendment literally meant that Americans had the right to own and carry guns and that governments could not stop them from doing so.

Yes, the court ruled that the Second Amendment "literally" means that we can own and carry guns. A Constitution that only figuratively guaranteed rights would serve little purpose. Likewise, that "governments could not stop [us] from doing so" is also pretty important--a right (whether "literal" or figurative) isn't much of a right if the government can deny it by decree.

The next paragraph is pretty cool:

The key sentence of the Second Amendment reads: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Maybe my copy of the Bill of Rights is defective--in mine, that's not the key sentence of the Second Amendment, so much as it is the only sentence. I wonder what I've been missing.

Now that he's talking about the topic mentioned in the title, Mr. Gawenda (the Herald's Washington correspondent, and the author of this piece), doesn't take long to register his opinion about the court decision.

The Washington decision was the first time a federal court had ruled emphatically in favour of the gun lobby's interpretation and, if the ruling is upheld after the inevitable appeal, it could mean the end of meaningful attempts to restrict gun ownership.

This would surely be a disaster: there are about 192 million guns in circulation in America, more than a third of Americans own a gun and about 30,000 die each year from gunshot wounds, with another 52,000 injured.

Apparently, the "disaster" would be the end of "meaningful attempts to restrict gun ownership." I would argue that as far as controlling violent crime is concerned, there has never been any "meaningful" attempt, because attempts to rein in the behavior of the lawless, by passing more laws, are by their very nature, meaningless. One would think that Australians would know that better than most (note that both that article and the op-ed piece being addressed here appeared in the same paper).

Sadly, the American love affair with guns is not about to end any time soon.

Hopefully, the Australian new love affair with helplessness will end soon.

Would this make you happy, Christian?

By now, I don't imagine that there are many in the gun rights community (or in the gun rights suppression lobby, for that matter) who are unaware of Christian Trejbal's editorial in the Roanoke Times. To make his "point" about open government, his editorial linked to a searchable database of every concealed carry licensee in the state.

Trejbal and the Roanoke Times were apparently unprepared for the groundswell of righteous indignation over the publication of what is, after all, quite personal information. Within a day, the database was removed. Soon afterward, the announcement was made that there were no plans to bring it back.

Although the legal concerns stated by the newspaper as the reason for removing the names no longer seem to apply, Roanoke Times president and publisher Debbie Meade said Tuesday that there are no plans to put the information back online.

"The list was put up as an example of a public record," Meade said. "It was never intended for that information to be housed indefinitely on our site."

Trejbal even faced the terror of mailing labels being shipped to his house. I trust that I am not the only one awed by this journalist's courage.

Anyway, I bring all this up now, after most of the excitement seems to be over, because it's starting to look as if ol' Christian has triggered some real reform, after all--although I can't help but wonder if it's what he had in mind. There seems to be real legislative interest in closing these records. At one point in the Trejbal editorial that started all this, he justified the publication of the information this way:

I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat.

Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business.

According to the new article, there is consideration being given to addressing that very issue, Christian.

One proposal is that Virginia follow the lead of Vermont, the only state that does not require its residents to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. [Note: Alaska does not require a government issued permission slip to exercise this right, either, although permits are offered]

Simple--no government involvement, no "everyone's business."

I think the solution has been found.

Check out Second Amendment Carnival X

Just a quick note to thank Stan, at Free Constitution, for once again including me in the Second Amendment Carnival. As always, it's a great honor to be counted in that company.

"Triangle of Death," indeed--they can't be serious

I'll say one thing for the Bradys--they certainly seem to have a good grasp of the level of intellectual sophistication of their target audience.



Apparently the reader is expected to believe that the NRA rakes in vast sums of money from "corrupt gun dealers" (despite the fact that, according to the Bradys themselves, 60% of "crime guns" are traced back to 1% of the dealers--that would presumably be the "corrupt" 1%). The amount brought in this way is much greater and more important, apparently, than what the NRA raises through membership dues and contributions from the 4 million members. The NRA, now flush with the blood-spattered crass lucre from the "corrupt gun dealers," passes much of that money along to "gun lobby-owned lawmakers," who in turn fight the passage of "sensible gun laws" (the ones over and above the over 20,000 gun laws already on the books).

This diagram came from a part of the Brady Bunch called Stop The NRA. They can't seem to get it through their skulls that "stopping the NRA" would do nothing for them. The NRA's 4 million members, plus many other gun rights activists who are not members--because the NRA isn't hard core enough for them, and tries too hard to be mainstream--aren't going to simply give up and go away if the NRA suddenly disappears. The reason that gun rights are not quite dead in this country is the number of people who put their hearts and souls into fighting for them. The various gun rights organizations help facilitate that effort to some degree, but the real power is the grassroots activism of millions of gun owners.

The Bradys have neither those numbers, nor the same kind of passion and commitment from many of the people they do have. And it scares them, so they fight it the only way they know how--with money. Joyce Foundation money (by the way, I recently discovered that another recipient of the Joyce Foundation's gun rights suppression money is Bloomberg's Coalition of Freedom Hating Mayors). They fight it with George Soros' money, and with money raised in hysterical fear mongering campaigns, screaming that those nasty Constitution lovers are going to strike down all the precious gun laws.

The Bradys may raise enough money to "stop the NRA," but that's a long way from stopping the people who treasure liberty--and we're not for sale.

UPDATE: Hairy Hobbit has made and posted a version of the "Triangle" that is definitely worth a look.

Do the Bloomberg Blood Dance

It certainly didn't take Mayor Bloomberg long to turn Wednesday's heinous murders of two New York City auxiliary police officers into motive power for his civilian disarmament agenda. Within a day of the shootings, Bloomberg called the office of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, to try to pressure Congress into passing more laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless.

After spending hours with the victims' loved ones at the hospital, Bloomberg put in a call to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday, and said on his radio show that "there is just a point that we have to say, 'Enough."'

Actually, I agree with that--there definitely is a time to say "Enough," and I think that it has been that time for quite awhile now. Enough of the inevitable, abject failure to control violent crime--by ensuring a rich pool of disarmed and helpless victims. Enough stripping the law-abiding of the fundamental right of self-defense, because of the evil actions of a few. Enough pretending that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are negotiable, and subject to negation at the whim of the powerful. Yeah--we have had enough of your policies, Mayor.

Bloomberg, though, apparently didn't think he had said quite enough yet.

"The Democrats have said repeatedly that they blame the Republicans for gun legislation. Well, now they're in charge," he said. "OK, stand up."

If I recall correctly, the Democrats passed some very restrictive gun legislation back in 1994, and were subsequently routed in the elections that November. One would think that by now they would realize that they've had enough so-called "gun control."

That darned Constitution getting in the way again

Last week, War on Guns commented on the very pleasant surprise of a pro-freedom ruling in California's Fourth District Appeals Court. This ruling came in the case of Andy Sun, a gun dealer in California who had a large number of so-called "assault weapons"--perfectly legal under federal law, but not under California's draconian laws.

The California authorities may never have realized he had these weapons (he wasn't selling them to California residents), but in order to comply with federal laws, Sun had submitted to an inspection of his inventory by our favorite storm troopers, the BATFE. The BATFE agent, being a BATFE agent, violated the legally mandated confidentiality that was supposed to protect Sun, and tipped off the California Department of Justice. This tip is what led to the raid, and Sun's arrest on the charges of possession of 510 "assault weapons" and 23,000 big, scary magazines (also illegal in California).

The good news mentioned previously is that although Sun was indicted, the judge seems to have known what the Fifth Amendment is for, and that using compliance with federally mandated inspections (under the National Firearms Act) as the basis for the issuance of warrants for violations of state laws, is to force a citizen to incriminate himself. This, of course, is unconstitutional, and for very good reason.

The California "justice" system being what it is, Attorney General Bill Lockyer thought it would be a good idea to appeal the ruling. The Appeal Court's ruling agreeing with the original ruling is what War on Guns reported on last week.

Yesterday another article expressed what sounds like disapproval with the decision to respect Sun's Fifth Amendment rights.

Sun is now immune from prosecution for possessing 510 illegal assault weapons and more than 23,000 rounds of ammunition—enough to keep FBI agents at bay for days.

Since there was no stand-off, no holding "FBI agents at bay for days," that seems like a rather odd choice of words (and besides, according to the first article, it was 23,000 magazines--with no mention of the quantity of ammunition). Actually, as far as I know, even California doesn't regulate the quantity of ammunition a person can possess. The article goes on to mention "high capacity bullets," but doesn't explain what those might be.

This may not be over--the second article states that the DA's office is considering appealing again, this time to the California Supreme Court.

Maybe they will have the contempt for the Bill of Rights that the prosecution is counting on.

Despite Bradys' best efforts, freedom to prevail in Maryland

I've mentioned the drive in Maryland to ban so-called "assault weapons" a couple times (here and here) before. I've already quoted one statement made by the bill's sponsor, but it's so comically ridiculous I can't help pointing it out again. This is how Senator Mike Lenett justifies his jihad against the Constitution.

"These weapons are particularly ill-suited to hunting or target-shooting, but remarkably well-suited to killing a lot of people in a hurry," said Lenett, who is the bill's chief sponsor and mentioned the sniper slayings in 2002 that left seven Maryland residents dead as one reason why such a law is needed.

Got that? Being "assault weapons," they're ill-suited to target shooting. What makes a particular rifle a bad choice for a target shooter? Incacurracy--to be good for target shooting, a rifle needs to be able to . . . hit the target. Lenett apparently buys wholeheartedly into the myth that "assault weapons" are only meant to be "spray fired from the hip" (oddly enough, when I was trained to use a real M-16 assault rifle, my drill sergeants would have made my life a nightmare if I had tried to "spray fire from the hip"), and are thus incapable of decent accuracy. Then he goes blithely along to point to the use of such a rifle in the "sniper" shootings in the DC area in 2002 as more evidence that these rifles are "bad." But how can a rifle that's not accurate enough for target shooting or hunting be an effective sniper's weapon? Senator Lenett is apparently more than a little confused--perhaps the residents of his district (the people he claims to represent) need to educate him.

The Brady Bunch apparently saw an opportunity here, and started an all-out media blitz, including a radio ad campaign. Here's an excerpt from the transcript from the ad.

State Senator James Brochin from the Baltimore area is the key vote needed now to pass this bill.

Please call Senator Brochin at 410-841-3648. Ask him to support Senate Bill 43 to ban assault rifles. Make sure your voice is heard. That number again: 410-841-3648.

They certainly went to a lot of trouble to concentrate on one state senator, didn't they? I'm not sure how they identified Brochin as they're best bet to get the bill out of committee, but they sure wanted to buy a lot of pressure to bring to bear on him.

Well, apparently the people of Maryland don't harbor as much anti-gun sentiment as Helmke and his minions had hoped, because clearly there were not enough phone calls to sway Senator Brochin. Brochin voted against the bill, leaving it with too few votes to get out of committee. It is now quite likely to die a richly deserved death. Senator Brochin had a few words of his own, after the vote.

"The only people we target in this bill are law-abiding citizens who use these guns for target shooting or competitions," Brochin said. "I wish gun control worked, but it doesn't make any sense."

Since the Bradys so kindly provided a phone number at which to reach Senator Brochin, it would probably be a good idea to call him and thank him for his defense of the rights of Maryland residents.

UPDATE: The Bradys aren't happy. Kind of amusing that the most they can threaten Senators Brochin and Stone with is a pledge to fight their reelections--in November 2010.

I promise that after today, I'll shut up about Illinois for a minute or two

Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day (IGOLD) '07 is officially in the books now. By all accounts, it was a roaring success, with an estimated 1200 responsible, law-abiding gun owners of Illinois refusing to be ignored by those who would write the laws by which the law-abiding must live. The gross distortions of the ICHV and Gun Guys notwithstanding, yesterday's endeavor made the will of the people known, in the finest tradition of grassroots lobbying.

One of the most important movers and shakers in the huge effort that went into IGOLD was Illinois Carry's own Valinda Rowe. She organized the other ladies attending IGOLD into a separate group, which visited the offices of Governor Blagojevich, Senate President Emil Jones, and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan. The governor was unavailable to meet them, as were his senior staffers, to everyone's shock (that's sarcasm, in case anyone missed it). The good ladies left behind some information about gun rights for the governor--he clearly needs an education on the subject.

Ms. Rowe also read a statement while at the governor's outer office. It's a powerful statement, and bears repeating.

Women of Illinois

Demand Right to Self-defense

March 14, 2007

Illinois State Capitol, Springfield, IL

1. The right to self-defense is a basic human right and is recognized and protected in 48 out of 50 of states as well as in our state and U.S. Constitutions.

2. Illinois is one of only two states that still do not have a right to carry law which would make it possible for law abiding citizens to carry a firearm on their person or in their vehicle to be used for protecting their families and themselves.

3. The only means of self-defense available to women in the state of Illinois is a court ordered Order of Protection, and that is only available if the woman knows the identity of a potential threat. Even that small bit of protection is ineffective in light of the fact 3,728 orders of protection are violated each year in the state of Illinois. The random victims of 766 murders, 5,982 criminal sexual assaults, 42,264 aggravated assaults, aggravated battery, attempted murders & ritual mutilations in 2005 alone were not afforded any protection!

4. The women of Illinois hereby demand the right to protect themselves with a Right to Carry law that is already honored and respected in the other 48 states.

The right to carry is coming to the state of Illinois it is only a matter of time. 48 STATES CANNOT BE WRONG. The legislators of the 95th General Assembly can either go down in history as having turned their backs on defenseless Illinois women who fall victim to violent crimes – or they can go down in history as having restored the basic human right of self-defense to the women of this great state! We urge the 95th General Assembly to pass the Family and Personal Protection Act SB348 and HB1304.

Women of Illinois

Protest Restrictions on Law-abiding Gun Owners

1. According to Chicago Police Department records more people were killed with baseball bats than so-called assault rifles and shotguns put together. Even more were killed by knives and hands and feet.

2. The LAWLESS ARE NOT BOUND BY ANY LAW much less one prohibiting the possession of firearms. This bill would leave firearms in the hands of criminals while disarming law abiding gun owners who have committed no crime and pose no threat to anyone.

3. Authorized studies of the federal assault weapons ban, which was allowed to sunset, determined there was no evidence to support the idea that the ban reduced crime.

4. What this bill calls an “assault weapon” is actually what thousands call home defense firearms and are used to protect families. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina law abiding gun owners used these very guns to protect their families and their neighborhoods in the chaos and aftermath that followed that disaster.

For thousands more these guns are precision target firearms long used by millions in the United States greatest historical tradition of marksmanship and hunting.

This bill is not an anti-crime bill; it is an anti-gun owner bill. We urge you to vote “NO” on SB16 and HB873 .

Governor Blagojevich did not hear that statement, which is too bad, because he clearly needs to. Perhaps, though, it is more important that the women of Illinois--the people most victimized by Illinois' state-mandated defenselessness--hear it (or at least read it). Toward that end, I intend to spread the good word just as far and wide as I can.

IGOLD 2007 was bigger than we had dared hope, and a rousing success. Those who advocate the disarmament of Illinois should be looking ahead to IGOLD '08 with dread, because it will be bigger yet, and WE SHALL OVERCOME

(Belated) good wishes for IGOLD

I had meant to post this early this morning, and then got distracted. Here's hoping for a hugely successful Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day. I wish I could be there. To everyone that did go--my eternal thanks.

We shall overcome.

Just one more reason to kill NICS "Improvement" Act

I've discussed Representative Carolyn McCarthy's (N.Y.) so-called NICS "Improvement" Act before (most recently here), and expressed why I believe that the only thing that would be improved if this passed into law is the government's ability to collect more personal information about us, and use that information to deny rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Gun Owners of America provides a good description the Orwellian dangers of the bill here.

Today, the part I intend to focus on is the close government scrutiny of mental health records this bill would provide for, particularly in regard to military veterans returning from honorable service overseas.

This could have a significant impact on American servicemen, especially those returning from combat situations and who seek some type of psychiatric care. Often, veterans who have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder have been deemed as mentally "incompetent" and are prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). Records of those instances certainly exist, and, in 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system.

The last time I talked about H.R. 297, I deplored the egregious injustice of, as "thanks" for their courageous defense of American interests abroad, denying these brave men and women the right to bear arms in defense of themselves here at home.

My opinion of the outrageous inequity of that has not changed--what has changed is my realization of the potential scope of the issue. In a survey of more than 100,000 veterans returning from fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan nearly a third were found to have some kind of mental health issues--such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression.

The vast majority of these men and women pose no threat to society, and yet could, under the provisions of the NICS "Improvement" Act, be denied the right to buy and own firearms, in the same way that rapists and murderers released from prison are. A "Thank you for your service--keep your hands where I can see them" kind of welcome home.

Oddly enough, the NRA actually supports H.R. 297. In this, I submit that they are on the wrong side.

NICS doesn't need to be improved--it needs to be scrapped. If we absolutely must have a "prohibited purchaser" list (I'm not convinced that we do--if someone is too dangerous to be trusted to buy a firearm legally, he is too dangerous to be trusted not to obtain one illegally, or to not simply commit carnage without a firearm--but that's another debate), BIDS would be a real improvement.

The lying hypocrites at the ICHV whine about IGOLD

The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence is apparently worried enough about tomorrow's grassroots push for gun rights in Illinois (IGOLD) that they've put out their own press release, full of distortions, in an effort to discredit it.

The gist of their "message" is that gun manufacturers are sponsoring this event. Put bluntly and simply--the ICHV is full of crap.

Of the 8 buses bearing determined gun rights activists of Illinois, a grand total of two are sponsored by manufacturers. My friends at Illinois Carry, along with the folks at the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), and Guns Save Life (formerly the Champaign County Rifle Association) have done the hard work of setting this up (and that work included approaching the manufacturers to request some help with chartering the buses). One dedicated member is putting up thousands of dollars of his own money to support this effort.

Contrast that to Mayor Daley's approach of encouraging city employees to take off work early, to be bused down to Springfield, to help lobby to disarm the law-abiding citizens of Illinois. Yeah--that sounds like grassroots.

One of the interesting things about the ICHV complaining about gun industry money is that the ICHV has received almost $1.8 million of Joyce Foundation largess.

I bet Thom Mannard, at ICHV, gets paid pretty well.

UPDATE: The Gun Guys have thrown in their 2 cents (probably overpriced, at that). They don't really say anything beyond Mannard's distortions, other than referring to gun rights activists as "smelly." They certainly have a sophisticated debating style, don't they? I imagine most people don't think of that particular riposte until they're at least 6 years old or so.

Don't forget IGOLD!

I've mentioned IGOLD several times before. It's tomorrow, so I'm almost done bothering you about it. I've told you about a few of the worst of the gun rights suppression bills oozing their way through the Illinois Politburo General Assembly--there are plenty of other, minor ones, and even a few good ones (check ISRA's homepage--currently the second item--or simply click here for the pdf version, for more details about both good and bad bills).

We have high hopes that IGOLD is going to be big, with lots of law-abiding citizens and some press coverage. Our legislators would prefer to ignore us. We intend to make that impossible tomorrow. Chicago Mayor Daley and his minions like to establish a presence at the capitol, but do so by shipping busloads of city employees (on the clock, with their wages coming from the taxpayers, and the buses paid for the same way). We hope to have a much larger presence, and this will be a real grassroots effort. Let's show them that the suppression of rights runs absolutely counter to the will of the people.

IGOLD can go a long way to protecting gun rights in Illinois, and even regaining some that have been lost. If you can make it to Springfield tomorrow, please do.

Ohio preemption law goes into effect tomorrow

I had watched closely during the fight to overturn Governor Taft's veto of the bill that would provide Ohio residents with uniform gun laws. I don't live in Ohio--haven't been there in years, and don't know when I'll be back--but since I firmly believe that a victory for gun rights (and thus all rights) in one place is a victory for rights everywhere, I was thrilled to see the forces of good, with the Buckeye Firearms Association at the forefront, overcome the suppression of the rights of law-abiding Ohio residents.

The law goes into effect tomorrow. When it does, the ridiculous requirement that concealed carry licensees carry their firearms in plain sight while driving, will be no more than a minor historical embarrassment. The ban on homeland defense firearms in Columbus will likewise go to the trash, where it belongs. City parks in which the only armed people were lawbreakers will now no longer carry that dubious distinction.

Judging from this Associated Press question and answer piece, there are still some who see armed citizens--law-abiding or not--as threats.

Q: Why did the Legislature feel it necessary to allow people to carry hidden guns in their cars and trucks?

A: Lawmakers, prodded by gun-rights advocates, said the law was inconsistent in allowing permit-holders to carry hidden guns on the street but not in their cars.

"Prodded" by gun-rights advocates, or by their own common sense?

Q: What do law enforcement agencies think about guns hidden in cars?

A: Some law enforcement agencies were opposed to the provision because of concerns about officers' safety or were officially neutral.

Which would seem to imply, although the AP of course doesn't bother to come out and say it, that some law enforcement agencies were actually in favor of the change.

Q: What was the reasoning behind that change?

A: The National Rifle Association and other proponents of getting rid of the community regulations say the state had a patchwork of local gun laws that varied among communities. A person traveling through the state could be obeying the law in one place but breaking it in the next town.

It's not so much that the NRA and others said there was a patchwork of laws--there indisputably was one.

Just gotta love journalistic objectivity, don't you?

Still more anguished bleating over the Washington DC Appeals Court ruling

The opening sentence of this Reuters article is a bit tough to comprehend.

A U.S. appeals court on Friday struck down a 30-year-old Washington, D.C., law that bans handguns in homes, a precedent-setting ruling that dealt a setback to a city with one of America's highest crime rates.

How can the abandonment of a crime fighting strategy that has demonstrated its utter futility for over thirty years be considered a "setback"? Is it the Reuters staff's position that the continuation of abject failure is progress? Keep in mind, the handgun ban was fully in place last July, when Washington DC declared a "crime emergency"--is someone trying to tell us that the ban was working well?

Our favorite United States Senator from New Jersey was predictably apoplectic.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey, criticized the ruling.

"On the same day a new report demonstrated a sharp rise in violent crime, a federal court handed down a decision that could pour even more guns onto the streets of our nation's capital. This decision is a major setback in the effort to make communities safer," he said.

Lautenberg was referring to a study released by the Police Executive Research Forum. Here are some of the findings of that study:

* Forty of the 56 surveyed police departments, or 71 percent, saw homicide rates increase over the two-year period. That translated into an overall 10.2 percent jump in murders. Between 2005 and 2006, the increase in murders was much lower: 2.8 percent.

* Robberies rose among the cities by 6 percent since 2005 and 12 percent since 2004. Between 75 and 80 percent of the departments surveyed reported a spike in robberies over the two-year period.

* Felony robberies dipped slightly, by 2 percent, between 2005 and 2006, but rose slightly, by 3 percent, since 2004.

* Gun assaults saw a 1 percent boost from 2005 but spiked by nearly 10 percent during the two-year period.

I couldn't help but notice some points in that study that would seem to indicate that we're not exactly riding an explosively growing crime wave. Consider:

That translated into an overall 10.2 percent jump in murders. Between 2005 and 2006, the increase in murders was much lower: 2.8 percent.

The 2004-2006 murder rate jump was 10.2%, but only 2.8% of that came in 2005-2006 (meaning the other 7.8% came in 2004-2005)

Felony robberies dipped slightly, by 2 percent, between 2005 and 2006, but rose slightly, by 3 percent, since 2004.

Felony robberies actually fell by 2% from 2005-2006, but there was a net increase of 3% over the two year period--meaning that although there was a 5% increase in 2004-2005, we gained back much of the lost ground last year.

Gun assaults saw a 1 percent boost from 2005 but spiked by nearly 10 percent during the two-year period.

Gun assaults went up nearly 10% over the two year period, but 9 tenths of that must have happened in 2004-2005, because the 2005-2006 increase was only 1%.

Almost all of this "2 year increase" seems to have occurred in the first year. What all this tells me is that this "spike" in violent crime seems to be leveling off--and rather dramatically. Funny how the article doesn't mention that.

But even if we buy Lautenberg's alarmist claims that violent crime is spiraling out of control, how does that lead anyone to the conclusion that the way to counter is to continue DC's obviously failed strategy?

It should be obvious that civilian disarmament laws disarm only those who obey laws, thus rendering them helpless against those who do not. Defeating such laws is only a "setback" for those who wish to continue to terrorize our nation's neighborhoods with impunity.

Illinios gets tough on crime . . . victims

Back to my regular scheduled programming--my series about the Illinois Politburo's General Assembly's assaults on personal liberty. Today we'll talk about HB 1696, which doesn't really seem to have a name, as far as I can tell, so I'll just call it the Turning Crime Victims Into Criminals Act. Catchy, isn't it?

Anyway, this bill, if passed into law, would make it a criminal offense to fail to report, within 72 hours, the theft of a firearm. We've seen laws like this passed at the municipal level (I think Los Angeles has such a law), and there's some pressure to pass them at the state level in places--Connecticut is one such state, and I believe I've read somewhere that the California legislature is considering bringing the entire state down to LA's level in that regard, but as far as I'm aware, no state has passed such a law yet.

Why is this a bad thing, you ask? Wouldn't you want the police to know if your firearm(s) had been stolen? Personally, yes, I would. But the fact that I would do something does not mean that I should be happy about being compelled by law to do so.

I see a great deal of potential for abuse in this legislation. For example, the owner breaks the law if more than 72 hours passes between his discovery of the theft, and his reporting of it. But how can it be proved when he became aware of it? Does it come down to a question of when "he should have known"? So now, gun owners risk criminal culpability if they don't check on all their firearms every so often? What happens if you're away from the house for a few days?

By moving any amount of responsibility for a stolen gun to the person from whom it was stolen, this legislation could be seen as just the first step toward laws like those in Australia and Canada, requiring firearms to be stored in vaults, subject to police inspections (without warrants, I believe). What happened to placing the responsibility for a crime squarely on the shoulders of the perpetrator of the crime? Criminalizing gun ownership won't happen overnight, so the civilian disarmament lobby is willing to be patient and incremental in the implementation of their agenda.

Another aspect of this bill might require some explanation for people fortunate enough to live outside Illinois. Since about 1968 (not a good year for gun rights), Illinois has required every gun owner (and every ammunition owner) to have a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card. Actually, the evils of the FOID Act are worth an entire blog entry of their own, so I'll forego a more detailed explanation for now, and go straight to FOID's relevance to this bill. Not only would a gun owner's failure to report theft of a firearm be a crime, but that crime would be grounds for revocation of the owner's FOID, meaning he could not buy guns or ammunition, and any guns he already owned would render him a felon (for possessing firearms without a valid FOID).

Still another problem with this bill would be its apparent potential for conflict with the Fifth Amendment. If, for example, a resident of one of the Illinois municipalities that bans possession of handguns for the lowly masses had decided that his safety was more important than compliance with draconian gun laws, and that handgun was then stolen--what does he do? The new law would compel him to incriminate himself for violation of the handgun ban. That is clearly unconstitutional, as I imagine the courts would agree. Keep in mind also that if SB 0016 passes, by the way, there are going to be plenty of otherwise law-abiding citizens all over the state who would be legally compelled to incriminate themselves on a felony violation.

There are plenty of real criminals running loose on society--let's not make new ones out of people who have no criminal intent.

Angst from the Brady Bunch

Today, I had actually planned to write about something other than the Federal Appeals Court ruling striking down the Washington DC gun ban. So much is being written about it on the gun forums and blogs, by people who have so much more knowledge about it than I do, that I figured I'd leave it to them, at least for the moment, and write about something else.

Leave it to the Brady Bunch to lay waste to my best laid plans. Their "news" release yesterday somehow managed to cram into two short paragraphs enough effluvia to overwhelm a major city's sewage treatment infrastructure (say what you want about Helmke--you have to admit that he's efficient). Anyway, I simply could not resist the urge to respond.

The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst.

Judicial activism!?! Perhaps I can be forgiven for momentarily wondering if Paul had somehow developed a sense of humor, or at least an appreciation of irony. That, of course, is not the case--Helmke was not making a joke, and is really arguing that a court decision that says that the Second Amendment means what it says is "judicial activism." He would have us believe that twisting the Bill of Rights into a meaning that supports a desired (by him) outcome is the proper role for judges. It's a strange world he lives in.

By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

The "nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent" Paul accuses the judges of "disregarding" is actually nearly seventy years of silence from the Supreme Court on Second Amendment issues. Helmke would apparently have us believe that since 1939, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled in favor of the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. Not so--the Supreme Court has not heard a single case dealing specifically with the Second Amendment since United States v. Miller, in 1939.

Interestingly enough, by the way, United States v. Miller in no way validates the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. The decision did indeed state that prosecuting the defendant under the National Firearms Act, for his possession of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, was not in conflict with the Second Amendment. However, this decision had nothing to do with a mythical "collective right"--it was based on the Court's (erroneous) belief that a sawed-off shotgun would not serve as a useful militia weapon, and its possession is thus not protected by the Second Amendment.

If one thinks about that, it becomes rather startling that civilian disarmament advocates want to talk about U.S. v. Miller at all. The gun ban lobby routinely singles out a class of firearms (be it so-called assault weapons, .50 caliber rifles, etc.) for attack, "because it has no sporting use, and is meant for the battlefield," and thus should be banned. This completely ignores the fact that Miller's Second Amendment defense failed precisely because the Court believed his weapon had no utility on the battlefield. That's right--by the U.S. v. Miller precedent, defending the right to possess any given type of weapon depends not on proving it has a "sporting use," but on proving that it has a military one. Forget bans of so-called "assault weapons" and .50 caliber (or larger!) rifles, never mind restrictions on fully automatic weapons--ownership of these types of arms is precisely what the Second Amendment is intended to protect.

It would seem that Helmke and his allies would be better served trying to make us forget U.S. v. Miller--not pointing to it as justification for draconian gun laws.

U.S. Court of Appeals: 2nd Amendment protects individual right

And now for a HUGE interruption of my long litany of bad news on the gun rights front. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington has determined the obvious--that the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment is utter hogwash.

The decision came in a battle over the Constitutionality of Washington DC's longstanding ban on handguns. This ruling marks a vast, and long overdue shift in the way federal courts have looked at gun rights. The battle is far from over, with a Supreme Court fight looking likely, but the outlook may be brighter than it has been since 1934.

This will be a short entry, because I'm still trying to figure out the complexities (the entire decision--all 75 pages of it--is here), but there will be plenty of news about this for quite awhile.

The Victim Proliferation Center is in a shrieking, hysterical panic over it. The last sentence is absolutely classic:

While today’s decision is a dream come true for America’s gun lobby and gunmakers, it may mark the beginning of a long, national nightmare from which we will never recover as nation.

Aww--poor sheeple. It's enough to make them lose their appetite for tofu-kiwi burgers. I'm waiting with bated breath for what the Gun Guys have to say about it.

This could be huge, folks.

The end of handgun sales in Illinois

I've been somewhat narrowly focused on pending Illinois legislation aimed at destroying what's left of the Second Amendment here, in my recent blog entries (here and here) about the drive to ban homeland defense firearms in the state. Hopefully I can be forgiven for sticking with an Illinois-centric perspective a bit longer--this does, after all, hit close to home.

Today's topic is a rather more subtle attack on gun rights--it doesn't ban any firearms outright--HB 0796, the Handgun Dealer Licensing Act takes a different angle of attack. Most know that any firearms dealer anywhere in the country already faces rigorous (some might say suffocating) licensing requirements, enforced by the BATFE.

Apparently, these requirements are not onerous enough for those in the Illinois legislature who are waging a jihad on gun rights, because they would now like to require a state license (administered by the Illinois State Police), in addition to the federal license, for any firearms dealer whose inventory includes a handgun. Actually, it goes farther than that, and would require the same license for any gunsmith who works on handguns.

The requirements include (among other things) A) an extensive criminal background check--despite the fact that the federal license requires one; B) a $300 fee, for a three year license--the renewal fee is also $300; and c) fingerprinting, with an associated, undisclosed "fingerprinting fee," payable to (guess who) the Illinois State Police (this is beginning to look like a pretty nice source of income for the ISP, isn't it?).

Small, part time dealers who operate out of their homes will be largely eliminated not only by the expense (which would also include the Retailers' Occupation Tax), but also by a requirement that the building in which they conduct the business (their homes, in the specific case I refer to here) be located in an area that is zoned for retail commerce.

The bill also makes vague references to "reasonable precautions" the dealer must take to avoid selling his wares to someone who intends to use them for criminal purposes. These precautions include the redundant (because it is already required by federal law) requirement to refuse obvious "straw sales," the dealer must refuse sales to a prospective buyer whose home address lies in one of the numerous municipalities in Illinois in which handgun possession is banned outright, and other "reasonable precautions"--and the requirements are not limited to those specified in the bill--meaning . . . whatever the "authorities" want it to. Basically, it seems that if you are not clairvoyant, the state of Illinois is likely to find you unsuitable to be a handgun dealer.

Worse yet is this part (emphasis added):

Section 15. License application; fees; penalty.
(a) The Department may grant a handgun dealer license to an
applicant who satisfies the following requirements: . . .

Notice the "may" in there--meaning that even if an applicant (or renewal applicant) meets every one of these requirements, he or she can still be denied a license, for any, arbitrary reason (or no reason it all). This means that any time the state wants to shut down all handgun sales in the state, all license applications can be denied. Since people without Federal Firearms Licenses cannot buy handguns out of state, the vast majority of people do not have that option. I suspect that this is the real motivation behind this proposed legislation.

Partly to save the what might be the most dramatically, insidiously evil part for last, and partly because it only now finally occurred to me, I will now point out what might be worse yet. I had assumed that this bill was all about handguns (the title, after all, is the Handgun Dealer Licensing Act), but in the actual text of the bill, "handgun dealer" is defined as someone engaged in the business of selling concealable firearms--after the title section, no more mention is made of handguns--it's all about "concealable firearms." What they don't define, however, is what, exactly, constitutes a "concealable firearm"--people have concealed AK-47's under trench coats or long robes. Come to think of it, back in my days as an artilleryman, we "concealed" entire howitzers under camouflage nets. Is this bill intended to end not just the sale of handguns in the state, but of all guns?

In a state governed by "Gun Ban Rod," I wouldn't bet against it.

The Cardassian Rifle Association?

Never let it be said that I am unwilling to acknowledge the fact that I was wrong, when that fact becomes apparent. Thus, I must admit that my prediction on Tuesday, that the Gun Guys would simply ignore Zumbo, now that he seems to have figured out what the Second Amendment is about, is wrong. This is what I predicted two days ago about their reaction.

It will be amusing to see how they react when he starts extolling the virtues of homeland defense firearms, and of tactical shooting in general.

As they generally do when facts become inconvenient for them (as they inevitably do), they'll probably just ignore his conversion to freedom advocacy.

As it turns out, I was wrong. The Gun Guys aren't ignoring his conversion--they're attributing it to . . . the Cardassians. If that confuses you, don't feel bad--it just means you're not a Trekkie (actually, since the Gun Guys were referring to Star Trek: The Next Generation, I guess it means you're not a neo-Trekkie)--I think you can be forgiven.

Anyway, not being a fan of the show myself, apparently the protagonist was a prisoner of an alien race (the Cardassians), who attempted to brainwash him with a combination of torture and drugs. This, of course, is very similar to what angry, betrayed gun rights activists did to Zumbo (except for the lack of torture, and of drugs). Hmm--OK, so it wasn't similar--since all we did was inform Zumbo's sponsors that we would not give our patronage to businesses who financed the dissemination of ridiculous prejudices against certain firearms, based on aesthetics. If Zumbo has ever been the victim of brainwashing with regards to so-called "assault weapons," it was gun rights activists who cured him of it.

At least the Gun Guys' story was entertaining. Maybe, instead of writing commentary intended to guide public policy, their obviously impressive science fiction TV watching credentials could be better employed in writing synopses of science fiction TV series.

We who have dedicated ourselves to protecting Americans from forcible disarmament are certainly drawing a lot of interesting comparisons these days. From Bill Schneider's "black rifle Gestapo" and "attack dogs" (an improvement, I suppose), to the Gun Guys' even more creative comparison to hyper-advanced aliens--the sky is the limit for us, I guess.

More about Illinois SB 0016

I know I just talked about this yesterday, but there have been new, ominous developments--and besides, this hits awfully close to home for me. Yesterday, SB 0016 passed its hearing in the Senate Public Health Committee, and is now headed for a floor vote.

The Illinois State Rifle Association reports that the way in which it passed through the committee was particularly egregious, and provides a chilling reminder of just how far the rights suppression lobby is willing to go to disarm the law-abiding citizens of Illinois.

4. In a tactic as bad as the Soviet Union, Committee Chairman Susan Garrett denied gun owners the opportunity to testify against SB16 in senate hearings on the bill today. In effect, YOUR VOICE WAS SILENCED by Sen. Garrett. Of course, Daley’s Gun Grabbers were allowed to testify. So, it is important that you call Sen. Garrett’s office at (217) 782-3650, and remind the person who answers the phone that this is still the United States of America and that you are angry that Sen. Garrett denied your fellow citizens the right to be heard. Also, call Garrett’s district office at (847) 433-2002 and tell the person there the same thing.

That is what the Illinois political machine thinks of the Bill of Rights--so desperate are they to throw out the Second Amendment, that they have no compunction about crushing the First Amendment rights of those who would speak against their civilian disarmament agenda.

By the way, in the wake of the Zumbo debacle, the enemies of private firearm ownership are busily trying to exploit the perceived gulf between hunters and those of us who believe in firearms as a bulwark against tyranny. Whether such a schism actually exists or not, hunters (and other sport shooters) have no less of a stake than gun rights activists in defeating this legislative abomination. The bill's definition of "assault shotguns" includes the following provisions:

(D) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the
following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5
rounds; or
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable
magazine.

The section in bold type effectively outlaws all semi-automatic shotguns, because any magazine that can hold 4 or more 2.75" shells (as all that I know of can, when the plug is removed) can hold more than 5 of the 1.75" Aguila "Minishells." The bill says nothing about whether or not the gun can cycle the ammo, only the number of shells the magazine can hold. Want to introduce your son or daughter to waterfowl or turkey hunting with a semi-auto's soft recoil--too bad--those will be illegal.

This bill would overnight create literally tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of new "gun criminals," out of law-abiding Illinois citizens. Perhaps that is the plan. Perhaps the vast surge in "gun crime" will be used to justify even more, yet more draconian gun laws. Pretty clever, really.

The agenda to disarm Illinois is well underway. If we let it happen, we'll deserve what we get. Don't forget IGOLD
.

I would like to express my thanks to David Codrea, at War on Guns, for posting information about this.

Welcome back, Zumbo

I had been one of the holdouts in forgiving Zumbo for his astonishingly foolish remarks equating homeland defense rifles with "terrorism," but it is now, I think, time to embrace a scarred comrade in arms (even if his wounds were largely self-inflicted), rather than throw away what he can do to advance the cause of gun rights in America.

His initial apologies fell rather short, but this letter to CCRKBA's Alan Gottlieb indicates to me that he will be better as an ally than as an enemy.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

This comes none too soon, as today, Paul Helmke himself made his pitch to try to exploit what he perceives to be a fault line in the gun owning fraternity. Helmke even quotes Bill Schneider referring to gun rights activists as the "black rifle Gestapo." Godwin's Law lives on.

The Gun Guys have, oddly enough (I would imagine that he's the first hunting writer to get that kind of treatment from them), elevated Zumbo to some kind of saintly status, for arguing against so-called "assault weapons" (they even dishonestly portrayed his stance as advocating restrictions on ownership of these firearms, when he actually only argued against their use for hunting--and now he acknowledges that he was way off base with that). It will be amusing to see how they react when he starts extolling the virtues of homeland defense firearms, and of tactical shooting in general.

As they generally do when facts become inconvenient for them (as they inevitably do), they'll probably just ignore his conversion to freedom advocacy.

Illinois mounts its own assault on freedom (another one)

I've talked (here and here) about Maryland's proposed ban on homeland defense firearms, and I've talked a bit the proposed new federal AWB, H.R. 1022, but until now, didn't have much to say about this year's version of the Illinois plan to disarm the law-abiding. The reason for that is that until now, there wasn't enough to Illinois S.B. 0016 to comment on.

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

New Act

Creates the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007. Contains only a short title provision.


A BILL FOR


SB0016

1 AN ACT concerning criminal law.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007.

That's how it stood from Jan. 31 until yesterday, when they finally decided to get around to telling us peons what they had in store for us (it's too long to post here--after all, they have a vast number of firearms they want to ban--but there's the link).

It would ban almost all semi-automatic firearms, .50 caliber rifles (which still don't seem to have caused any deaths in America yet), and magazines that can hold eleven or more rounds.

This isn't about saving lives--this is, as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer said about the now-defunct federal AWB, about desensitizing the public to the idea of an all out ban on all firearms. That is always the agenda that drives every piece of restrictive gun legislation introduced.

I guess that's the kind of legislation (and those are the kinds of legislators) that $1.8 million of Joyce Foundation money given to the ICHV buys.

Don't forget about IGOLD a week from tomorrow. Our legislators need an education more than ever, and they need it in a hurry.

Don't they (the BATFE) have anything better to do?

I will soon be taking possession of a Kel-Tec PLR-16 "pistol." The idea behind purchasing something of such admittedly limited utility is that I've been bitten by the bug to have a firearm in the general class that offended Jim Zumbo so much, but being paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair, a full size rifle (or even a carbine) seemed a bit awkward and impractical.

There are, of course, several AR "pistol" variants out there, but with the big ol' buffer tube sticking out the back, they're little more compact than a carbine. The Kel-Tec doesn't have that--and it's considerably cheaper.

What does this have to do with our favorite band of merry stormtroopers? Well, I also ordered the forend piece, which includes an under-barrel picatinny rail. Not only does the attachment make the entire ensemble look much cooler, it would also make attaching a vertical foregrip (which I suspect would be especially useful for me, because of my limited lower trunk strength, and thus compromised balance and stability) a trivial exercise. Trivial, that is, from a mechanical standpoint. Legally, it's anything but, as the BATFE helpfully advises us.

ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.

So, to keep America safer, a modification to a gun that makes it more easily used by a paraplegic carries with it a ten year prison sentence, unless it's done in conjunction with jumping through a ridiculous series of legal and bureaucratic hoops. Thank you, BATFE--that should certainly help to reduce violence.

If I decide to bother with all this, I have a choice of which particular hoops I subject myself to. Here's option number one:

To lawfully add a vertical fore grip to a handgun, a person must make an appropriate application on ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.” The applicant must submit the completed form, along with a fingerprint card bearing the applicant’s fingerprints; a photograph; and $200.00. The application will be reviewed by the NFA Branch. If the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law, and possession of an “AOW” is not prohibited in the applicant’s State of residence, the form will be approved. Only then may the person add a vertical fore grip to the designated handgun.

So, to install a foregrip ($12 from MidwayUSA, with my dealer discount that I get by virtue of having my C&R license on file with them), I have to pay the feds $200--not to mention sending them a photograph and fingerprints (what--no DNA sample?). Obviously, I'm not much interested in that option.

Onto option number two:

A person may also send the handgun to a person licensed to manufacture NFA weapons. The manufacturer will install the fore grip on the firearm and register the firearm on an ATF Form 2. The manufacturer can then transfer the firearm back to the individual on an ATF Form 4, which results in a $5.00 transfer tax. If the manufacturer is out of State, the NFA Branch will need a clarification letter submitted with the ATF Form 4 so that the NFA Branch Examiner will know the circumstances of the transfer. Questions can be directed to the NFA Branch or the Firearms Technology Branch.

OK, instead of a $200 tax, I pay a $5 one--I can live with that. But, I have to pay a licensed NFA firearms manufacturer to perform the "installation" (which even a mechanically challenged doofus like myself could do in seconds), plus shipping back and forth. I don't know if I can even find someone with the license who would agree to this kind of trivial deal--especially in Illinois (doing it out of state would necessitate even more paperwork). Finally, I would have to get the chief of my local police department to sign the ATF Form 4 application--something he is under no legal obligation to do (I have no idea whether he would be willing to do so, or not).

We keep hearing the Brady Bunch wail and complain that the BATFE is overwhelmed, understaffed, and underfunded. Maybe if they got out of the business of regulating the most insanely trivial aspects of firearm ownership, sale, and manufacture, they wouldn't be in such a position.

"A force for destruction"

I wasn't going to bother with this tripe (actually, I might owe tripe an apology), but I just can't seem to help myself. According to Dan K. Thomasson, the "NRA is a force for destruction." In Thomasson's view, apparently, a lobbying group that advocates a position with which he disagrees is akin to an American Hezbollah.

The nation's police chiefs have a serious problem. Their troops are being out-gunned, and to correct the situation taxpayers must increase law-enforcement budgets substantially or find some way to ban the circulation of weapons and ammunition meant for the battlefield - mainly, semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets.

That argument that police are now being forced to purchase more firepower, because they face more of it in the hands of the felons they're trying to stop, has been floating around lately (I discussed it a bit here), and frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. Can anyone tell me of an incident since the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout just over 10 years ago, in which the problem was that the police had inadequate firepower on hand? As a side note about that incident, keep in mind that part of the solution for the police was to borrow weapons and ammunition from a nearby gun shop--if those items had not been legal for civilians, there would not likely have been such a convenient source of them for the police, and the outcome could have been tragic. Keep in mind also that this robbery was in 1997--when the federal ban on "assault weapons" had been in effect for 3 years--I guess that shows how well bans work at preventing criminals from arming themselves.

I do agree that police budgets are often somewhat lacking--the Lapeer County (MI) Sheriff's Office, for example, is so strapped for cash that it is trying to make a sale--of the department's fully-automatic M-16. Not exactly the asset one would expect the department would be willing to part with amid concerns of being "outgunned."

As to the "semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets," there are no semi-automatic assault rifles--assault rifles, by definition, have a fully-automatic capability. Granted, the VPC and Brady Bunch types have invented the term "assault weapons" in reference to semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles, but the definition constantly changes, depending on who is doing the defining, and how ambitious he or she is about how many firearms can be banned at the time. If by "armor-piercing bullets," Thomasson means bullets that can penetrate the soft body armor normally worn by patrol officers under their shirts, then virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition, from the 19th century on, qualifies. "Meant for the battlefield" does not enter the picture here.

And where citizens are unwilling to spend the money to equip their guardians with weapons and armor now readily available to criminals, the threat to themselves and those they hire to protect them is likely to increase proportionately. It's just that simple.

This passage displays one of the fundamental philosophical differences between those who favor draconian gun restrictions, and those of us who are appalled at the idea of a government monopoly on the use of force--Thomasson thinks of police as our "guardians," hired to "protect" us (despite court ruling after court ruling stating that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens), while we demand that we not be stripped of our ability to protect ourselves. It's just that simple, Dan.

The Maryland legislature currently is considering a bill to ban the semiautomatic rifles, and the opposition has been loud and persistent.

By now, Thomasson has at least gotten honest enough to drop the "assault" pretense--if it's semi-automatic, he wants it banned. If he and his ideological allies win that battle, then it will be time to argue that bolt-actions, pump-actions, lever-actions, etc. are not much slower to operate than semi-autos, and need to be banned as well.

This is a land where the right to traffic in firearms, no matter how dangerous to law and order, is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets and enforced by a self-appointed virulent lobby called the National Rifle Association.

Interesting--he acknowledges the Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. He then dismisses it, apparently on the grounds that the Founding Fathers lacked the wit to realize that firearm technology would evolve. Obviously, they would also not have predicted the vast advancements in communications technology--looks as if the First Amendment is dangerously outmoded, as well. Or just maybe, they believed that just as freedom of speech shouldn't depend on there being no efficient means to communicate on a large scale, the right of the people to arm themselves as well as government soldiers shouldn't depend on firearms being clumsy, inefficient means of defense.

Now, poor, confused, old Jim Zumbo gets dragged back into it.

Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own proves conclusively that Zumbo was right in suggesting that terrorism is not unknown to the gun lobby?

Well Dan, since you ask--yes it would be out of place. Not just because there was no "swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA" (but rather a delayed, subdued one, after a firestorm of outrage from individual gun owners whom he had equated with terrorists), but mostly because terrorism involves killing, on a large scale. Zumbo had his career wrecked and his feelings hurt--he wasn't machine gunned, blown up, or gassed to death, along with dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of other people. That's terrorism. What the "gun lobby" (if that's what you insist on calling thousands of individual gun owners) did was retort to an unfair, inaccurate, and hurtful charge of terrorism.

That is why the increasingly frantic efforts of law enforcers to win some sort of reasonable control over the kinds of weapons they face on the street are pretty much futile. Politicians want to be re-elected.

Ahh, tragic--politicians forced to bend to the will of their constituents in order to get re-elected. If only we had a political system in which the government wasn't held to any kind of accountability--eh, Dan?

Dan K. Thomasson is a tool (if not a particularly effective one, thankfully) of tyranny.

Bill Boyne defends defenselessness

Bill Boyne believes in the forcible disarmament of all American civilians who are not law enforcement officers. Gun rights activists (of whom I like to flatter myself as being a member) tend to be seen as paranoid when they accuse someone of advocating the complete abolition of private ownership of firearms, but there's no risk of that here--this guy comes right out and says it (in the title of his op-ed piece).

Bill Boyne: Guns should be restricted to soldiers, police officers

He certainly cannot be accused of ambiguity, or of beating around the bush.

A recent report by the U.S. Justice department indicates that Americans were victimized by gun violence in 2005 at a greater rate than in the previous year, after a long decline.

And the obvious solution to a brief interruption of what Boyne himself refers to as "a long decline" of violence committed with guns is to use the Bill of Rights as a Charmin substitute.

Mr. Boyne does, I trust, remember that there is an amendment between the First and Third. Actually, throwing away the Second Amendment would not be nearly enough to disarm America. With between 250 and 300 million (estimates vary) privately owned firearms in the country, you're not going to be able to avoid missing millions of them (whose owners have suddenly been rendered criminals, by decree) without, at the bare minimum throwing out the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, too.

At the same time, the New York Times published an article that should be considered in the light of the report on gun violence. It lists the volume of small arms produced throughout the world and -- to no one's surprise -- the United States is by far the largest producer.

According to the Times, the U.S. exports $533 million worth of small arms every year.

I would have thought that Boyne would be happy about guns leaving the country--he clearly doesn't want them here.

The newspaper also reports that 1,000 people are killed every day worldwide by small arms fire -- 365,000 people per year. Of those killed, 56 percent are victims of homicides, 25 percent die in war, 14 percent are suicides and 5 percent die in firearms accidents. In addition, three people are wounded for every person killed. That would indicate a total of 1,460,000 people killed and wounded annually with small weapons throughout the world.

Here, Boyne includes the 25% killed and wounded in wars (which would, by his numbers, be 365,000). But remember, he doesn't advocate disarming soldiers (they would be among what David Codrea refers to as the "Only Ones")--so Boyne's Final Solution to the "epidemic of gun violence" wouldn't have any effect on that number. Anyway, I guess he just forgot to mention how disarming Americans will reduce the death toll in Sudan, or the Gaza strip.

However, the National Rifle Association and other gun enthusiasts maintain a constant pressure on political leaders to make gun usage more prevalent.

I would certainly be interested in seeing the text of any legislation backed by the NRA, or any other gun rights organization, that would require someone to use a gun. Those of us who defend gun rights are certainly more than willing to respect everyone's right to not use a gun--anyone who wants to abdicate all responsibility for his/her personal security is certainly entitled to do so. I firmly believe in the right to be contemptible.

The state of Florida has passed "shoot first" legislation -- laws that give a gun wielder the right to shoot first in various circumstances.

Actually, the legislation referred to here is more accurately described as "stand your ground," or "castle doctrine" legislation, and it has passed in more states than just Florida. I suppose it could be said that it recognizes a law-abiding citizen's right to shoot first--but is Mr. Boyne suggesting that the correct approach is to let the criminal shoot first? Maybe I'm just not as tough as Mr. Boyne, but I don't intend to take a bullet I could otherwise avoid, just to be "sporting" in defense of my life against a thug.

Under the Florida law, if you believe you are threatened with death or great bodily harm, you can pull your gun and pull the trigger. This could be in your home, in your car, at public meetings or at any place you might be.

The arrogant audacity of those people--thinking they have the right to defend their lives--wherever they are! If you're not willing to die at the grocery store, you shouldn't be shopping--right, Bill?

Under this law, the person holding the gun is judge and jury.

No, actually that person is the survivor, and I'm at a loss as to why that's a bad thing for a law-abiding citizen to be.

Laws of this kind can only increase the inordinate number of people killed and wounded by gunfire.

Evidently, Boyne would prefer that they be killed or wounded by knives, clubs, and bare hands. Keep in mind that all one has to do in order to avoid being shot under such laws is to not cause someone to believe that you plan to kill or badly injure him/her. That would seem rather easily accomplished.

It is time to cut down on crime and restrict guns to soldiers and police officers.

Let's see if I have this right--it's time to cut down on crime . . . by rendering the vast majority of people helpless to resist it. That's brilliant, and it has inspired me--let's cut down on obesity, by permitting only a select, elite few to have food.

In Boyne's version of Utopia, there would be two kinds of people--police and military on the one hand, and helpless, cowering sheep on the other. The good news for him is that such places can be found in the world. The bad news is that there are quite a few people who, like me, will fight to the death before we see the United States become such a place. Molon labe, Bill.

Assaulting liberty

Legislation intended to ban so-called "assault weapons" (which I much prefer to call homeland defense rifles) seems to have gotten popular again. We have a concerted effort in Maryland (I've talked about it here and here). My own pantywaist state of Illinois (where there's always a strong--almost frantic--effort to strip the law-abiding of gun rights--speaking of which, all you readers in Illinois are planning to go to IGOLD on Wednesday, Mar. 14th, aren't you?) is once again aggressively pursuing such a ban. Several other states, of course, are also exploring their own assaults on liberty--Maryland and Illinois are simply the ones I've read the most about. On the federal level, we have perennial freedom hater, Carolyn McCarthy, and her H.R. 1022, which would classify tens of millions of guns as "assault weapons" (I've also discussed that bill before)

Never mind that these politically incorrect firearms are used in a smaller percentage of murders than are knives and clubs--the Second Amendment suppression lobby has identified them as a target of opportunity, and a good first step toward the eventual goal of complete civilian disarmament. In a rare moment of honesty, gun ban advocate Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post, said as much, back in 1996.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Charles Krauthammer, columnist, Washington Post, April 5, 1996

McCarthy's idea of classifying nearly every semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and shotgun as an "assault weapon" is actually quite clever. Not only does this mean that passage of the bill would bring the gun ban extremists that much closer to their goal of total civilian disarmament, but the more guns it would ban, the more likely it is to pass!

That last statement is counterintuitive, so it probably needs some explaining. After all, at first glance, one would naturally think that the more sweeping a proposed ban is, the more resistance it would meet, and thus the harder it would be to pass. What one needs to consider is that one of the biggest obstacles to getting people behind a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is the fact that they're used in such a miniscule fraction of violent crime in this country. When defenders of freedom point that out, backed up by unambiguous data compiled by the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control, only the most virulently anti-freedom legislators can stomach the idea of voting for such a ban. The ban advocates' problem, then, is to find a way to get "assault weapons" involved in more violent crime.

As it turns out, that's easy--since there is no real definition of the term "assault weapon," it can be redefined as convenient, at the whim of any lawmaker. So, all you have to do is expand the definition of "assault weapons" to the point that nearly every firearm is one! That, of course, means that nearly every gunshot death is an "assault weapon" death, thus helping to fuel any drive to ban them. It's brilliant, really. I've mentioned before that knives and clubs are used to wreak more violence than so-called "assault weapons" (as they're usually defined). Perhaps the next step is to start classifying non-firearms as "assault weapons," as well. That way, all the knife and club murders will be "assault weapon" murders, too.

Today, it's "assault weapons." If that works, tomorrow it will be bolt-action, scoped "sniper rifles." After that, all handguns, because "only criminals" need concealed guns. After that, there will be too few gun owners left to fight off the total gun ban that is the anti-freedom lobby's "Final Solution."

Maybe they're running out of ideas . . .

Living in Illinois, I have gotten quite accustomed to ridiculous gun legislation.

Still, this proposed bill suprised me.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is unlawful to repaint or recoat a firearm with a color other than the original manufactured color of the firearm. Provides that a violation of this provision is a Class A misdemeanor.

What the bloody hell does it matter what COLOR a gun is?!!!

The only possible explanation I can think of for this bad joke is that it has the same intent as Mayor Bloomberg's NYC law, banning gun paint kits, which he claimed were intended to make real guns look like toys (by painting them bright, flourescent colors). In theory, police officers might see a brightly colored gun, and incorrectly conclude it was a toy, and thus get shot. Not that it's ever happened, of course. Bloomberg's specialty is "solving" problems that don't exist.

The Illinois bill would go even farther, as it would prohibit any change in the finish color. Want to parkerize or hard chrome your blued gun, to enhance the gun's corrosion resistance? Too bad--that would be against the law, even though there wouldn't even be Bloomberg's lame justification for banning such a change.

Making this even more inexplicable is the fact that the bill's sponsor, Jim Sacia, has for the most part been one of this state's legislature's few bright spots for gun owners. Hopefully, we'll find out soon what he was thinking when he introduced this bill.

It seems he may need an intervention.

Just a quick expansion on yesterday's topic

Yesterday, I looked at some of the staggering sums of money dumped into the laps of the self-defense suppression lobby. Afterward, something else occurred to me. The civilian disarmament advocates like to claim that the gun rights movement "isn't a grassroots effort," but is instead an industry lobby that would be nothing if not for the money of the NRA--money that they claim comes mostly from the gun industry (the Gun Guys rarely make it through a day without making these claims).

This is so clearly false as to be laughable. The NRA's 4 million members, the GOA's million or so (I think--can't find that information at the moment) [Correction: GOA's membership seems to be closer to 300,000 or so--sorry for the inflated estimate, although in my defense, I did take pains to point out that I was unsure of that number], and all the members of the smaller gun rights organizations are clearly not all (or even mostly) affiliated with the gun industry, except as customers. Basically, we didn't join because we want to sell guns, but because we want to preserve our right to buy them. The recent firestorm of outrage over Zumbo's ill-advised blog post was not orchestrated by any commercial interest--it was the work of thousands of angry gun owners who reacted to a stab in the back from someone who had been considered one of our own. The "gun industry's money and power" had nothing to do with what happened--this was all about angry gun owners making their voices heard (and heard loudly). That's pretty much the definition of grassroots.

In contrast, we see the enormous quantities of cash thrown around by the other side. Are there any unpaid bloggers who focus exclusively on advocacy of gun rights denial? I suppose there must be some, but I don't know of them. I know of literally hundreds of bloggers (like myself, but better at it) who devote time and effort into gun rights advocacy, with absolutely no monetary compensation, and no expectation of it.

Still, the other side claims to be a grassroots movement, and claims we are not one. Anyone dumb enough to buy that wouldn't know grassroots if they lived in a sod hut.