New hope for Harold Fish

Long ago, I wrote about the outrageous injustice against Harold Fish, a retired school teacher who, while hiking, shot and killed a man (a man, by the way, with a history of aggressive behavior) who threatened to kill him, and would not stop charging him. Incredibly, Fish was convicted of murder.

To compound the injustice, while Mr. Fish's case was pending, Stand Your Ground legislation was passed in Arizona, thus lifting the burden of proof of self-defense from the accused, and placing it with the prosecution, where it belongs (unless we have given up on the idea of innocence pending proof of guilt). However, a superior court judge refused to apply the new law retroactively to Mr. Fish's case.

It seemed that Mr. Fish (now in prison, having begun his ten-year sentence in August 2006) would finally get a reprieve when the Arizona legislature passed SB 1302, which would make the Stand Your Ground Law retroactive. Opponents of this measure justified their opposition in various ways:

The Arizona Prosecuting Attorney Advisory Council said making the change retroactive could affect numerous cases and that the impact of the bill was greater than the goal of the current legislation.

Rep. Steve Gallardo, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the bill, said it would lead to costly retrials and re-victimize victims by forcing them to testify again in court. "It will open old wounds," he said.

Well, there you have it--apparently, justice is sometimes simply too expensive, and not convenient enough, to bother with.

Tragically, Governor Napolitano must have thought so, too--because she vetoed SB 1302.

Fast forward to this month, and a new, more narrowly crafted bill. SB 1166, as amended (the main text of the bill deals with jury duty--it is an amendment that affects the self-defense law), would do much the same thing as SB 1302, but would only extend back to cases that were pending in April 2006 (Harold Fish's might be the only one). SB 1166 narrowly failed on the first vote last week, but was reconsidered, and narrowly passed yesterday.

Now, it needs to go back to the Senate, for a vote on concurrence with the self-defense amendment.

If that passes, perhaps Governor Napolitano will be willing to deal with the inconvenience of justice.

The Pike County (Illinois) Rebellion?

OK--just kidding, but apparently Pike County is fed up with the way the Illinois Politburo legislature insists on violating the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. That being the case, they want to go on record as being opposed to it. Members of the Pike-Adams Sportsmen's Alliance received the following email:

PRO-GUN RESOLUTION

The County Board of Pike County, Illinois, has called a public
meeting to consider a resolution which would state that the
people of Pike County, Illinois, consider any legislation passed
by the Illinois State Legislature that would infringe upon the
Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms to be unconstitutional
and beyond lawful Legislative Authority.

Such a resolution, if enacted by a County Government, would be
unprecedented in the history of the United States.

The resolution has strong support among members of the Pike
County Board. The resolution states that it is being enacted
because, "The Pike County Board being elected by the People of
Pike County is duly sworn by Oath of Office to uphold the United
States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of
Illinois."

The members of the Pike County Board ask all interested citizens
to attend this Public Meeting and demonstrate their support for
the enactment of this resolution.

The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday evening, April 24th, at
7:00pm, in the 1st Floor courtroom of the Pike County Courthouse
in Pittsfield, Illinois.

All members of PASA, whether Pike County residents or not, are
urged to attend this historic event, and express their support
for the courageous action of the members of the Pike County
Board.

I hope to see you there. With everybody you can bring.

P.R. Metcalf
President
Pike-Adams Sportsmen's Alliance

That meeting, as you can see, is scheduled for 7:00 PM tonight, which isn't a lot of notice, but anyone who can make it there to show their support would be well advised to do so.

I realize that this measure would be largely symbolic, with no real power to steer Illinois law back in line with the ideals on which this nation was founded, but it's still a good thing to see. Events like this will help to put our lawmakers on notice that the people of Illinois are fed up with civilian disarmament. Pike County is providing just the kind of leadership this state needs.

Power to The People--We Shall Overcome.

Time to act, Kansas residents

According to this bulletin, the veto override vote for Kansas HB 2528 (which would prevent municipalities from imposing their own additional, arbitrary restrictions on where concealed carry licensees could exercise their self-defense rights) could come as early as this week (Thursday, specifically).

Contact information for the five senators that I think will be the key can be found in this blog post.

Light up those phones, folks--faxes might be even better.

"In order to have rights, you must give up rights"

Last Friday, being the national day of mourning for the Virginia Tech massacre, the Illinois Politburo legislature observed a moment of silence. As it happens, Illinois would be a vastly better place if its legislators adopted silence as standard policy, rather than something to be observed only momentarily.

The Illinois Senate wasted little time in proving that Friday (mp3 file of the Senate session--a transcript is not yet available, but I transcribed the parts I found most relevant). When the silence was broken, it was broken with a nearly immediate attack on America's "gun culture". This is what Senator Rickey Hendon had to say (starting about 3 min, 45 sec into the mp3 file linked to above):

. . . address the fact that guns were involved in this tragedy,

Can we find a Captain Obvious cape for Rickey?

and some day--perhaps, Mr. President, today--we will earnestly address the issue of weapons in America, and this nation's fascination with guns.

The solution, apparently, is to pass a law against being fascinated with guns--fellow Illinois gun rights blog We Are the Militia has a well written piece about thought crimes.

If we strengthen gun laws,

Translation: weaken gun rights.

will it stop every incident? No, it won't,

I told you he has earned that Captain Obvious cape.

but we should give these babies a chance to live, a chance to have a future.

A chance to defend themselves, perhaps? Of course not--don't be a reactionary relic of the "gun culture."

We must address eventually, my friends, the issue of guns, violent videos, and our fascination with weapons. Let's earnestly address the issue of the availability of guns in America.

A bit later, Senator Todd Sieben, although he didn't blame guns for turning Cho into a mass murderer (he has been one of the rare friends to gun owners in this state's Senate), did take exception to the fact that people were speaking of "only" 32 victims, and not counting Cho among that number. I'm sorry, Senator, but I cannot consider Cho a "victim"--I do not consider it possible to be a victim of one's own monstrous evil. I certainly count his family among the victims--the hell through which they are going must be worse even than that faced by the families of those murdered by Cho--but Cho himself is no victim.

The scariest part, to those who revere liberty, came at the end (about 10 min, 50 sec into the sound file), when Senate President Emil Jones Jr. spoke.

In a civil society, I hear often talk about the Constitution, and rights in the Constitution,

That's good, Senator--I hope you're listening.

but the rights and pursuit of happiness and joy

Well, no reference to the pursuit of happiness was made in the Constitution, as far as I can tell--that was in the Declaration of Independence, and the "pursuit of joy" is something I have never heard mentioned in conjunction with the Founding Fathers.

must be balanced against the other rights, and sometimes in a civil society, in order to have rights, you must give up rights.

"In order to have rights, you must give up rights," eh--Orwell's Big Brother would be proud--doublespeak lives! Tell me, Senator (although I think I can guess), which rights do you have in mind for us to give up? More importantly, perhaps, is: who made you arbiter of what Constitutional rights we must give up? Has the office of state senator (even state senate president) been endowed with vastly greater power than I had realized--the power to override the Constitution itself? On a side note, how, specifically, would giving up rights help us have rights (the ones you think are the ones we should prefer, apparently)--especially when the right you apparently want us to give up is the very one that gives us the power to defend the rest?

Until we come to the realization that this incident can happen again, in order to have these rights, and pursuit of happiness, we must give up some rights.

There's that "pursuit of happiness" again. I can't help but notice that even if there were a Constitutionally guaranteed right to the pursuit of happiness, that falls rather short of the right to succeed in capturing that happiness.

If disarming American citizens is necessary for your happiness, I would argue that the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep you unhappy--and we're not planning to give up that right. Molon labe, Senator.

So make it easier to buy spray paint . . .

Since California's draconian firearms laws have not been useful in keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them for evil, California legislators want to try the same thing with ammunition. Makes sense to me--if something isn't working, do more of it. Assembly Bill 362 imposes numerous restrictions on ammunition purchases (including a complete ban of mail order purchases). The author of the bill, Assemblyman Kevin de León has even managed to think of a way to exploit the killings at Virginia Tech.

The freshman legislator said his bill is particularly timely, given the rampage at Virginia Tech that left 33 people dead.

He seems to have conveniently avoided addressing the fact that since Cho was able to buy firearms, similarly stringent requirements for ammunition purchases would have changed nothing.

This article (registration required) is not the first I've seen in which the following claim has been made:

"Believe it or not, you can actually walk into a store today and buy a box of cartridges much easier than a can of spray paint," de León told the Assembly Public Safety Committee last week.

This claim has always puzzled me, since I have never known of any restrictions on buying spray paint, and since federal law requires ammunition purchasers to be at least 18 (21 for handgun ammunition). I have since found out that California, in an attempt to thwart gang graffiti, does indeed impose some restrictions on spray paint purchases:

California 594.1. Sale, Purchase or Possession of Aerosol Paint Container; Posting of Notice by Retailers

(a) (1) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation, except a parent or legal guardian, to sell or give or in any way furnish to another person, who is in fact under the age of 18 years, any aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property without first obtaining bona fide evidence of majority and identity.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years to purchase an aerosol container of paint that is capable of defacing property.

(c) Every retailer selling or offering for sale in this state aerosol containers of paint capable of defacing property shall post in a conspicuous place a sign in letters at least three-eighths of an inch high stating: "Any person who maliciously defaces real or personal property with paint is guilty of vandalism which is punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both."

(d) It is unlawful for any person to carry on his or her person and in plain view to the public an aerosol container of paint while in any posted public facility, park, playground, swimming pool, beach, or recreational area, other than a highway, street, alley, or way, unless he or she has first received valid authorization from the governmental entity which has jurisdiction over the public area. As used in this subdivision, "posted" means a sign placed in a reasonable location or locations stating it is a misdemeanor to possess a spray can of paint in that public facility, park, playground, swimming pool, beach, or recreational area without valid authorization.

(e) (1) It is unlawful for any person under the age of 18 years to possess an aerosol container of paint for the purpose of defacing property while on any public highway, street, alley, or way, or other public place, regardless of whether that person is or is not in any automobile, vehicle, or other conveyance.

I still don't see how the above makes it easier--let alone "much easier"--to buy ammunition than to buy spray paint--you need to prove you are 18 or older to buy paint, and you need to prove you are 18 or older to buy ammunition (21, to buy handgun ammunition). If there's a difference, it would seem that paint is the easier purchase.

However, if there truly is a problem of ammunition purchases being easier than spray paint purchases, I have a solution--deep six the spray paint laws.

Letters to Mr. Daly

Tuesday, I encouraged readers to email New York Daily News columnist Michael Daly about this charming column celebrating the grief of families torn apart by the evil of Cho Seung-Hui. Peter was kind enough to forward his excellent email to me, and I thought it would be worth repeating. I would be happy to publish here any other emails that readers send to Mr. Daly.

Dear Mr. Daly,

Your exploitation of these deaths in order to make a point is reprehensible. The normal English locution is 'dancing on someone's grave', but as yet no actual funerals have taken place (as of your posting date @ 9:22AM), so I'm not exactly sure how to characterize it.

The only criticism of the Founders that can be made is that they reversed the order of the first two Amendments. Without people with guns ready and willing to defend your right to publish such schadenfreude-laden trash, you would have neither a job nor a forum to publish it.

You're an adult, right? One of the duties of an adult is to accept responsibility, including that of defending those less strong amongst us. Sometimes that means making a phone call or writing to the Editor, sometimes that means using a firearm to eliminate a Clear and Present danger. It's not pretty, and not necessarily something to be extolled, but as long as we as a species are the way we are, violence will be at times required.

In case you've actually read down this far, I'd like to remind you that the Founders used the term "the People" in Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10. It means the same in all five places, meaning that your position on 'gun control' is essentially unconstitutional. That's perfectly alright with me, by the way: should we ever be together during an attack, I will use my guns to defend your right to be a jackass just as I would any other citizen. After all, having the Right of 'free speech and expression' is pretty meaningless if you're dead.

Without the Second Amendment, there would be no First. Without an armed populace, a populace willing to use those firearms in defense of all our Rights, your livelihood and your right to exploit the deaths of these students wouldn't exist, certainly not in the way the Founders intended. Before the Holocaust, before the Nuremburg Laws, the German people were disarmed, complete with Mr. Hitler crowing about what a civilized nation he was leading as a result of his "gun control" laws. And we know what happened to 'free speech and expression' in the Europe of 1939-45.

On to the less pleasant part of my letter:

Instead of my usual practice, I'm saving a copy of this letter. If you decide to publish this (which I highly doubt, but one must try to cover all the bases) you must publish all of it. "Editing for space and content" will be regarded as a hostile act meant to defame/slander me and my position, and I will take the appropriate action. I still have relatives in NYC, and I can certainly afford the $35 filing fee to sue you. Someone can be at Court St within a day.

Your right to free speech is sacrosanct, your position as a columnist is a privilege, one that you abused. I applaud your success in getting someone to pay you to express your opinion; I've been doing the same thing for nigh unto fifty years for free. Trampling through the still-wet bloodstains to get to your soapbox was a disgusting abuse of that privilege, of that there can be no doubt.

I anticipate your response (although I'm not holding my breath), and remain,

Sincerely Yours,

Peter XXXXX

By the way, Hairy Hobbit posted his email in the comments section of my original blog post. Here it is:

Michelle Daly

Your quest for Sicherheit über alles is what has led to this. You push and prod and promote safety in the form of disarmament of the people who obey the law. You have made it easy for criminals to walk into a school and kill at will. You are so far beyond logic and rational thought that this is a pointless letter and a waste of time.

Real Americans know that criminals will never obey the law, just ask the people of the countries you look up to, the socialist hell holes of Europe. Criminals will get guns. Criminals don't obey the law. Criminals seek targets like this.

Why haven't you blood-dancers who celebrate over such horrific events as a means to further your power hungry agenda haven't mentioned the most deadly mass murder at a school. The late 20s Michigan event where a school was blown up with explosives. Why is that? Is it because you HATE freedom and self reliance? Is it because you seek totalitarian rule here? Just admit that you are a mentally ill frothing at the mouth control freak who has no sense of personal responsibility and want to be cared for by big brother. Just say you wish for light chains and only the occasional beating. We'll understand that you need help. We'll even pay for your plane ticket to the socialist country of your choice where you can seek government health care, housing, support, and every other just treatment they provide their slaves.

If you can't do that, then please for the families just STFU until their loved ones that the policies you support have helped to kill be put to rest before you do your blood dance and waggle your finger in their faces.

Love the "Michelle," HH.

I would also be quite interested in any replies anyone gets (not that I'm counting on those).

By the way, here's mine (although I'm a little embarrassed to show it, after the other two):

Mr. Daly,

You are to be commended for your ability to write the most offensive, the most vitriolic, venomous piece of hate speech, gleefully celebrating the unspeakable anguish of dozens of families, that I have seen in a very long time. I refer, of course, to your Tuesday column, "Yes, Virginia, guns kill innocents." You must be extremely proud of yourself.

You should also take pride in your skill at distorting the truth. How very clever of you to scold Virginia for passing a law that would thwart more of Mayor Bloomberg's "sting" operations, when that law only outlawed an activity that is already illegal under federal law, but which the BATFE seems strangely reluctant to prosecute when Bloomberg's puppets commit it. You are aware, I assume, that if the gun dealers are actually guilty of a "straw sale," then Bloomberg's minions, by definition, must have committed a straw purchase. There cannot be one without the other.

The "never mind that a Virginia gun license is not half as hard to get as a driving license," line was also a quite . . . creative statement, as well.

Enjoy your blood dance, Mr. Daly.

Kurt Hofmann, Obscure blogger

H.R. 297 to get a boost?

I have written before (in February, and again in March) about H.R. 297, the NICS "Improvement" Act, authored by Carolyn McCarthy (the clever legislator from New York who wants to ban barrel shrouds, which she defines as "the shoulder thing that goes up . . . "), and have made no secret of my distaste for such legislation. We don't need NICS "improved" (NICS Expansion Act would be a much more accurate title), we need it dismantled (do I hear any BIDS, anyone?).

In the wake of the atrocity on the campus of Virginia Tech, much attention is being given to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui's mental health history was not made available to the FBI's NICS database. Some will undoubtedly use Cho's act of unspeakable evil to advance the argument for the requirement for more mental health data to be part of the firearm purchase requirements ("shall not be infringed," indeed). It would, in fact, seem that some are already doing just that.

One might suspect that the group that bills itself as "the oldest and largest civil rights group," and whose specific focus is Second Amendment rights, would fight such a bill tooth and nail. One would be wrong. The NRA actively supported the same legislation (H.R. 1415), introduced in the previous Congress. Nor does their position seem to have changed. In fact, just two days ago, an unidentified spokesman who sounds quite a lot like an NRA representative, claims that the gun rights lobby would "have no problem with" the inclusion of mental health data in the pre-purchase background check.

The gun lobby—typically opposed to any attempt to tighten federal gun controls—doesn't disagree. The National Rifle Association has decided to make no public comment about any aspect of the Virginia Tech tragedy, according to a spokesman. But a source close to the gun lobby (who asked not to be identified because of the organization’s sensitivities about making any political points related to the tragedy), pointed out that pro-gun lobbyists and groups like the NRA have long supported adding all relevant mental-health records to background check databases. "We have no problem as long as one is adjudicated mentally incompetent [in denying gun purchases] and we have no problem with mental health records being part of the NICS," the source said. "The problem is not with the gun community. The problem is with the medical community" that has traditionally opposed making such records available on privacy grounds.

War on Guns has more on that. I should probably also point out that H.R. 297's first co-sponsor is Representative John Dingell, who once served on the NRA's board of directors.

Actually, I just at this moment found this article in the Washington Post.

With the Virginia Tech shootings resurrecting calls for tighter gun controls, the National Rifle Association has begun negotiations with senior Democrats over legislation to bolster the national background-check system and potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill.

Perhaps the NRA would like to explain to the tens of thousands of returning veterans with mental health issues why this is a good bill. With "friends" like these . . .

H.R. 297 has 7 co-sponsors, 3 of whom signed on this past week.

Second Amendment Carninval XI

I would again like to thank Stan over at Free Constitution for the honor of Armed and Safe's inclusion in Second Amendment Carnival XI. As always, I am humbled to find myself among such company.

A couple days ago, Stan announced that other commitments may force him to give blogging up. This would indeed be a blow to freedom loving, patriotic Americans.

Fred Thompson on the VA Tech killings

I really don't have anything to add to this

Signs of Intelligence?

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself. . . .

Definitely worth following the link and reading.

Another look at H.R. 1859

A couple days ago, I mentioned Carolyn McCarthy's H.R. 1859, "To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition," (by the way, for anyone who has not yet seen that McCarthy is utterly clueless about her own H.R. 1022, and what features of a firearm it would ban, check out this War on Guns blog entry). At the time, I was more focused on the incredible, exploitive insensitivity of introducing that legislation within hours of the killings she intends to capitalize on. Now, let's take a more thorough look at why it's simply bad legislation.

The justification (to use the term charitably) given for such a ban is that large magazines enable greater carnage, because the shooter will not have to pause as often for reloads. To help this argument out, its proponents can point to the fact that Cho had several 33 round magazines in his possession. Still, this is a specious argument. In truth, magazine capacity is unlikely to be much of a factor unless the intended targets are shooting back (which, to Larry Hincker's great joy, was made impossible by VA Tech's rules). With a human monster's intended victims cowering in fear (the natural reaction of the unarmed to an armed, ruthless killer), he has plenty of time for reloads.

For those who believe that the necessity to reload more frequently would be enough to prevent the firing of a vast number of rounds in a short time, watch this:


If one wishes to argue that this proves that semi-automatics are just "too powerful" for civilians, and that we should be limited to revolvers, check out the last 10 or 12 seconds of this video (although the entire video is only about 35 seconds long, and well worth watching in its entirety):
In that last segment, Miculek fired 6 rounds, reloaded, and fired 6 more rounds, in under three seconds.

Granted, both Travis Tomasie, with the semi-automatic, and Jerry Miculek, with the revolver, are world class shooters, whose skill is (thankfully) extremely unlikely to be matched by the murderous thugs in our midst--still, the fact remains that a psychopath bent on killing a shocking number of unarmed people in a crowd is not going to be stopped by having to reload every 10 rounds.

Finally, passage of a ban of "large capacity" magazines will have extremely little effect on their availability for a very long time--the vast number of them already in circulation will see to that. Proponents of H.R. 1859 very publicly and loudly gnash their teeth over the expiration of the "ban" of so-called "assault weapons" in 2004, without acknowleging that neither the firearms named in that legislation, or the magazines, were ever banned--they could be owned, bought, and sold, as long as they were manufactured/imported before the law went into effect in 1994. By the time the AWB expired in 2004, there were still plenty such magazines available for sale. Anyone who claims otherwise is either speaking from ignorance or is lying.

H.R. 1859 is not about saving lives, it is about tightening the government's monopoly on the use of force.

Don't pass gun law . . . or I'll destroy my guns

Is that what passes for gun rights activism in Quebec? That's the only conclusion I can draw, when this is what the president of the Quebec Shooting Federation says about a proposal to require owners of semi-automatic firearms to store them at gun clubs or ranges:

Quebec Shooting Federation president Raymond Contre calls it a dangerous proposal, saying stockpiling weapons will only mean criminals will know where to find them.

"I will personally destroy my firearms and return the pieces to the local police office because storing them in the way … proposed by the government, is completely unresponsible," Contre told CBC News Wednesday.

Wow--that ought to stop them, Raymond. Few of us are made of the same stuff as Leonidas I, or even Charlton Heston, but I would hope most of us could come up with something closer to "Molon labe," or "from my cold, dead fingers" than that.

Maybe if we tell Bloomberg, Feinstein, McCarthy, etc., that we'll destroy all of our guns if they pass any more laws, they'll leave us alone.

On second thought, maybe we ought to wait and see how that works out for Raymond and the other gun owners in Quebec.

More Daley (nearly daily) madness from Chicago

Gun rights activists were rightly outraged when Christian Trejbal's editorial in the Roanoke Times linked to an online database containing the names and addresses of every concealed carry licensee in Virginia. Under the guise of "open government," Trejbal and his newspaper grossly violated the privacy, and compromised the safety, of well over 100,000 law abiding Virginians.

Well, Chicago's Mayor Daley would like to outdo him. When forced to acknowledge that his pet proposals to outlaw so-called "assault weapons," and to implement a gun rationing "one gun a month" scheme would have done nothing to prevent the Virginia Tech killings (which were done without "assault weapons," and in a state that has just the "one gun a month" law he is pushing), Daley thought of another idea.

Now he wants to mandate that every time a firearm sale is made, the buyer's identity must be made available on the Internet. The massive breach of privacy aside, he apparently didn't bother explaining how that would have helped prevent Monday's killings.

Too bad--that would have been an interesting explanation, I'm sure.

Is McCain a Second Amendment absolutist now?

"I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control," McCain said.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not complaining--I'd say that's the way I'd like the Second Amendment viewed universally, but I am a bit puzzled. Is the John McCain who said that yesterday the same John McCain who once voted to close the mythical "gun show loophole"? Is this apparent epiphany in favor of gun rights genuine, or is it more akin to Romney's "lifelong hunter" claim, despite his never having held a hunting license (perhaps he meant "lifetime poacher)?

On Wednesday, though, McCain seemed eager to don the mantle of Second Amendment rights defender.

But he opposed weakening gun rights and, when asked whether ammunition clips sold to the public should be limited in size, said, "I don't think that's necessary at all."

He even seems to have stumbled onto the fact that violating the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, in a futile attempt to keep those arms out of the hands of the occasional psychopath, would be anathema to freedom. In short, he seems to have realized that it's the killer who needs to be reined in, not one of the infinite number of implements he could use for evil.

"I do not believe we should tamper with the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States," he said. A woman shouted that George Washington's troops used muskets, not automatic weapons.

"I hope that we can find better ways of identifying people such as this sick young man so that we can prevent them from not only taking action with guns but with knives or with anything else that will harm their fellow citizens," McCain said.

At this point, I really don't know how firmly (and unchangeably) Senator McCain holds his seemingly strengthened views of the Second Amendment, but I guess I won't complain to see a prominent candidate at least saying the right things.

Give us a reason to believe you mean it this time, Senator.

Carolyn McCarthy not wasting any time

I thought I was beyond surprise at the obscene depths to which U.S. Representative Carolyn McCarthy would be willing to sink in her relentless attacks on the Constitutional rights of American citizens, but I was wrong. Unwilling to wait even a single day to exploit the heinous killings on the campus of Virginia Tech for the furtherance of her civilian disarmament agenda, she introduced a new freedom-destroying bill within hours of Cho Seung-Hui's heinous act.

H.R. 1859, "To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition," is so new that the text is not yet available for viewing by the public, but the title says enough to make it clear that this is what McCarthy thinks of as the "next best thing," to passing H.R. 1022 (H.R. 1022, thankfully, would seem to have little chance).

I wonder what "strengtheng that prohibition" refers to--limiting the capacity to nine, instead of ten? Maybe lower still? Maybe no "grandfather clause," meaning that owners of full capacity magazines would have to surrender their property, or face imprisonment or death at the hands of the BATFE?

The fact that she would introduce such a bill is, of course, not at all surprising. It's the timing that makes this especially contemptible--it's almost as if she had been waiting for just such an "opportunity." As the VPC once lamented,

. . . and the fact that until someone famous is shot, or something truly horrible happens,

. . . public support for so-called "gun control" will not be enough for the rights deprivation lobby to achieve its goals. Now, McCarthy, the VPC, the Brady Bunch, and the rest have their "something truly horrible," and they don't intend to waste it.

I guess that dancing in the blood of a killer's victims is more fun when the blood is still warm.

Let the (blood) dance begin

It's nothing new for civilian disarmament advocates to exploit, with barely concealed glee, the grievous outrage of a senseless massacre like the one committed yesterday by Cho Seung-Hui. Still, Michael Daly's column today in the New York Daily News might be the most offensive, the most gloatingly vitriolic, the most unabashedly venomous that I've ever seen.

Still love those guns, Virginia?

Ready to admit that it's madness for any psycho to be able to saunter into a gun shop and acquire firepower capable of killing 32 innocents?

Feel different now that the blood is the blood of so many of your most promising young people?

That's just the beginning, but it continues in that vein throughout. Very helpful, Mike--I'm sure the families of the slain appreciate your concern.

I don't have the stomach to give this disgusting celebration of the grief of others the treatment it deserves, but I hope some folks let Mr. Daly know what they think of his column.

mdaly@nydailynews.com

Another shooting on a VA campus, and a different outcome

Like most who write about gun rights and so-called "gun control," much of my attention at the moment is on yesterday's horrific slaughter on the campus of Virginia Tech. Like most, I am at an utter loss to understand what unspeakable evil would drive a person to commit such a heinous act. Like most, I have questions--questions to which I am unlikely to find particularly satisfying answers.

Perhaps it would be instructive to look at another shooting incident on the campus of a Virginia institution of higher learning. This shooting occurred a little over five years ago, on the campus of the Appalachian School of Law. Though tragic, the scale of the tragedy of this shooting was vastly smaller than that of yesterday's--six people shot, rather than approximately fifty, three of whom died, rather than thirty-three.

What would account for this difference? Does it have something to do with the expiration of the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (the law school shooting took place while the ban was still in effect, unlike the VA Tech shootings)? No--keep in mind that the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" is a misnomer not only because the term "assault weapon" has no useful meaning, but because it didn't ban the purchase, possession, or use of the "banned" items, if they were manufactured or imported before the law went into effect. Besides, although details are sketchy still about yesterday's slaughter, the firearms used by the murderer--two handguns--would not appear to be the types of firearms normally considered "assault weapons" (although that definition is conveniently hard to pin down).

No, the main difference is that two quick-thinking (and quick-acting) students ran to their cars and retrieved their own firearms, and used them to force the killer to surrender. The difference was the accessibility (if not ideally immediate accessibility) of lifesaving firepower, to those with the will to use it to thwart evil.

The article I linked to is more about the reluctance of the mainstream media to mention the role guns play in averting or lessening tragedy (a worthy topic, but peripheral to the one at hand) than it is about the specifics of such cases, but nevertheless describes several school shootings in which the death toll was reduced by the presence of firearms in the hands of those who wish to protect innocent life, rather than destroy it.

I do not claim to have many answers in this time of painful questions, but I am willing to make a prediction: nothing like this will happen at University of Utah.

An observation about the VA Tech shooting

I share the grief and rage over the senseless massacre on the campus of VA Tech, and my thoughts are with the wounded, and the families of those killed. Like Mr. Codrea, I can't help but note that the death toll may have been vastly lower, had the killer not had such a soft target.

This article is about the legislative death, in January of 2006, of a bill that would have deprived the killer of his helpless victims.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Is Mr. Hincker still happy, I wonder, about the legislature having provided the illusion of safety?

Kansas Governor Sebelius a slow learner

Apparently, Kansas Governor Sebelius did not pick up on the lesson implicit in the sound defeat of her veto of concealed carry legislation last year, and has now vetoed a bill that would prevent individual municipalities from imposing additional arbitrary restrictions on our favorite right that shall not be infringed (such a law shouldn't be necessary, of course, but it clearly is).

The bill should have no difficulty getting the 87 veto override votes it needs in the House--it got 106 votes when it initially passed in the House. The Senate is a bigger question. HB 2528 needs 27 Senators to vote for the veto override--only two fewer than voted for its initial passage. For Kansans who wish to organize a mail and phone blitz to their Senators, urging them to vote for the veto override, might I suggest concentrating on the Democrats who initially voted "Yea" (but as Democrats, might be vulnerable to partisan pressure to support the Democratic governor)?

There are five of them (remember, HB 2528 needs at least three of them to stick to their principles). They are:
Senator Mark Gilstrap,
Senator David Haley,
Senator Anthony Hensley,
Senator Laura Kelly, and
Senator Chris Steineger.

It would behoove rights advocates in Kansas to let these Senators know that rights trump party loyalties.

My own little .50 caliber protest

I've mentioned before (and also here) that the Illinois Politburo legislature is hell-bent on passing Senate Bill 1471, under the theory that public safety demands limiting law-abiding citizens (as this law, like all others, would have no effect on criminals, who would simply ignore it) to bullets of .499 caliber, rather than .50 caliber (it's that last 1/1000th of an inch that causes the problems, apparently). The Brady Bunch, predictably, is enthusiastically on board with the idea.

My friends at IllinoisCarry are fighting this abomination with everything we can muster, but the other side is powerful and well-funded (I've mentioned the Joyce Foundation before). Frankly, I don't know how this is going to end up.

I have decided, though, to give them a little taste of unintended consequences. I have decided that their efforts to rid Illinois of .50 caliber firearms are going to lead directly to at least one more coming to Illinois. As much as I like the rifles chambered in .50 BMG, I can't really carry one around in a wheelchair, or easily fire one (and I certainly can't pay for one)--and that's before you consider ammunition costs and the difficulty of finding a range that will permit them--so I have something else in mind.

Enter the .50 Beowulf, and the Bohica Tool pistol upper receiver chambered for it (scroll down on the page in the link). I have pretty much made up my mind that, although I can't easily afford this, either, I am going to have my own AR pistol in .50 Beowulf.



To anyone who wishes that I not have this firearm, I would like to offer a free lesson in ancient Greek.

Molon labe.

Some must-read guest editorials at War on Guns

I've said several times before that anyone who reads this blog, but doesn't read War on Guns, has some pretty odd priorities--I appreciate the implicit compliment, but I haven't earned it (not that I know if I actually have any such readers). One relatively new reason to be a regular reader of WoG is the superb guest commentary written by Mike Vanderboegh. His writing does a number on my blogging ego, but perhaps that's a good thing.

He writes about the unintended consequences of so-called "gun control." He writes about the irrational phobias of civilian disarmament advocates. He writes about those who would use religion to justify government mandated defenselessness. And today, he warns us of how enemies of freedom could render our guns useless.

These are not short essays, but if you're like me, you'll be left wanting more. If Mr. Vanderboegh ever gets a book deal, I'll be clamoring for a copy.

Keystone Cop Confusion in Connecticut

Although I just wrote Thursday about the proposed law in Connecticut that could turn victims of crime into criminals (felons, no less), and at risk of once again exposing my ignorance (as if that has ever stopped me), this article compels me to revisit the issue. While Connecticut legislators push for demands for accountability on the part of gun owners, the police of the state's capital city are apparently incapable of coming close to meeting the standards that would be imposed on private gun owners.

The Hartford Police Department has widespread problems keeping track of equipment, and the situation reached a critical point last December when it couldn't account for all its firearms during a city audit.

The department's procedures for keeping track of firearms and controlling access to them were so lax, the city's chief internal auditor said, that the officer in charge of the department's arsenal could not account for all its nearly 900 handguns, shotguns, assault rifles and other firearms.

And we are to believe that reporting gun thefts to these paragons of law enforcement is necessary for the safety of the state?

Several of the people in charge of equipment and supplies, the report said, were unable to find weapons inventory reports; didn't know how many people had keys to areas where weapons and other assault equipment are stored; and allowed some officers to check out weapons such as sniper rifles without signing for them.

"Didn't know how many people had keys to areas where weapons" were stored? Keep in mind, Senate Bill 903, in addition to requiring prompt reporting of the loss or theft of firearms, also bestows on police investigating the case the power to charge the gun owner for storing the firearms in a manner they deem "reckless and irresponsible" (without any written definition of what constitutes "reckless and irresponsible" storage). I would be willing to wager that not knowing how many people have keys to one's gun safe would be enough to get one charged with "reckless and irresponsible" storage--any takers on that bet? And, "allowed some officers to check out weapons such as sniper rifles without signing for them"? Did the officers just have some unofficial sniping to do?

In fact, the report said, there was no written record of how many sniper rifles the department had, and most of its handguns are outdated.

Hmm--I wonder how many sniper rifles the Hartford Connecticut PD needs. As for "outdated" handguns, call me a traditionalist, but I think one would be hard pressed to find a better fighting handgun than John Moses Browning's masterpiece, adopted by the Army in 1911.

It sounds as if the Connecticut legislators are worried about the wrong guns, and the wrong gun owners. "Only Ones" material, perhaps, David?

This guy is going to be dispensing the "news"?

Last week, I wrote about the shrieking objections raised by the Southern Methodist University student newspaper's editorial staff, about the passage in Texas of Stand Your Ground legislation. Today we look at a piece written by another college student (a senior, and a journalism major)--this one at Western Kentucky University, indignantly stomping his little hooves over the fact that one of his fellow students (a police officer), attended class armed.

I was in a sociology class not long ago and noticed that an off-duty Bowling Green police officer was in the room. He was in his full uniform, including his utility belt, gun in holster.

Just thinking about it now, I am still in shock. A gun in a classroom! This is by far the dumbest thing I have seen as a Western student. There is no excuse for this.

Actually, Brandon, I don't know if anyone is interested in making an "excuse" for it--what is there to excuse?

I was discussing this with some of my classmates and I am convinced that there is no logical reasoning for this officer to have his gun.

If not his gun, whose would you propose he have?

Brandon acknowledges the very real possibility that the officer had no choice but to attend class fully dressed for work, but that's not good enough for him.

First of all, lets say he doesn't get out of class until 30 minutes before he is supposed to be at work. I don't care. If he can't find a place to lock his gun up until he is on duty, then he should reschedule his classes so that he gives himself more time.

And . . .

This officer was obviously off duty at the time and did not have to be fully equipped. If he cannot arrange his work and school schedules in a more conducive way, then he should drop a class.

So the officer should arrange his class schedule around your little neuroses, Brandon?

From what I understand, it's the law, not Western's policy, that says it's OK for an off-duty officer to carry his weapon if he chooses to do so. I understand the law, and I still disagree.

Our university buildings are supposed to be firearm-free. That rule should not change just because a person has a badge on their chest, unless they are there on official police business.

It may seem that I have been a bit rough on Brandon, so I'm happy to point out that we do seem to have one point of agreement--I think he is entirely correct that police officers should not get a free pass on rules/laws that the rest of us are required to obey. Therefore, campus rules should not artificially create a special "Only Ones" caste, and should instead get out of the citizen disarmament business entirely. How many shootings have there been at University of Utah?

If I see this again I will have to address it with the department head. I pay my tuition to come to school here, and at the very least I should have the guarantee of a safe and relaxed study environment.

I wonder what Brandon expects the department head to do about it--violate state law?

Simply put, under no circumstances should I ever see a gun in a classroom. Leave it behind. I do not care what you do with it, but do not bring it into a room full of people who are concentrated on achieving higher learning.

What, again, are you studying with such intensity that you must be spared even the sight of a holstered firearm, in order to avoid disturbing your concentration?

There is no way that a gun will ever comfort me while I am trying to learn about Karl Marx's views on society.

Ahh--nevermind.

Looks as if the next generation of what Mr. Codrea refers to as "Authorized Journalists" is just about ready.

Stealing victims' rights

I've talked before about a proposal to criminalize crime victims in Connecticut--it would seem that this insanity is now gaining ground. The bill would make it a crime to fail to report the loss or theft of a firearm. That's right--if a burglar steals the .22 you keep around to shoot the occasional groundhog raiding your garden, and if you fail to report it, you are now a criminal (and in fact, on second and subsequent offenses, you become a felon--I can just imagine that conversation in prison: "What are you in for?" . . . )

A similar bill was passed in the Connecticut Senate last year, but failed in the House. This year, proponents of forcing crime victims to report their victimization are more hopeful, because new "compromise" language in the bill has won over some legislators who had previously had doubts.

[Representative William] Tong has high hopes this year's bill will survive because it has the support of the Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, state Rep. Arthur O'Neill of Southbury.

Tong said at "the eleventh hour" Tuesday, after a lengthy public hearing on the legislation, O'Neill proposed compromise language that he said would ensure his vote.

"To get him to flip on it is very, very significant," Tong said.

Yeah, I suppose the British thought that winning Benedict Arnold over to their side was a pretty nifty accomplishment, too.

After yesterday's 36-3 committee vote, O'Neill acknowledged he has had an "A-plus" legislative rating with the National Rifle Association for years.

Maybe I should set up a poll--after this "conversion," will O'Neill's grade from the NRA still be an "A-plus," fall to an "A," or plummet all the way to "A-minus"?

The "improvement" embodied in the "compromise" language would seem to be rather subtle, to say the least.

He said one compromise was specifying that gun owners file a report within 72 hours of "having discovered or reasonably should have discovered" a missing firearm. Last year's bill would have required a report within 72 hours when an owner "knew or should have known" a gun was missing.

O'Neill and others said that language could have been used by over-aggressive prosecutors to build cases against vacationing gun owners or hunters with cabins who may not learn for some time of a break-in.

"It's not an unfounded concern," said Tong, who is an attorney. "I know in layman's terms it's tough to parse the differences, but there's a meaningful difference."

From "knew or should have known," to "having discovered or reasonably should have discovered"--I know I feel much better. Tell me (if, as a mere layman, I can be made to understand)--who is to determine when a gun owner "reasonably should have discovered" his gun was missing? I can't help but notice that Representative Tong didn't bother to even try to begin to explain to us laymen how to "parse the differences" (I had originally planned to title this blog post "We're the Only Ones parsing the differences enough," but I didn't know if that would be close enough to Mr. Codrea's use of "Only Ones" to use without seeking his permission first). For more about the "compromise," click here.

The bill (Connecticut Senate Bill 903) goes beyond mandating reporting of stolen firearms--it mandates "safe storage" of firearms (without defining what constitutes "safe"), meaning that even if the rightful owner does report the theft of his gun(s), he can face prosecution for not doing enough to prevent the theft.

The legislation approved yesterday also requires firearms to be stored safely and not in a manner considered "reckless and irresponsible" by investigating police.

Since, as mentioned earlier, we are not told what kind of storage would be considered "reckless and irresponsible," this would seem to give zealous police and prosecutors rather a lot of leeway in making the decision whether or not to prosecute crime victims.

This bill, and any like it, transfers some of the responsibility for a crime from the perpetrator to the victim--that is not justice.

" . . . a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens"

I have previously made passing reference to this abomination currently festering in the Pennsylvania legislature. Pennsylvania House Bill 760 would require, among other things, registration of every gun (aside from antiques, and guns belonging to the "Only Ones"), at a cost of $10 per gun, per year, fingerprinting, background checks, mandatory "safe-storage" (the language on that would seem to render Pennsylvania's concealed carry licenses meaningless, because all guns would have to be unloaded and locked up, except for "recreational purposes"--unless defending one's life is now to be considered a game), etc.

To be honest, I'm not especially worried that this bill will pass--Pennsylvania seems still to be blessed with enough honorable officials like Sheriff Jozwiak and State Rep. Cox to stop it. The reason that such officials are in office, of course, is that the state's population is concerned enough about liberty to put them there. According to this article, the objections from the citizens who would suffer under this proposed tyranny have been heard loud and clear.

"People from Philadelphia and Pittsburgh support it, but people from the rural western part of the state say I'm a Nazi and that I should go back to my country," said state Rep. Angel Cruz, who represents Philadelphia County's 180th District.

Well, Angel, if the jackboots fit . . .

Cruz said he proposed the measure as a means to install a tracking system to determine where criminals responsible for gun violence are obtaining their weapons.

"I'm not in favor of taking away people's right to bear arms," he insisted. "They would just have to register them -- like they register a vehicle every year. I want to make it safe for all people across the state."

Good thinking, Angel! I think people should have to register their means of exercising their First Amendment rights, as well--we all know that hate speech is a toxic, corrosive influence on our society--let's require registration for every computer, every pen and pencil, and every can of spray paint (I'm sure you can think of more) in the state.

In fact, the outrage from Pennsylvanians who still value liberty has been so intense that two of the bill's sponsors have withdrawn their support. One of them kindly provided me the title for today's topic.

Wheatley believes the bill "goes a little too far."

"I have some concerns because this is more punitive than it needs to be," Wheatley said. "There are too many senseless deaths. We all struggle with gun violence in the city streets and in rural areas, and there is a black market in which someone legally buys a gun and then gives it to a criminal, but this is a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens."

"Goes a little too far," eh? I'm glad Jake now seems not to be pushing this monstrosity on the people he claims to "represent," but I have some questions and concerns about " . . . a little too punitive to the law-abiding citizens." What degree of punitiveness to law-abiding citizens would be acceptable? How can it possibly be argued that inflicting any degree of punishment on the law-abiding is acceptable?

It seems to me that supporters of this legislation are traitors to the Constitution, and should be tried for treason. I don't wish to be "too punitive" to the law-abiding legislators (those who do not support it), so I don't propose putting them on trial. I'm open to suggestions on what to do about those who initially supported it, but have since withdrawn their support.

A couple of my blogging brothers in Illinois

Today is going to be a bit of a departure from what I generally post about. Today I'd like to point out a couple fellow Illinois gun bloggers who some of you might not have found yet. Illinois is probably not often thought of as a hotbed of gun rights activism, but I think these guys constitute proof that the will to fight for liberty is not yet dead here.

First, we have We Are the Militia, written by one of my compatriots at Illinois Carry. I found Redress of Grievances especially compelling.

The other, Flederma.us Gazette, is also written by one of my brothers in arms at Illinois Carry. Its focus is not exclusively on gun rights, but in advocating Constitutional rights in general, the Second Amendment is certainly given a prominent place.

By the way, as the writer of a rather insignificant blog, it might seem a bit pompous of me to presume to plug for these other blogs--I certainly don't mean it that way, and I'm sure they don't really need my "help"--I just want to spread the word about pro-rights activists (especially in Illinois). Please stop by and see what these gentlemen have to say.

Virginia State Police protecting privacy

I wrote before about Christian Trejbal's ill-considered editorial in the Roanoke Times, which was linked to a digital database of the entire list of concealed carry licensees in Virginia. Predictably (to everyone except Trejbal and the rest of the editorial staff at the Roanoke Times, apparently), this action was not well received (to the extent that some murderous lunatic sent mailing labels to his house--it's a miracle that they didn't explode).

Within a day, the Roanoke Times finally got a clue about what a mistake they had made by invading the privacy of 135,000 law-abiding Virginians, and removed the database. When Trejbal published his editorial, he claimed that the "point" he was making was about open government, and was not intended as a criticism of firearm ownership and lawful use.

This is not about being for or against guns.

Two sentences later, he turned around and "question[ed] the wisdom" of owning guns.

There are plenty of reasons to question the wisdom of widespread gun ownership, too.

The full measure of his opinion of concealed carry licensees is finally revealed when he seems to advocate that they should be subjected to the same intense scrutiny as sex offenders.

A state that eagerly puts sex offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not.

The irony is that Trejbal's "celebration of open government" seems to have spurred the government to move to protect the very privacy he celebrated violating.

Last Friday, the Virginia State Police, under the guidance of Attorney General Bob McDonnel, closed the records to the public (the full text of the AG's opinion can be read here). I am especially amused to see that the article about the closure of the records, in the same paper that Trejbal published his editorial, begins by referring to Trejbal's "botched attempt to highlight an open record."

An editorial writer's botched attempt to highlight an open record -- the list of Virginians licensed to carry a concealed handgun -- resulted Friday in the record being closed.

It would seem that ol' Christian is having trouble finding support at even his own newspaper--here is a very good editorial, also in the Roanoke Times, making the case for more respect for the privacy of licensees.

Next year, more permanent privacy protections may be put in place by the Virginia legislature.

McDonnell's opinion settles the issue only for the short term; the General Assembly is expected to take up the issue next year following a study by the state's Freedom of Information Advisory Council.

"I think this opinion will serve as a foundation for future discussion," Nutter said.

Although he said it was too early to talk about specific legislation, Nutter said he could envision a solution in which citizens could still look up information on individual gun owners at their local courthouse, while the statewide list compiled by the state could be off-limits to everyone except law enforcement.

Still pleased with yourself, Christian?

Americans losing their taste for so-called "gun control"?

A recent poll released by the Pew Research Center shows that support for the NRA is growing, with a corresponding decline in support for the implementation of yet more restrictive gun legislation. 52% of those surveyed view the NRA in a favorable light--the first time since 1994 that the approval rating was over 50%. Only 32% view the NRA unfavorably--the lowest figure in the fourteen years the poll has been conducted.

Keep in mind that this growth in support for the NRA comes despite a (growing?) subset within the gun rights activist community that thinks the NRA needs to be (much) more aggressive in fighting for gun rights, much less willing to play both sides of the issue, and much less concerned with its own money and power. I count myself among those with serious doubts about the NRA's apparent support of H.R. 297, the NICS "Improvement" Act (discussed here and here), and their apparent willingness to sabotage Parker v. DC, with their support for H.R. 1399/S. 1001, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. The NRA's support of the political aspirations of anti-rights candidates like Sheriff Bill Brown (thanks for doing the legwork, War on Guns), their support of "Project Exile" (thanks again, War on Guns), their support of "Gun Free School Zones," their support for "enforcing existing gun laws," etc., are yet more reasons that this poll may under-represent support for gun rights, because many who truly believe that "shall not be infringed" is irreconcilable with "enforcing existing gun laws" are none too keen on the NRA.

The Pew survey does show a marked decline in support for civilian disarmament laws.

As attitudes toward the NRA have warmed, attitudes toward more restrictive gun control have cooled. In September 1990, 78% of respondents in a national survey told Gallup they felt that laws governing the sale of firearms should be stricter. The figure declined throughout the 1990s and reached its lowest point (51%) in October 2002. Since then support for stricter controls on guns has hovered in the mid-50s, reaching a peak of 60% in 2004.

It would be interesting to see what the VPC or the Brady Bunch have to say about the apparent decline in public support for their policies, but I suspect that to get an acknowledgment of this development from them, I would have to pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

Happy Easter, everyone.

Of killers, "justice," and victim disarmament zones

The murders of Rebecca Griego, at University of Washington, and Clara Riddles, in the CNN building, share some points of commonality. Predictably, the Brady Bunch and their ideological allies like to don their Captain Obvious capes, and point out that both of the shootings were committed with . . . well, guns. On some other similarities, they apparently have little to say.

Rebecca Griego's killer, Jonathan Rowan, should not have been in this country. Although an illegal immigrant, when he was stopped for drunk driving last June, Seattle law prevented the police from checking on his immigration status. Without this bizarre protection of his "right" to freedom from law enforcement . . . enforcing the law that was broken by his presence here, Ms. Griego would still be alive today.

The history of Arthur Mann (the murderer of Clara Riddles) paints a picture of a person who had absolutely zero business running loose in society.

Mann didn't talk about his past -- the eight years he spent in prison in Florida where he is a registered sex offender.

Court records in Florida tell this story: In July 1992, he was convicted of third-degree murder and two counts of robbery with a gun and was sentenced to 10 years, according to Robby Cunningham, a Florida Department of Corrections spokesman.

Mann served five years of that sentence, violated his probation at least twice, was put back in prison and when he got out was charged and convicted in March 1999 of having sex with a minor 16 to 17 years old. For that conviction, he was sentenced and served three years, Cunningham confirmed.

After his probation ended in March 2004, Mann later moved to Georgia, and in October 2006, he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in the state.

Records show he registered eight days later, but Georgia did not verify that registration until about two weeks ago, on March 22 of this year, which is about the same time neighbors say he and Riddles broke up.

Let's see--already a convicted murderer, a convicted sex offender, a multiple violator of the terms of his probation (with that history, how was he getting probation in the first place?) who subsequently failed to register as a sex offender. This sack of garbage had earned a lifetime behind bars before he ever met Clara Riddles.

Neither one of these worms should have had access to their victims--Rowan should have been out of the country, and Mann should have been in prison. That they weren't is clearly an abject and utter failure of our "justice" system and laws.

Another similarity in the two killings is that both occurred in victim disarmament zones. Would the outcomes have been different, had private citizens not been barred from having lifesaving firepower on hand? We will never know. What we do know is that both rampages were stopped when the killers were stopped--with guns (granted, Rowan's shooting was self-inflicted--but that's the one shot for which I will not fault him). Oddly enough, there are people advancing the puzzling argument that the CNN shooting constitutes justification to continue to allow businesses to expose their employees to the same lethal disarmament that helped kill Rebecca Griego and Clara Riddles.

Then again, I suppose the Illinois State Police would argue that these unfortunate women were permitted to be more than adequately armed--I'm sure they were permitted to have nail files and teasing brushes. Sometimes, the best way to stop a killer is a bullet in his face. Hard to deliver that bullet with a teasing brush.

My name is Kurt Hofmann, and I'm a Constitution worshipper

Boy was I confused--so ignorant, so backward, that I thought reverence for the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, was to be commended. How fortunate I am to have Michael McGough, of the Los Angeles Times, to set me straight.

It turns out that it's attitudes like mine that get in the way of treating the Constitution like the "living, breathing document" we are now told that it is, so that we can have our rights legislated away (which, apparently, is what we want--or should want, if we weren't so stubbornly stuck on this silly obsession with "rights"). I need to find out if there's some kind of support group for people like me--a kind of Constitution Worshippers Anonymous, so I can get on board with the progressive idea of chopping up the Bill of Rights.

The reason this is necessary is that until Americans cease to be so touchy about the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, and now that a growing body of legal scholarship acknowldges that the Second Amendment actually means what it says, the vision of an American gun-free Utopia is threatened. Obviously, we can't have that.

It's that pesky Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, getting in the way again. There's not much we can do to change the fact that it's a fundamental human right--those are, by nature, unchangeable. What we can do--if we can only force Americans to realize how immoral they are to love their country, and the principles on which it was founded--is to get rid of the "Constitutionally guaranteed" part. Once the guarantee goes, the fact that it's a fundamental human right can simply be ignored, and we're well on our way to complete disarmament. A lovely vision, is it not?

So, where can I get my reverence for the Bill of Rights indoctrinated out of my psyche? Where can I go to learn to actively participate in my own subjugation? Where can I learn to long for abject servitude?

On second thought, I think I'll just hold what I've got. I'm Kurt Hofmann, and I'm a Constitution worshipper, instead of a subversive traitor. Got a problem with that?

I'd like to thank We Are The Militia for the link and the kind words. By the way, I've finally enabled backlinks, which as far as I can tell, work like trackbacks, but so far, they don't seem to be working very often, except for links withing Armed and Safe, from one blog post to another--still working on that.

Help Red's Trading Post, help the 2nd Amendment, help America

As usual, I feel a bit goofy, posting something that David Codrea already has, since anyone who reads this probably reads him anyway (anyone who doesn't, should), but as a gun rights blogger, I think I have certain minimum responsibilities. Drawing what attention I can, to the BATFE's jihad against Red's Trading Post (and just about any other gun dealer they can railroad out of business, apparently), definitely qualifies as one of those responsibilities.

Please take a minute (at most) to sign this online petition in protest against the campaign to wipe out firearms commerce in the U.S.

Illinois State Police promote rapists' safety

Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

My friends at Illinois Carry have found something on the Illinois State Police website that has to be seen to be believed. I had already known that this is a state in which defenselessness is the law, so perhaps I should have expected this insanity--but sticking a finger down your throat to cause yourself to vomit, in order to discourage a rapist? Can they be serious?

Fighting for your safety may be necessary. However, if you start out fighting you cancel any other options that might be open to you. Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate, talking your way out of it may be easier.

* There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)
* Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
* It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.)
* Use your imagination and you can think of others.

The above methods are particularly important if your assailant has a gun or knife, or there is more than one attacker. (Fighting would probably be futile.)

If you must fight

Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.

* Guns stolen from residences are a primary way of getting guns into the hands of criminals.
* Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc.

I'd love to see the source of that last statistic.

OK--so the ISP says firearms are out (and we're not permitted to carry them--you know, like free people--here in Illinois, anyway). So what weapons are recommended?

Articles common to your handbag that make useful defense weapons.

* nail file
* rat tail comb
* teasing brush
* pens and pencils
* keys
* anything rigid

For dealing with particularly nasty individuals, it would probably be best to carry an assault teasing brush.

It's the very last sentence that truly sums up the Illinois attitude when it comes to self-defense:

Remember that screaming may be just as important to your defense as any weapon.

Screaming as a weapon, eh? Well, the civilian disarmament advocates certainly have enough practice at that--I'll call it the Sugarmann defense.

UPDATE: The ISP has apparently noticed the uproar over their ridiculous "advice" (I'm realistic enough to know that they don't care what I say, but David Hardy has to be taken more seriously (which is as it should be). The ISP website hasn't been changed nearly enough, but it now omits the "Use of a firearm to protect yourself or your property is not recommended," and the "statistic" claiming that "Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc." In case anyone thinks I made those parts up, click on the following image of what the site did say.

Even Texas isn't entirely free of the anti-defense attitude

Last week, when Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine bill into law, I didn't bother writing about it. For one thing, passage of that bill in Texas was about as close to a sure thing as one is likely to find in politics, so it wasn't exactly earth-shaking news. For another, anyone who bothers reading a gun blog as insignificant as this one presumably follows the gun rights debate closely enough to have known about this already.

Yesterday, however, the editorial board of the Southern Methodist University ran an opinion piece to which I can't quite restrain myself from responding. You have perhaps guessed that our young editors do not approve of this development, and you would be correct.

Wow.

That's all Ed Board can think to say about Rick Perry's latest bonehead move.

That's how their little tantrum opens, and pretty well sets the tone for the rest of the piece. Keep in mind that "blaming" this on Governor Perry ignores the fact that the bill passed with overwhelming, veto proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature (unanimously in the Senate--30-0, and 133-13, with one abstention, in the House), so if the SMU editorial board members want to stomp their little sheeple hooves, they should probably re-direct their outrage to the 163 out of 177 legislators, and the vast majority of the citizens who voted for them, rather than Governor Perry, who simply bowed to the obvious will of the people. But wait! There's more.

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to give your average Joe license to shoot first and think later?

Ahh--now we're getting somewhere. It seems that the angst is not so much over the recognition of the individual's absolute right to self-defense, so much as it is over the recognition of that right even for "the average Joe." How dare the Texas legislature ignore the intellectual and moral superiority of the SMU editorial board, by treating "the average Joe" as a full human, with all the rights of (for example), an SMU editorial board member.

Texas law already provides for self-defense shootings. At best, a state law would lend uniformity to any discrepancies among local jurisdictions. At worst, the provision that frees "justified" shooters from paying any civil penalties for injuries to innocent bystanders is worrisome.

There's no need to change something in an already functioning system. It's not as if people are being convicted left and right of killing people in the name of self-defense.

Apparently, we are not to address the problem of people being imprisoned for defending their lives, until it starts happening "left and right." I'm sure people who are in prison for that are very comforted that they are among such a small number. Though not in Texas, the story of Harold Fish (here and here) is a sobering reminder of the very real risk of prison time for people who defend their lives with a firearm in a state that does not have the kind of legislation the Governor Perry signed into law. By the way, a Castle Doctrine law was later (after Mr. Fish's conviction) passed in Arizona, but a ruling was made that it could not be applied retroactively. This year, the legislature passed a bill that would change that, but unfortunately, Governor Naplolitano vetoed it, apparently on the grounds that reexamining every instance of people being convicted for defending themselves would simply be too much work.

It looks as if our young editors are at least willing to acknowledge that the litigation people often face after turning the tables on an attacker is a real problem--they just apparently don't want that problem actually addressed.

We agree that people shouldn't have to get worried about being sued when they're trying to protect themselves.

How generous of them. Since this bill specifically addresses that worry, why the screaming fit?

It would certainly be amusing to see these moral and intellectual paragons take a field trip to Sam Houston State University, and drop into Professor Dowling's Criminal Justice class when he says:

By God, the reasonable Texan never retreats.

I am happy for Texas, and commend the Texas legislature and governor for passing this much needed legislation. As for the SMU editors, perhaps they would be happier going to school in Chicago--self-defense is effectively illegal there, which seems to be what they want.

P.S. By the way, I almost forgot to include the gem with which they wound up their little shriek-fest.

This debate isn't about curbing your (supposed) right to bear arms. It's about interpreting that right reasonably.

I tell you what--this suggestion isn't about curbing your (supposed) right to free speech: why don't you interpret "STFU" reasonably?

Did Emerald City have home rule?

If Emerald City had home rule, I think I've figured out why Dorothy was in such a hurry to get back to Kansas--it looks as if Kansas state law is going to preempt municipalities from imposing more onerous firearms laws. This means, of course, that a person travelling through the state need not worry about additional, arbitrary restrictions on one's ability to defend oneself--restrictions imposed by cities and towns, in obvious defiance of the intent of the concealed carry legislation passed last year.

The new law is clearly needed, as illustrated by the advent of laws in such places as Roeland Park, Mission, Olathe, and Leawood, banning the carrying of firearms in city parks and/or certain public buildings. Perhaps residents of those cities should ask their elected officials why they would want the only firearms in such places to be in the hands of criminals.

The preemption bill is not necessarily home free--Governor Sebelius may veto it, as she vetoed the original concealed carry legislation last year. Perhaps she has learned from that experience, and will not try to use the power of the governor's office to ride roughshod over the will of the people and their elected representatives (according to the article linked to above, she has not given any public indications on what she intends to do about the bill). If she has not learned that yet, I still like the bill's chances. In Kansas,a 2/3 supermajority is required in both legislative chambers to override a veto--that means that 87 House Reps. and 27 Senators would need to vote for the override.

The bill received 106 votes in the House, so the 87 votes required for an override should be a simple matter. The Senate is closer--of the bill's 29 Senate supporters in the original vote, 27 of those would be needed to stick to their principles, for an override to succeed. It is not unheard of for 3 or more of a bill's initial supporters to defect, when it comes to an override vote--particularly for legislators in the governor's party. At the moment, I don't know of a way to determine which Senators voted for H 2528, so I don't know how many of the bill's initial supporters in the Senate would be vulnerable to Democratic partisan pressure from Sebelius. Of course, she may sign the bill into law (or simply do nothing with it), thus obviating the need to override a veto.

Hopefully, Dorothy will soon be able to carry protection from wicked witches and flying monkeys, even in a Leawood city park.

Someone forgot to tell this sheriff that he's an Only One

Sheriff Barry J. Jozwiak, of Berks County, Pennsylvania, apparently didn't get the memo about law enforcement officers being the Only Ones professional enough to keep and bear arms. His testimony to a panel of PA lawmakers would seem to indicate that he is under the nutty impression that the Bill of Rights protects that right for everyone (the horror!).

There would seem to be plenty of people who would like to set him straight about that, though.

Jozwiak’s testimony before the state House Judiciary Committee in City Council chambers put him at odds with Reading Mayor Tom McMahon, Philadelphia lawmakers and others calling for tougher handgun laws in response to a rash of shootings and murders in Pennsylvania cities.

He just doesn't seem to get it.

"Gun control does not reduce crime," Jozwiak said. "In fact, criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed."

Criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed?! Could that be? But wait a second--Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke want us unarmed, also, and so does Josh Sugarmann (VPC). That would mean that these groups want the same thing the criminals do. That is certainly an interesting alliance.

Jozwiak even criticized a proposal that would require gun owners to notify police if their handguns were lost or stolen.

He "even" criticized legislation that could turn crime victims into criminals! Is he deranged?!

Good thing Pennsylvania has some legislators who aren't so caught up in this "Constitutional rights" nonsense.

State Rep. Jewell Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, said he was frustrated by the influence the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates exert in blocking efforts to get guns off the streets.

"People are dying in Pennsylvania," Williams said. "Your kids ... are being shot, robbed and murdered with illegal guns. It’s almost like people don’t care anymore. It’s like special-interest groups are controlling people’s lives."

I'm surprised Jewell doesn't see the obvious solution--if gun rights advocates are too effective in their protection of the Second Amendment, we need to shut them down--go after the First Amendment, so we can pass any civilian disarmament laws we like, without pesky talk of "rights."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Sheriff is not alone in his bizarre insistence on protecting "rights."

State Rep. Jim Cox, a Spring Township Republican, said he would not support the one-handgun-per-month legislation because it chips away at gun owners’ rights and could lead to more drastic restrictions.

"I want people to have the sheer, unadulterated ability to defend themselves," Cox said. "If they want to go out and buy 20 weapons to protect themselves because there has been a crime wave in their neighborhood, I don’t want to restrict them."

With people like Sheriff Jozwiak and Representative Cox, Pennsylvania may never have a massive firearms registration bureaucracy, with fingerprinting, annual criminal background checks, mandatory "safe storage," $10 annual registration fee per gun, etc.

With people like Jozwiak and Cox in office, Pennsylania may never free itself from the curse of human rights.

Many thanks to David Codrea, at War on Guns, for the link and the kind words--very much appreciated.

So what, exactly, is the problem here?

One of the daily "features" of the Gun Guys website is their "America's Shooting Gallery"--links to articles about shootings around the country. This is apparently supposed to be an indictment of private firearm possession. Setting aside for a moment the fact that criminal or negligent misuse of firearms by evil or irresponsible people does nothing to compromise the right of peaceable citizens to be armed, sometimes the stories linked to don't even seem to describe misuse of a firearm.

Friday's "America's Shooting Gallery" contains a link to one such story. The second link ("WA: Young man killed during home invasion is identified as high school student") is to an article about the shooting death of a high school kid with a fairly extensive criminal history, apparently after breaking into an apartment building, pistol whipping someone there, and firing several shots. The man who was attacked apparently managed to wrest the pistol away from his attacker, and then shot and killed him.

Is this an occasion for sorrow? Are we to mourn the death of someone who, at 18 years old, had already committed numerous crimes against his fellow man? Someone who (according to this, more detailed article) kicked in the front door, assaulted an unarmed man, and shot up an apartment building? Certainly his family is suffering pain I would not wish on anyone, and the kid apparently was well-liked at his school, but forgive me if I have no tears to spare for him.

Hunter, the deceased attacker (described in both articles, by the way, as the "victim" of the shooting) made a series of choices. It should not require the benefit of hindsight to realize that these choices were not good ones. If they had not led to his death, they would certainly have deepened his problems with the law. If we are to call him a victim, so be it--he is the victim of his own poor choices. Effective arguments could very probably be made that he was incapable of making better choices because society had failed him, but those arguments would have nothing to do with gun laws.

So I suppose that I have come to agree that this is a tragic story--but it's still not an effective argument for civilian disarmament.