Once again, VPC angry at Washington Redskins--for helping area youth

I didn't get around to this before the event actually happened, but I don't want to let it pass entirely uncommented--I might as well make it an annual tradition.

As was the case last year (and the year before), the VPC is upset about the Redskins' fund raising drive for the Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation. Hmm--now why would that be? Does this charity organization raise money for nefarious purposes?

The mission of the Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation is to utilize the assets of the Washington Redskins and its corporate and community partners to make a positive and measurable impact on youth in the greater Washington, D.C. region in the areas of literacy, youth development, education, community service and health and wellness.

Yep--that sounds pretty evil, alright.

Just kidding--the VPC's problem isn't with the charity itself, but with the Redskins' choice of partners for the event. You see, this event is sponsored by the NRA, whom the VPC's Josh Sugarmann considers to be the embodiment of all evil.

If it's October, then it's time again for the annual spectacle of the Washington Redskins Charitable Foundation cozying up to the organization leading the charge* to overturn the District of Columbia's gun laws: the National Rifle Association. On Oct. 16, the Redskins' foundation will hold its third annual Redskins Sporting Clays Challenge sponsored by NRA Sports. Since 2005, the Redskins have held the event -- despite organized protests by D.C. youth, negative media coverage and the event's obvious conflict with the stated goal of the foundation to "make a positive and measurable impact on youth in the greater Washington, D.C. region," including their "health and wellness."

Keep in mind that this will not raise money for the NRA, and in fact I would imagine the NRA is spending a considerable sum of money on this. In other words, the Redskins are not, as Sugarmann whines, "giving aid and comfort to an organization with political goals that would place D.C. youth at greater risk" (that "greater risk" being increased exposure to the Bill of Rights)--they are receiving the NRA's assistance.

What kind of contributions to charity has the VPC made for underprivileged D.C. youth? I haven't been able to find any. Of course, I'm not trying to be judgmental--the VPC (and other major citizen disarmament groups) seems to have fallen on hard times these days--charity starts at home--right, Josh?. Citizen disarmament agenda advancement not paying like it used to, Josh?

That's just too darned bad--it can't be easy to accept that people are no longer buying what you're selling.

*I wonder what the CATO Institute would have to say about Josh's claim that the NRA is "leading the charge" in bringing a bit of the Second Amendment to Washington D.C. Seems to me that the NRA has, at most, been bringing up the rear.

UPDATE: Look who stopped by:

(click to enlarge)

Don't be shy, Josh--stick around and chat!

Hmm . . .

I wonder why the Washington DC government would be interested in Fr. Michael "Snuffy" Pfleger.

(click to enlarge)

Curiouser and curiouser.

Now here's a new term for citizen disarmament advocate

New to me, anyway--and it's a subject on which I try to stay current. Anyway, the term is "gun supervision activist." "Gun supervision" sounds a bit less threatening (to those who don't feel threatened by having nanny state policies forced on them, anyway) than "gun control"--a term that Sarah Brady, Dianne Feinstein, Josh Sugarmann, et al. have made synonymous with outright bans (remember "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it"?).

To give credit where it's due, the inventor of the new term is Rob Nesvacil at Illinois Reason, and he applied it to Thom Mannard, current head cheerleader for the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Rob and I have crossed (rhetorical) swords occasionally before. He doesn't specialize in gun issues, as I do, and there are probably some issues on which I would agree with him, but when he does talk about guns, it's always in favor of more draconian restrictions on . . . er, reasonable supervision of the right of the people that shall not be infringed.

Along with another pro-rights activist in Illinois, DWLawson, I have been debating with Mr. Nesvacil about both the value and the Constitutionality of gun legislation--the debate taking place in the comments section of the Illinois Reason post linked to above. As always, we have made zero progress in changing his views (and cannot even really get him to respond to many of our points), but the debate was more entertaining for me than, say, watching my poor, overmatched St. Louis Rams' courageous bid to outrace the Dolphins for the honor of Most Pathetic Team in the NFL.

Rob also refers to "Second Amendment literalists" (actually, it was "hyper 2A literalists")--that would be folks like me, I guess--but Rob apparently can't take credit for that expression (and DW gets the nod for "Second Amendment figurativists"--of which, I suppose, "gun supervision activists" would be a subset).

Anyway, this "gun supervision" thing sounds really great--maybe censorship advocates should start referring to themselves as "speech supervision activists"--that sounds much more innocuous, doesn't it? Don't worry, folks--we don't want to abridge your Constitutional rights--we just want to supervise them. Let freedom ring (from a well supervised bell, of course).

Every once in a while, justice is served

Way back in January, I wrote about Michael Mah, a resident of Oklahoma, and possessor of an Oklahoma-issued concealed carry permit. What prompted me to write about him was that while in Kansas he was present at an attempted armed robbery, and shot one of the suspects. Even this isn't especially earth-shattering, of course--that's the sort of bad-news-for-the-bad-guys/good-news-
for-the-good-guys thing that happens when the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is respected (well, sort of respected--the fact that any kind of permit was required indicates that the level of respect is still woefully inadequate).

What made it especially interesting to me was the fact that Mr. Mah's defensive shooting occurred on the very first day that Kansas started honoring Oklahoma concealed carry permits. I also worried that despite the fact that his permit was honored by Kansas at the time of the shooting, and despite the obvious fact that this was a clear-cut case of legitimate self-defense, that he still might face legal problems manufactured by the obviously anti-self-defense district attorney of the county in which the shooting occurred, Robert Hecht.

Why do I bring all this up again now? Because Mr. Mah was kind enough to get in touch with me recently, and provide me with some updates. First, the good news is that even Mr. Hecht was apparently unable to come up with grounds for prosecuting Mr. Mah. He did get some rather intimidating official visits and phone calls, but in the end, the obviously defensive nature of the shooting was enough to protect him from prosecution (or persecution, perhaps), and his firearm, hoster, and ammunition have been returned to him.

Interestingly, young Mr. Thug (whom Mr. Mah had shot, and who, Mr. Mah tells me, had been on the lam at the time of the robbery attempt) apparently (after healing up and escaping custody) came to Mr. Mah's house, looking for revenge. Mr. Mah was not home at the time, and Mr. Thug was caught and is now back in jail.

That might have been the best thing for Mr. Thug (his real name wasn't released, because he is a juvenile), as Mr. Mah is a personal safety/self-defense instructor (and Marine combat veteran)--although perhaps not the best thing for the gene pool.

Anyway, being a sucker for happy endings, I thought this update was worth a blog post.

Unpopularity of Chicago-style 'gun control' becoming increasingly obvious

Only a bit more than a week since my last update on the pro-freedom movement sweeping across Illinois, county by county, I have some more good news to report.

Actually, some of that good news had already happened by the time of that last update, but I hadn't heard about it--Putnam County adopted the resolution back on Oct. 9th.

This past Thursday, Clark County joined with the fifty-four counties that had already publicly affirmed their commitment to the Constitution.

Tazewell County has put the resolution on the board agenda for a vote on October 31st. As mentioned previously, Jackson County will take a committee vote in early November (the 6th).

For those keeping score, of the 102 counties in Illinois, fifty-five have already adopted the resolution, two plan to vote on it soon, forty-four still need work . . . and then there's Cook County, which still wants to impose its failed, draconian "gun-control" (citizen disarmament) policies on the rest of the state.

The updated map thus looks like this:
(click to enlarge)

As always, the Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution website is an excellent resource for keeping up to date on this grassroots movement.

The citizen disarmament advocates stand on the wrong side of a fundamental civil rights issue, but we shall overcome.

Possession of dangerous knowledge?

A charter school student in Lakeland, Florida sparked quite a reaction when he wore body armor to school.

Newberry was arrested Oct. 6 after he went to school wearing a bulletproof vest over a T-shirt Oct. 3. An officer questioned him about the vest at the charter school, Life Skills Center, 407 E. Memorial Blvd.

Life Skills administrator Curtis Thomas said Newberry walked into a class of about two dozen students wearing the vest. A teacher told Thomas, who in turn told a school resource officer about the student's unusual attire.

OK--granted, that's a bit odd, but it's not a crime, and not dangerous in itself.

Still, the police were called, and apparently did not like what Newberry had to say.

"Newberry displayed a great knowledge of assault weapons, police body armor, and knowledge of defeating body armor for the purpose of killing human beings," an officer said in a police report.

Are we to understand that merely knowing about firearms and body armor is enough to cast suspicion on us? Perhaps the authorities should subpoena the Guns and Ammo subscription list--any regular reader of such literature must be up to no good.

The officer wrote that he "... believes Newberry is training and arming himself for some future illegal event."

Well that explains the arrest--if an officer believes that someone is acquiring skills, knowledge, and equipment that may be used "for some future illegal event," he needs to be locked up--and don't bother me with talk of "Bill of Rights" crap.

The actual arrest (and suspension from school) was apparently triggered by the fact that when searching his car, the police found an empty canister of a "tear gas-like" substance.

When Shawn Newberry consented to a search of his car, police charged him after they found a can of Clear Out, a nonlethal tear gas-like spray. Newberry was suspended from school.

Jessie Newberry explained that the Clear Out bottle was empty and his son kept it for protection during his delivery job at Pizza Hut on routes in bad neighborhoods.

I am not familiar with Florida law regarding tear gas (and the like), but mere possession of it (or in this case, possession of a canister that no longer contains it) seems rather non-threatening.

It was then that Newberry revealed his possession of "assault knowledge."

After the search, more red flags were raised when Newberry talked about bulletproof vests with officers questioning him, police records state.

"Newberry explained ... that the only way to defeat the body armor is with a head shot or shooting someone's legs hitting the arterial vein so that they would 'bleed out.'"

Officers said in documents they thought it was unusual that Newberry would talk about killing people "in such a calculated way" with three officers present.

The car apparently also contained a piece of paper with "10-19" written on it. Scary stuff (I guess).

The arrest led to a search of his home that turned up firearms, ammunition (both of which were acquired legally, apparently), a small amount of marijuana, and a video camera with footage of Newberry and others doing some target practice. Obviously, the marijuana is illegal, and the target practice included a newspaper box (which apparently wasn't his), so it does seem that Newberry has broken some laws (he has been charged with "armed trespassing, grand theft for stealing the box and criminal mischief for damaging the box."). Not particularly monstrous crimes, it would seem.

He is in the Polk County Jail in lieu of $605,000 bail.

Rather a lot, don't you think?

The owner of the shop where Newberry bought his first AK-47 clone was also interviewed for the article.

An LPD officer in the store when Newberry purchased the gun asked him why he was buying it. Newberry could not provide a good reason, Dunn [the shop owner] said.

"Right about that time interest peaked in him," Dunn said.

Well of course interest peaked in him--if you can't provide a curious "only one" with a good reason for buying a gun (especially a politically incorrect one like a semi-auto copy of an AK-47), you need to be watched.

Luckily, Big Brother seems to be on top of it.

Vietnam veteran subjected to outrageous injustice

First, although this is about a veteran being denied, for psychological reasons, his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, it is not about H.R. 2640. I am passionately, vehemently opposed to the so-called NICS "Improvement" Act, but this brave man faces the same egregious treatment whether H.R. 2640 passes, or not.

You see, this man, who fought for our nation, who watched innumerable friends die for it, who suffered for it in ways that lesser men (myself, for example) will never comprehend, shares the disability from which I suffer. No--he's not paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair (as far as I know), but he is an Illinois resident. As anyone familiar with Illinois gun laws should know, this is a horrid affliction.

One of the symptoms of this condition is the state mandated requirement for a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card to purchase or possess firearms and/or ammunition. The application for the FOID contains the following question:

In the past 5 years, have you been a patient in any medical facility or part of any medical facility used primarily for the care or treatment of persons for mental illness?

When his FOID next comes up for renewal, he will have to answer "Yes" to that question (on pain of prison time). This is because he has sought treatment at a Veteran's Administration hospital for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He has no record of violence (or even threatening violence), and has not shown indications of suicidal tendencies. He sought medical help from the VA because he does suffer from nightmares, insomnia, and some depression.

That is enough to deny him a FOID. Because the horrors he witnessed still trouble him, he will be denied the means to defend his life. Because he sought treatment for suffering he endured (and still endures) on behalf of this country, Illinois law mandates that he be thrown upon the tender mercies of any thug who means him harm.

What message does this send to war veterans in Illinois whose souls are scarred by the horrors they have witnessed? Deal with it yourself, or be disarmed. It says that the Veteran's Administration is in league with the Illinois State Police to either deny you the care you are owed, or to rob you of your Constitutional rights.

This is an outrage. This is disgusting. This is evil. This is Illinois.

Why this citizen disarmament advocating, tyranny enabling, bed-wetting hysteria is a good thing

Oldsmoblogger does an excellent job of dismantling Elizabeth Sullivan's (Cleveland Plain Dealer) column, "Want safer schools? Update gun laws; it's been 800 years." (also see War on Guns, for a quicker, but equally biting, treatment).

Sullivan's argument, as best I can decipher, is that the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is based on 12th century English common law . . . and is therefore silly in our enlightened age. Apparently (who knew?), fundamental human rights go bad after a certain length of time. Evidently, modernity has rendered liberty obsolete. My, ain't progress wonderful?

Rather than trying to repeat the work that Oldsmoblogger and War on Guns have already done--better than I'll ever manage--in rebutting Sullivan's call to join our more enlightened, modern cousins in disarming the citizenry, I'll urge folks to check out WoG and Oldsmoblogger--it's definitely worth the time. In the meantime, I submit that Sullivan's attack on the Second Amendment is a good thing for us.

Why? Because she attacks the Second Amendment, instead of trying to twist it into what it clearly isn't--a meaningless affirmation of a mythical "collective right." The "collective right" interpretation has been a staple of the citizen disarmament movement for years now, and is starting to show some severe cracks. Those cracks have been there all along, of course, but until fairly recently, the citizen disarmament lobby has managed to ignore them.

In the "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment, the "well regulated militia" part of the amendment reigns supreme (conveniently ignoring that it's "the right of the people that "shall not be infringed," not "the right of the militia"--as a prime example, check out this Brady Bunch video clip, in which Brady Bunch legal director Dennis Henigan recites the Second Amendment--except that he forgets, I guess, the part about "of the people"). In this interpretation, the Second Amendment protects a right of the states (and only the states) to maintain arms, for defense against an overreaching federal government. Furthermore, the function of the state militia is now served by the National Guard (meaning, apparently, that the Second Amendment exists to protect the right to arm soldiers--something that would seem to not need such explicit Constitutional protection).

Over a year ago, I talked about what I see as one of the biggest problems with that argument. In the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich v. Department of Defense, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sued the Department of Defense for mobilizing the Minnesota National Guard without his consent (or that of the state legislature) for operations outside the state. Perpich lost his case, because the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is not a "state militia," and is instead part of the U.S. Army Reserve system--in other words, part of the federally controlled military. If the Second Amendment is intended to provide the means for states to protect themselves from the federal government, to argue that it serves this function by arming troops under federal authority is clearly not going to work.

I do not claim that it was the above that convinced Sullivan (and others) to admit that the Second Amendment means what it says, rather than what the citizen disarmers wish it said (a fair amount of recent legal scholarship has been building that case, and Parker/Heller v. DC has brought a lot of attention to the Second Amendment's meaning). Whatever the reason for this change in strategy, if it signals that the rhetorical gymnastics of arguing the "collective right" myth have become too exhausing to sustain, our position has gotten considerably stronger.

Don't like that the Second Amendment provides Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms--then remove it, if you can (by the way, the fundamental human right that it protects will still be there--and there's nothing that will remove it). We'll be waiting, armed and free--and safe ;-) .

In the end, even this guy gets it right

I didn't really know what I would be seeing when I started reading Oregon Daily Emerald columnist Matt Petryni's "Protect gun rights... but not for the reasons you expect." He starts by saying that his politics have a distinct leftward tilt (and names some examples), but that he parts ways with many of his liberal brethren on the issue of "gun control" (citizen disarmament).

Perhaps many would find this to be a contradiction, but I do not. For the life of me, I cannot figure out what is "liberal" about a government monopoly on force. Does anyone think of Myanmar (Burma) as liberal?

The next sentence might surprise some:

Now don't get me wrong. While I'm a member of the NRA, I'm not "pro-gun."

Considering some of what we hear from the NRA these days, though, I don't find it to be particularly contradictory.

I think guns are stupid, and that they can and do kill people.

"Guns are stupid"? Certainly they don't perform very impressively on IQ tests, but I cannot imagine that they do any worse than any other inanimate objects (by the way, don't get me started again on "smart guns"). "Can and do kill people"? Why yes, they do--as do baseball bats, swimming pools, automobiles, bikini tops, and an infinite array of other things.

Then, he seems to reverse course again, and advocate against citizen disarmament.

But I do think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to mean normal people should carry guns.

I might quibble with some particulars--how am I to guess who would fit his definition of "normal people"--but he does seem to be generally on the side of an armed citizenry, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

And then, he loses me again.

The only positions less sensible, in my view, than those of the gun control left are those of the "pro-gun" right. The argument some supporters espouse regards the right to hunt and to protect our home from burglars, both of which, to me, are somewhat crazy. There aren't many good arguments out there for gun rights.

OK, I'm with him on his assertion that the Second Amendment was not included in the Bill of Rights to protect hunting (although I believe hunting does provide yet another--albeit subordinate--argument against gun bans). As to his assertion that guns are not a smart choice for dealing with home invaders, a great number of people who have defended their lives with guns in the home would disagree--strongly, I suspect. He doesn't bother to even touch on the possibility of using a gun defensively outside the home--a rather conspicuous omission.

He then devotes a paragraph each to expanding on why hunting does not constitute an adequate justification for the Second Amendment (a position with which I agree), and to why a gun for home defense is not a good idea (a position I find quite odd). Read those paragraphs if you wish--I don't really have much of anything more to say about them.

Then, he hits the jackpot.

So why keep them? If we look to our constitutional history, the answer is much more obvious than hunting, tradition and domestic protection. Like everything in the Bill of Rights, it is a safeguard against only one entity: the government. For me, this is the only even remotely logical reason to keep deadly weapons on the streets. It is important, to protect us from tyranny, that the politicians know their citizens are armed. Can we, the people, stop a professional army? Can we actually overthrow the government in some doomsday scenario? It's hard to say. But one thing's for certain: We stand a much better chance if we have guns. I think the founders realized this, and so, when they drafted the Second Amendment, they made sure to include the words "free state." In this, there's one other worthwhile benefit: protection. My guess is that it's harder to invade an armed country than an unarmed one, and national security is a reasonable justification for the right to be armed.

Now you're talking, Matt. Disparage hunting if you must, call guns "stupid" if you wish--and I'll even let you slide on your apparent assertion that it's wrong to keep guns in the house to provide defense against common thugs--the fact that you realize what the Second Amendment is about, and value it for that reason, is good enough for me. Hell, I'm even willing to forgive the endorsement in the last paragraph of mandated trigger locks and background checks--you got the important part--we can work on the rest.

By the way, once one acknowledges that the Second Amendment is essential to protect the ability to resist a tyrannical government, can one see strict, draconian regulation of machine guns and "non-sporting," large-bore firearms as anything less than tyranny enablement?

So Matt gets it--maybe he can help explain it to Ladd Everitt.

So much statist mewling, so little time

Fisking something like this steaming pile of . . . "journalism" isn't difficult, but it's rather a lot of work, by virtue of the sheer volume of idiocy to debunk. Being lazy, I was not particularly looking forward to the endeavor. It was, therefore, with great appreciation that I saw that Nicki had already done the work, and done so vastly more effectively than I would have managed.

Just as I was thinking I was off the hook, though, I encountered another pro-tyranny screed, perhaps more abjectly, more contemptibly, more boot-lickingly in favor of the surrender of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms than even the one that Nicki so efficiently dismantled. I realize, by the way, that "boot-lickingly" is not a real adverb, but consider that fact to be more an example of the limitations of the English language than an indication of my admittedly weak writing skills.

Since I hadn't noticed any other pro-rights bloggers dealing with it (they probably don't stoop to reading such things--I, however, have no such standards), I guess the task falls on my inadequate (and lazy) shoulders. This will be quick and dirty, and will lack the eloquence of the work of my betters, but what's a pro-gun rights Neanderthal to do?

When authorities thwarted 14-year-old Dillon Cossey’s planned massacre at Plymouth-Whitemarsh High School, the community of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania—a forgettable Philadelphia suburb best known for its mall—shivered in terror upon realizing its own mortality.

"Shivered in terror," over a potential tragedy that had already been averted? I, for some reason, cannot stop thinking about Brave Sir Robin--it sounds as if he would have fit in fine in Plymouth Meeting, PA.

But now it seems that unspeakable tragedy was imminent.

"Unspeakable," eh? As evidenced by the utter silence about it, I suppose.

Along with a cache of pellet guns, swords, and grenades, the kid had a handgun, a rifle, and an assault rifle, all of which were bought for him by his mother

The kid did not have an "assault rifle," which is a rifle capable of fully-automatic fire, and which is thus extremely heavily regulated under a federal law that is over seventy years old. His other rifle (called simply a "rifle" by Mr. Manfred, apparently in order to distinguish it from the "assault rifle"--which, as just mentioned, is not an assault rifle) was a .22--capable of killing, certainly, but of more utility in a massacre of squirrels than in producing the kind of carnage from which the Brady Campaign tries to profit. As for the pellet guns and swords, are we "shivering in terror" over those, too?

Tony now gets to the heart of the matter:

Though the mother is obviously at fault for being crazy enough to buy her son these weapons, the larger issue is whether or not anyone should be able to buy guns in this country.

Ah--now I understand, since a parental skills-challenged woman bought her messed-up kid some weapons, including a few firearms, with which he planned to go on a rampage, the entire nation should be rendered defenseless (unable, I suppose, even to buy swords and pellet guns).

I can go to a store right now and buy an AK-47; is there not something incredibly disturbing about that?

Frankly, I would be more disturbed to think that you might reproduce, but that's probably just me.

Allowing people to run around with machine guns in order to maintain the integrity of the Bill of Rights is a sickening display of blind faith.

Again with the machine guns? What machine guns? The ones that since 1934 have been illegal for civilians to obtain without jumping through a draconian array of bureaucratic hoops? The ones that if built within the last twenty-one years, are unavailable to private citizens no matter what hoops they're willing to jump through?

The Second Amendment was drafted in the infancy of our nation and is not just inapplicable to our contemporary nation but detrimental to our contemporary nation.

I don't know if you've noticed, Tony, but quite a lot of the Constitution was drafted "in the infancy of our nation"--tyranny, and the threat of tyranny, existed then, requiring a free people to have at their disposal the means to resist it, and it exists now.

People aren’t keeping muskets in their cupboards in case the government comes and tries to take their land; they are stockpiling assault rifles so they can go out and murder dozens of little kids before anyone can even reach for their cell phone to call 911.

"Muskets in their cupboards"? Those must have been mighty big cupboards. I'm getting a little tired of pointing out that "assault rifles" are the almost exclusive province of the government, which I imagine is just how you like it, Tony (Ladd Everitt would be so proud). If you insist on using emotionally charged sensationalist terms to describe the firearms that so frighten you, at least be (nominally) accurate, and call them "assault weapons." I know quite a few people who own such guns, by the way, and own one myself. Oddly enough, I've never known anyone who has displayed any propensity for murdering little kids.

Our loyalty to the Constitution is killing thousands of Americans a year.

Our loyalty to the Constitution is what separates us from dictatorships, genius.

To Tony's credit, he at least does not try to divide gun owners against each other, pitting Second Amendment activists against those who would throw the meaningful part of the right to keep and bear arms under the bus, if only they could keep their hunting rifles and shotguns--he has decided to take the hunters on, as well.

And for those who want to keep guns legal so that they can fulfill some twisted fetish by murdering defenseless animals, I’m deeply sorry. I know that hunting is a popular hobby in this country but allowing people the pleasure of slaughtering animals at the expense of human lives is unacceptable.

I suppose the deer populations will limit themselves to sustainable levels (in the absence of useful numbers of predators) by a program of condom distribution, or something.

What would an attack on gun ownership be without an ad hominem attack? Fear not, here it is.

The delusional Neanderthals at the National Rifle Association should be charged as accomplices in every gun-related murder since 1871.

Tell me, is there an Somalian equivalent to the NRA, or is our own NRA somehow responsible for the killings in Darfour? By the way, the NRA didn't get seriously involved with gun politics until the 1970's.

I'm running out of time here, but you get the idea. For irony's sake, I do have to include one more particularly priceless line:

I’m all for individual liberty, but giving 300 million people the option to murder each other is not an inalienable right.

I guess it's only the police that should have "the option to murder," right, Tony? Police officers like Tyler Peterson, right, Tony? Certainly sounds like the position of someone who is "all for individual liberty."

I think Tony has earned the right to be recognized as a Hero of the Police State. Maybe Ladd Everitt will come up with an appropriately gaudy medal for him.

Ray of hope for an end to victim disarmament in Oregon?

A bit of good news--the Oregon school district that wants to continue to mandate that its schools be victim disarmament zones was rebuffed in its attempt to deny Shirley Katz her day in court.

After a day-long hearing, a judge said he would not dismiss her lawsuit against the school district.

Jackson County Circuit Judge G. Philip Arnold said he would issue a written opinion on Ms Katz's claim that Medford School District policy prohibiting teachers from carrying weapons on school grounds violated state law.

I find the opening of the article rather interesting.

As America reeled from a series of shootings and school massacre plots, Ms Katz won the first round of her legal bout for the right to carry her 9mm Glock pistol on to school grounds.

Personally, I find this demonstration of the reality of the threat of psychopaths in schools to be the best illustration of the utter evil of mandating helplessness, but why do I have the sneaky suspicion that the author of the article was trying to make an entirely different point?

I am pleased to see that the Second Amendment Foundation is supporting Ms. Katz. Interestingly enough, though, I cannot find any indication that the NRA is. Oh, never mind--that would apparently violate the NRA's principles:

First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

Yeah--that has been working beautifully--now if only you could get the psychos on board with the plan, Wayne.

Maybe the NRA can file a legal brief in support of the school district's position. Heck, maybe Wayne and Paul Helmke can write it together.

Light blogging today

Picking up a new gun (WAHOO!) and going to the range, then spending most of the day and evening with my sister and her family, so this is probably about it for today.

I should remind folks of something I mentioned awhile back--that the International Association of Chiefs of Police foundation dinner, featuring Rudy "Have I mentioned 9/11, recently?" Giuliani as the keynote speaker, is tomorrow.

I would dearly love to hear what he has to say to those passionate advocates of civilian disarmament, and compare it to what he said to the NRA, but I seriously doubt that speech will be made available to the public. If, by chance, someone does find it, please give me a shout, either through a comment here, or at 45superman@gmail.com.

Second Amendment Carnival XIII

As I mentioned a couple days ago, Free Constitution is having Second Amendment Carnival XIII today. As always, there's lots of great stuff there (plus a few things I wrote). Also as always, it is a great honor to be included among such company (but humbling, as well).

Ron Paul on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Not strictly gun politics, I realize, but since Paul is by far the most outspoken advocate of gun rights (and Constitutional rights in general) in the race, I figure it's not too much of a departure.

Anyway, I saw him tonight (last night, I guess) on the "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," and he was superb (not that I'm surprised). The interview itself (by Judy Woodruff) was pretty well done, too, I thought. Definitely worth a read (or a listen, if you prefer).

He could always use a little help.

Have to shut down the blog . . .

. . . Because I don't have a license to express my views. What's that you say? I don't need a license to express myself? The Constitution guarantees my right to do so, thereby precluding the need for a license, and indeed, prohibiting the requirement for one?

But wait a minute--I was thinking that there was something else the Constitution guaranteed, some other fundamental human right. Something, in fact, that shall not be infringed--what could it be? Oh, yes--I think I have it. Something called the right to keep and bear arms--no, not bare arms, although I reserve the right to wear short sleeves when I want to.

But wait another minute--are there not myriad laws in this country that apply to the manufacture, sale, purchase, possession, storage, and bearing of arms? Do we not, as gun rights activists, call it a "victory" every time we manage to successfully persuade another state to allow us the privilege of paying for a license to bear arms (a rather conditional license, at that--subject to further restrictions)? Do we not pat ourselves on the back every time a state throws us a bone and loosens the restrictions on the exercise of this fundamental right?

It seems that we do all of those things, oddly enough. When you think about it, we have no room to complain about the civilian disarmament advocates' refusal to acknowledge our Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, when we ourselves insist on treating it as a privilege. Some of us bemoan the Wayne Finchers of the world, for "making us look bad," by not being "law-abiding gun owners." Some of us criticize those who would carry a firearm illegally, for the same reason. Some of us opine that gun shops under siege by the BATFE "have nothing to worry about," if they follow the BATFE's rules (all of them, despite their self-contradictory and ever-changing nature).

I am, despite my disdain for the idea of going to the bureaucrats, hat in hand, hoping for the privilege of carrying the means to defend myself, involved (to the extent my extremely limited abilities allow) with the fight to bring concealed carry to Illinois (I can talk the talk, but I still don't want to go to jail--I'm a hypocrite, but at least I can admit it). In arguing for concealed carry laws, it is common to point out that concealed carry licensees can be counted on to be responsible citizens, because the people who would pose a threat to society are unlikely to jump through the regulatory hoops required for such a license. While no doubt true, that's an argument for which I have little affection. I reject the idea that any unit of government is justified in putting up such hoops in the first place. I reject the idea that my right to bear arms (whether concealed or not) is in any way contingent on my somehow demonstrating, in advance, that I will never use them improperly. I utterly reject, in the final analysis, the notion that a fundamental human right can be subject to licensing.

I'll continue to fight to make gun laws less strict, but I may never shake the nagging feeling that in doing so, I am granting legitimacy to the existence of any gun laws--in effect, assisting in my own oppression (and in everyone else's).

So I guess the blog will stick around after all, because that right is not subject to licensing . . . yet.

Good news! Second Amendment Carnival is back (but you gotta hurry)

It's great to see that Stan is back to blogging regularly again, at Free Constitution. In fact, the next Second Amendment Carnival will be Saturday, Oct. 13 (two days from now).

So, gun politics bloggers, get your submissions in.

Support for civillian disarmament dwindling

Well, take a look at this (you sure as heck won't hear it from the Brady Bunch and their ilk). The results of a Gallup poll, released today, show that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence position, that "the government must have a monopoly on force," is far from mainstream.

PRINCETON, NJ -- The gap between the proportion of Americans advocating stricter gun laws and those in favor of maintaining or weakening existing gun laws -- once nearly 60 points in favor of stronger gun control, and registering 14 points a year ago -- is just four points in Gallup's latest poll. According to the Oct. 4-7, 2007, survey, 51% of Americans believe the laws governing the sale of firearms should be more strict. When combined, the percentages saying the laws should either be kept as they are or made less strict is nearly as high (47%).

By the way, even if there were overwhelming popular support for civilian disarmament, that would not make it right--you do not subject civil rights to a popular vote. Doing so is to subject society to the tyranny of the majority, whereby 51% of the population can vote to oppress the other 49%.

Still, the next time someone echoes one of the Brady Bunch's talking points, that "an overwhelming majority of Americans support more 'gun control,'" you can tell them where to stick it.

Illinois Pro-Second Amendment county resolution movement has HUGE couple of days

Wow--I turn my back for two days, and six counties adopt resolutions to reaffirm their support for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms (and condemn the Chicago area based attempts to quash that right). It's not easy to keep up, but I'm not complaining.

Tuesday, the resolution passed in in Montgomery, Coles, Jo Daviess, Washington, and Cumberland Counties (bringing the total number to fifty-one--half the counties in the state). Yesterday, Edgar and Williamson Counties got on board. In addition, Clark County has scheduled a full county board vote on the resolution for next Thursday (Oct. 18th), and Jackson County board committee will take a look at it in early November. As always, for the most current information, go to the Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution website.

Here is the current map:
(click to enlarge)

As I said Tuesday, despite the season, it's starting to look like springtime for gun rights in Illinois (and the winter of discontent for the civilian disarmament advocates?).

I guess expressing 'outrage' over this mass shooting doesn't fit with the agenda

David Hardy's Of Arms and the Law and Sebastian's Snowflakes in Hell have pointed out something interesting about what is not happening in the wake of the massacre in Crandon, Wisconsin. The country's major civilian disarmament (aka "gun control") groups have not had a word to say about our country's most recent shooting massacre.

This seems, at first glance, rather surprising. As Mr. Hardy points out, the Brady Campaign, for example, has been quick to jump on shootings in which the death toll was significantly smaller. The fact that the killings in Wisconsin were committed with an AR-15 (the dreaded, so-called "assault weapon") makes the silence all the more deafening--the push to ban "assault weapons" is the Violence Policy Center's bread and butter, I thought (didn't their founder and executive director, Josh Sugarmann, invent the "assault weapon" terminology?).

Immediately after the Virginia Tech killings, and lasting for months afterward, the Brady Campaign website prominently featured this expression of "outrage":

(click to enlarge)

Now, a rampage ends with seven dead, most of them teenagers (one as young as fourteen), and they can't even muster a bit of annoyance? They're not even a trifle miffed? What is different about this mass shooting that makes it so much more tolerable?

Could the reason for their apparent willingness to tolerate this shooting be that the killer was a law enforcement officer? Could it be that murders committed by agents of the government are less outrageous than those committed by private citizens? Could it be that bringing attention to the carnage wrought by an armed police officer is incompatible with an agenda of citizen disarmament?

With at least one of the so-called "gun control" groups, the silence should not be surprising--the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has already gone on record as saying that "the government must have a monopoly on force" (more here).

Dictators throughout the world, and throughout history, would certainly agree with the CSGV about that. Interesting choice of ideological allies, isn't it?

Educating an 'Only One'

Yesterday, I wrote (somewhat intemperately, one could argue) about Marion County, Illinois Sheriff Wolenhaupt, and his opposition to the idea of "average Joes" being permitted to carry concealed firearms.

Today I would like to present (with permission) a letter written to him by a hard-working Illinois gun rights activist, in response to the sheriff's statements.

Dear Sheriff Wolenhaupt,

You are quoted in your local newspaper as saying, "The right to carry concealed weapons by the 'average Joe' - I'm not ready for that,". Well Sheriff, get ready for this; you had better not vacation outside of the state of Illinois any longer, because the “average joes” in 48 other states do in fact carry concealed weapons. I for one, am offended by your remarks. I am an “average joe” and I have an out-of-state permit to carry. Now fear not, it is absolutely worthless here in my home state, but I do use it while traveling out of state. Let me tell you about my cats. We had them declawed when they were kittens, but they are “house cats” and we provide continuous 24 hour protection for them and do not allow them outside where they may encounter trouble. Are you willing to provide ’round the clock security for us “average joes” that have been declawed by the state? I am assuming your answer would be no. I suppose you have not thought about the “average jane” who could have prevented the rape and murder, would she have been permitted to carry. I don’t think anyone’s life should be put at risk because of how some other individual might “feel” about it. Furthermore, in the article, you speak as if only police are worthy of having the means to defend themselves. This smacks of elitism. As sheriff, you above everyone else should want the best means of protection available to your constituents should they choose to implement it. They entrusted you enough to elect you as sheriff, I think it only fitting that you trust them and stand up and demand that their right to self defense be restored! In closing, I ask that you think about this quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of our most notable Founding Fathers…"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


Sincerely,


xxxxxxxxx

Could not have said it better myself.

The sheriff, quite simply, is wrong in not trusting "average Joes" with the means to defend themselves. Being wrong is no disgrace--if it were, there would be no one more disgraced than I. The disgrace comes from being unable to retreat from a wrongheaded position, even in the face of irrefutable evidence that one's original position is, indeed, wrong. Letters like the one above provide the kind of irrefutable evidence to which I refer. I hope Sheriff Wolenhaupt gets enough such letters to improve his understanding.

He can be contacted, by the way, here:

Marion County
Sheriff's Office
204 N Washington St
Salem, Illinois 62881
(618)548-2141

UPDATE: According to the Marion County Clerk, Sheriff Wolenhaupt has submitted a letter to the county board stating that he has reconsidered his position, and asking that the resolution be placed back on the agenda. I commend the sheriff for his willingness to see reason, and now have some hope that he will reexamine the issue of concealed carry for us "regular Joes," with the same openness of mind.

'Only One' blocks progress of pro-Second Amendment resolution in Illinois

Although the Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution website is the best place to go for updates on the resolution that more and more Illinois counties have adopted in support of the right to keep and bear arms (and in condemnation of the Chicago area based attempts to quash that right), I have tried to keep Armed and Safe fairly current with new developments (most recently here).

Today's news is about a set-back. Marion County, at the request of the sheriff, took consideration of the resolution off the agenda for October. It seems the sheriff (Sheriff Wolenhaupt), in the finest tradition of "Only Ones," is not comfortable with the idea of committing to a public resolution for support of the Constitution.

Wolenhaupt also informed the board he recently received a letter from an organization called the "Illinois Pro Second Amendment," asking for the county to pass a resolution acknowledging the right to bear arms.

"I don't think it's necessary to bolster what's already in the constitution. I don't think it can be said any stronger than the constitution," said Wolenhaupt.

Hmm--have you mentioned that to Governor Blagojevich, and various members of the Illinois Politburo legislature, who seem to think the Second Amendment is null and void in Illinois? It gets worse from there.

Wolenhaupt added he has been reluctant to get involved with the weapon activist groups because he feels many of them are asking for too much.

Standing up for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is "asking for too much," eh? You had better hope we don't get tired of asking, Sheriff.

He feels that supporting such a resolution may be just a step away from allowing concealed weapons.

Allowing concealed weapons? The horror! That would threaten to make us as free as the residents of forty-eight other states. Obviously, Illinoisans are not to be trusted with that much freedom.

"The right to carry concealed weapons by the 'average Joe' - I'm not ready for that," said Wolenhaupt.

Though he does not support allowing average citizens to carry concealed weapons, he is in favor of allowing retired police officers the option to carry a concealed weapon.

"Retired police officers have to qualify with their gun. They also deal with the elements necessary to carry one," he said.

Spoken like a true "Only One"--and one, apparently, who intends to remain an "Only One" even after leaving office (speaking of which, does anyone know when the office of Marion County Sheriff next comes up for election?).

In other (and better) news regarding the resolution, I never got around earlier to posting that Perry County has joined forty-five other Illinois counties in adopting the resolution, and Edgar County will consider it at the county board meeting tomorrow (Oct. 10th).

That brings the most current map to this:

(click to enlarge)

The leaves may be getting ready to change colors, but the map of Illinois just gets greener and greener--springtime for freedom?

UPDATE: Within minutes of putting this post up, I found out that Montgomery County has adopted the resolution, making forty-seven (and counting) pro-rights counties in the state--the map has been updated.

UPDATE 2: Also, I forgot to mention that by sometime tonight, three of the four counties shown in yellow (Coles, Jo Daviess, and Washington) are expected to vote on the resolution, with the fourth (Edgar) voting tomorrow. In other words, by sometime tomorrow, exactly half the counties in Illinois may have drawn a line in the sand (thanks, Days of Our Trailers).

Question for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial staff

So, folks, would you refer to Tyler Peterson's gun as an "assault weapon," or a "patrol rifle"?

An off-duty sheriff's deputy used a police-style AR-15 rifle to kill six people at an early-morning party in a small Wisconsin town, officials said Monday.

By the way, I have no idea what distinguishes a "police-style" AR-15 rifle from other AR-15's.

UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed the op-ed piece that refers to "patrol rifles" from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

I should mention that I sent the editorial board an email asking this question (and also why the original editorial was removed from the website so quickly). I have a hunch that if my email is the only one they get, it will be ignored--perhaps some folks will join me in this inquiry. Click on the title of this blog post for contact information.

Since gun 'buybacks' work so well . . .

I've made no secret of my contempt for gun "buybacks." I see them as worthless "feel good" measures, wasting money that could otherwise be used to ameliorate the root causes of crime. But, at least they provide a murderer with a chance to ditch the evidence of his crime, and make him a few bucks on the side.

It is therefore with much rolling of eyes that I read of a proposal to institute such a program on a national scale ("Norton Gun Buyback Bill Responds to National Rise in Gun Killings"--a bit less than halfway down the page).

As the District's handgun ban goes before the Supreme Court this month and gun control opponents and supporters are lining up on both sides, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) introduced a bill to launch a nationwide gun buyback program that "offers a common sense, bi-partisan attempt to find a solution to gun violence that does not conflict with most stances on the controversial issue of gun control." The Nationwide Gun Buyback Act (NGBA) would provide $50 million in federal funds for local jurisdictions to run gun buyback programs like the successful programs that have been conducted by the District of Columbia and other big cities during periods of increasing gun violence. This program would allow people who desire to remove guns, including illegal weapons, from their homes to do so voluntarily without incurring criminal penalties for possession.

There are, obviously, a few problems in the above. The first being that, unless the staff of the Redding News Review has information to which the rest of us are not privy, there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will choose to become involved with DC v. Heller. Another problem lies in the "common sense" part--these "buybacks" might be common, but there's nothing sensible about them. "Bi-partisan"? I suppose--if the two parties are the Democrats and the Socialists. "Attempt to find a solution . . . "? Well, I suppose it would be a solution to the problem of how to get rid of $50 million. I particularly enjoyed seeing " . . . progams like the successful programs that have been conducted by the District of Columbia and other big cities during periods of increasing gun violence." "Successful"? I suppose that depends on how "success" is defined. Maybe further reading will turn up a clue. . . . Ah--whaddya' know? I think I've found it:

Several years ago the District conducted a pilot buyback program using funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Long lines of residents desiring to turn in their guns prompted police to expand the program citywide. The city used almost $300,000, but later ran out of money, but did not run out of guns that could have been collected.

So that's what is meant by "success"--all the money being used. And people wonder how we've managed to accumulate $10 trillion in national debt.

I sincerely hope this silly legislation goes nowhere, but if it does somehow pass, I trust that some pro-rights groups will follow this example.

About H.R. 2640, Senator Coburn, and . . . stuff

There's lots of discussion (some of it a bit heated) these days in the gun rights community about H.R. 2640, the NICS "Improvement" Act. This bill is championed by longtime enemies of gun rights, including Representative Carolyn "I don't know what a barrel shroud is, but let's ban them anyway" McCarthy, Senator Chuck Schumer (couldn't think of a catchy middle name for him), Paul "Have I mentioned that I was mayor of Ft. Wayne, IN?" Helmke . . . and it is also championed by the NRA.

On the other side stands Gun Owners of America, supported by the American Legion and the Military Order of the Purple Heart. Ted Nugent, interestingly enough (I don't remember him fighting the NRA on anything before), is also opposed. The Liberty Zone has voiced some pretty compelling arguments against it (most recently here). I've made no secret of my own opposition (here, for example), although not so much for the reasons most emphasized by the GOA.

My comprehension of legalese is quite shaky, at best, but after slogging through the text of the bill, and reading the points made at Snowflakes in Hell and at Of Arms and the Law, I am inclined to believe that the threat to veterans' gun rights is being significantly exaggerated by the GOA. The previous two links argue pretty effectively for the point that the bill includes fairly robust protections against the kinds of horror stories warned of in recent GOA alerts.

Then again, "robust protections" seemingly tend to end up being a whole lot less robust than one would expect. Take, for example, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms--how could that law fail to be enough to get Gary, Indiana's lawsuit against gun manufacturers thrown out? All it takes is a few judges whose personal dislike of certain provisions of the Bill of Rights outweighs their respect for the law, it would seem. How could Ohio's straightforward law banning municipal gun laws more strict than the state's be ruled insufficient to get Clyde, Ohio's ban of guns in city parks tossed out like the garbage it is? A State Supreme Court that has more respect for gun bans than for the laws that prohibit them, apparently. Therefore, although it would seem that veterans are protected by the way the bill was written, people can perhaps be forgiven for a lack of faith in those protections.

Still, for me, the much larger concern with the bill is that it constitutes a major (and quite expensive) expansion of the NICS program--a program that I simply cannot reconcile with "shall not be infringed." The idea of "keeping guns out of the hands" of felons, domestic batterers, and insane people certainly sounds good, but if these people are so dangerous (either to themselves or to others) that we cannot take the risk of allowing them to buy guns legally, then they would seem to be too dangerous to be trusted not to obtain guns illegally, or to simply commit their crimes with something other than a firearm. Such people should not be running loose in society.

As to Senator Coburn's "hold" on the bill, I applaud him, and believe that even supporters of the bill should lay off with the criticism. The hold is not an insurmountable obstacle--it only prevents the bill from being passed without floor debate (or with only perfunctory floor debate), and without a recorded vote. As pointed out at War on Guns, the requirement for discussion and vote for the passage of a new law is hardly an attack on our form of government. If Senators are unwilling to debate the merits of a bill they want passed, what does that say about the bill? If they do not want their constituents to know how they voted on the bill, what does that say about it?

Frankly, anything that makes laws more difficult to pass sounds good to me (and I realize that laws that I would like to have seen passed have been stopped in this manner--that's a price I'm willing to pay). It's unfortunate that a legislator's job is to . . . legislate--in other words, to pass more laws. In still other words, to make our bloated legal code even more grotesquely vast than it already is. In yet other words, to place more restrictions on what we can do. If Senator Coburn wants to introduce a speed bump into the process, I say more power to him.

Senators, if H.R. 2640 is so good for America, so necessary, then stand up on the Senate floor and defend it. If passing it is in the best interests of your constituents, put your name on your "Yes" vote, and proudly let them know of your support for it. If not, then I guess NICS doesn't need to be "improved," after all.

More about the CSGV and tyranny enablement

Recently, I mentioned Ladd Everitt, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and his proclamation that "the government must have a monopoly on force." I should make clear that I am not at all surprised that Everitt, as a civilian disarmament advocate, believes that citizens (subjects, really, if Everitt has his way) should be utterly without the power to resist government excesses (that belief is, after all, the driving force behind the civilian disarmament agenda), but I hadn't expected him to come out and say it in public, at least not in the U.S. Americans, after all, even those with no affection for firearms, tend to be rather wary of excessive government power.

Actually, in my earlier post, I omitted (for sake of brevity) some of what Leveritt had said on the subject. On giving it some more thought, I think it's worth looking at the entirety of his tyranny enablement advocacy.

More revealingly, Everitt insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force,” according to an account by my assistant Rebekah Sharpe, who attended the meeting. He identified the obstacles to fuller gun control as “hardcore gun owners” who have a “profoundly, virulently anti-government attitude.” Many of these hardcore zealots adhere to the National Rifle Association’s ostensible belief that “if our government becomes tyrannical they have a right to take over that government, our democratically elected government!”

Apparently uninformed about the political thought behind America’s founding, Everitt cluelessly asked: “If we love to say that we’re the freest country, then why [do]… our elected representatives… talk about getting government out of people’s lives? If you’re so proud of democracy then acknowledge that government had some role in that.” Undoubtedly, the “Living Letters” must have been nodding their heads. The South Africa “Letter” responded: “Yes… the right wing out there wants to de-legitimize government… [If we give in to them] we are playing into the hands of the forces of chaos.”

Orwell's dystopian vision brought to reality--I keep expecting him to chant the Party slogan: "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

It would seem that Everitt's position is not at all out of line with that of the organization he represents, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. This is made quite apparent in the CSGV's article, "Guns, Democracy, and Freedom."

When gun enthusiasts talk about "freedom," they have something specific in mind—freedom from government oppression.

So . . . um, what do non-enthusiasts have in mind when talking about freedom--the presence of government oppression?

They argue that the only way to keep centralized authority in check is to ensure that individual citizens retain the capability to confront the government with force of arms.

But that's giving us modern-day Bill of Rights advocates too much credit--we can hardly claim to have invented that idea (one example out of many):

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.-Tench Coxe, 1788

The CSGV article goes on with its disparagement of the idea of people defending themselves from domestic tyranny.

This idea, which we call “insurrectionism,” is part of a broader ideological perspective that opposes a strong, activist government in nearly all of its forms. Big government is seen not only as inefficient and corrupt—but as an alien force that threatens to annihilate us if we fail to exercise constant vigilance against its natural tendency toward tyranny.

Funny--where did we ever get that idea? Oh, by the way, I hear Burma (or Myanmar, if you insist) has "a strong, activist government"--how is that working out for the people, I wonder?

For more of Josh Horwitz's (Horwitz is the CSGV's executive director) interesting views on protecting freedom by . . . restricting freedom, see "Parker Ruling Encourages Insurrection," and "Gun-Control ruling affirms the Confederacy."

Basically, it seems that the CSGV is arguing that freedom comes from the government, and that freedom is threatened when citizens are empowered with the ability to defend themselves from said government. Doublethink at its finest. They ought to love this guy:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do," - Rudy Giuliani, March 1994.

All hail Big Brother.

UPDATE: By some kind of odd coincidence, Snowflakes in Hell today raises some good points about civilian resistance to tyranny.

I guess they need to start up a tough policy of 'pepper control' laws

Running a bit low on inspiration today, so I thought we would take a look at this scary episode in London.

Police cordoned off three streets and firefighters smashed down a door after reports of a chemical attack on a busy shopping street in London's Soho.

But instead of a terrorist attack or a toxic leak, all police found was a Thai cook preparing chilli sauce.

Emergency workers wearing protective breathing masks were called to D'Arblay Street on Monday evening after members of the public detected an acrid cloud of smoke.

A Hazardous Area Response Team was dispatched and specialist crews broke down the door of the Thai Cottage restaurant.

They emerged shortly afterwards with a 9lb pot of chillies.

The Brits would seem to be just a little bit jumpy, don't you think? Perhaps I'm being unfairly harsh, and perhaps my own tastes interfere with my ability to understand fear induced by the smell of spicy food (I tend to use cayenne powder more than most people use salt), but I cannot help but think that maybe they would not be so readily frightened (remember this?), if they were not kept in a state of mandated defenselessness, (in which even the police are under orders to flee from thuggish punks).

"But," we're told, "Britain's extremely restrictive gun laws make them safer!" Uh-huh.

But at least they seem close to a solution to stabbings (and actually, without the ability to chop up those dangerous peppers, maybe Thai chefs can be prevented from concocting their fiendish weapons of mass destruction).

Illinois State Police advance their civilian disarmament agenda

Once again, the Illinois State Police are demonstrating their desire to render as many Illinoisans defenseless as possible (the ISP, you may remember, is the same bunch that recommends a teasing brush or rattail comb, rather than a gun, for women to defend themselves against would-be rapists). This time, the target of their campaign of state-mandated helplessness is children. First, a bit of background is in order.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Illinois gun laws, I am deeply jealous--but I digress. To buy, own, or transport a gun (or even a single round of ammunition) in Illinois, one must have a state-mandated (and state-issued) Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. Here in Illinois, you see, we don't believe in any of that "shall not be infringed" nonsense. Surprisingly for Illinois, there is no minimum age requirement for FOID eligibility--this was illustrated last spring in this article, written by a man whose 11-month-old son had recently been issued one (the father did the paperwork, of course). I am honestly unsure about whether or not this article was written with an agenda--it almost seems to me that it was just intended to be a mildly amusing piece to fill some space when the author couldn't come up with anything more relevant. That changed with the follow-up article, written when the author discovered that a minor's possession of a FOID card constituted an exemption to the so-called "safe storage" laws in place in Illinois.

However, a good hiding spot, a gunlock and gun safe can all be avoided if parents get their kids FOID cards, Birch said. He even referenced the state law that allows for the exemption in his e-mail.

Again, I was suspicious.

I called Lt. Scott Compton of the Illinois State Police, who confirmed Birch's story. He pointed me to the legislation -- 720 ILCS 5/24-9.

Talk about a loophole.

FOID cards are meant to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, those convicted of domestic battery or domestic violence and anyone subject to an active Order of Protection.

You need to be a badass kid to break any of these laws by your 14th birthday. So, getting a FOID card should be no problem for most youngsters.

It seems silly to have a law requiring gun owners to use locks, safes and secret hiding places if all anyone needs to do is pay a $5 fee and complete an online form to circumvent the rule.

I've made no secret of my intense dislike of "safe-storage" laws--which have demonstrably helped psychopaths kill children (and yes, children have used guns to save their lives before).

That was rather a lot for just background, but I think that information is necessary to understand the significance of this email alert from the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) (excerpt):

A proposal submitted by the Illinois State Police (ISP) to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) would effectively eliminate participation in shooting activities by anyone under 10 years of age. The proposal, which would establish minimum age requirements for obtaining an Illinois Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID), comes in the wake of an irresponsibly biased feature article that had appeared in a south suburban newspaper. In the article, the feature writer spun a near-satirical yarn about how easily his newborn son, ‘Bubba’ was able to obtain a FOID. Reaction to the article amongst anti-gun/anti-hunting forces was predictably hysterical. In response, Gov. Blagojevich’s State Police issued a proposed change in the law which would set 10 years of age as the minimum age at which one could obtain a FOID.

The Illinois State Police cannot (thankfully) unilaterally make this change--they have submitted their proposal to Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR)--a body of legislators (from both chambers)--click on the link for names and contact information. These folks need to be contacted, and within the next few weeks. Also, we need to send (snail-mail) letters expressing opposition to this nitwittery to:

Mr. John M. Hosteny
Interim Chief Legal Counsel
Illinois State Police
801 South 7th Street, Suite 1000-S
Post Office Box 19461
Springfield, Illinois 62794-9461

We need to take the time to do this--remember, it's for the children

More at Days of Our Trailers.

'Assault weapons' vs. 'Patrol rifles'

Not long ago, I mentioned an editorial* in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that advocated a new ban on so-called "assault weapons." The media and the civilian disarmament advocacy groups (but perhaps I repeat myself) seem to be engaged in a blitz against these firearms (as has been pointed out at Snowflakes in Hell, Traction Control, Days of our Trailers, Captain of a Crew of One, and undoubtedly others that I've missed).

A reader and commenter (Straight Arrow) here at Armed and Safe pointed out something about the editorial that I had missed. Although I of course made note of the paper's editorial board's tyranny-enabling advocacy of a ban on "assault weapons" for civilians, while simultaneously claiming that "people shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons," I failed to spot the verbal gymnastics (despite their decided lack of subtlety) used a bit earlier in the editorial:

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Suddenly, what had been an "assault weapon" (or the even less honest use of the term "assault rifle") has become a "patrol rifle"--presumably because it is now in the hands of a police officer.

Perhaps I should count this as progress. After all, we (as gun rights advocates) have been arguing all along that the outrage and loathing should be directed at the evil person who commits evil with a gun, rather than the gun he uses for that purpose. By referring to an AR-15 in the hands of a gang banger as an "assault weapon" (with all the menace that term is intended to convey) while calling an identical firearm in the hands of a police officer a "patrol rifle" (a much more noble-sounding designation), they seem to have come a bit closer to that understanding--it at least implies an understanding that the user of a weapon determines whether good or evil is done with it.

Still, it's not enough. They refer to these firearms as "assault weapons," whether they belong to criminals/psychopaths, or peaceable civilians who would never shoot someone who does not mean them harm, and who does not present a serious, credible threat. Likewise, I assume that to them, an AR-15 in a police cruiser's trunk is a "patrol rifle," whether the officer in the car is a courageous protector of his/her community, or a monster with a badge.

In the end, an "assault weapon" is a "patrol rifle," is a homeland defense rifle, etc. To put it another way, "a rose by another name . . . ." To put it still another way, whether a gun is an instrument of evil, or a lifesaver, boils down to the intent and actions of the person holding it, rather than the cosmetic features or designation it bears.

*UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed that op-ed piece from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

Paperwork for a gun? Already been filled out . . .

. . . And it begins: "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . . "

And it goes on from there. Of course, the BATFE and their civilian disarmament advocate masters don't see it that way, and will enforce their love of paper (or hatred of trees, maybe?) with the same kind of firepower they wish to deny the rest of us.

There remains, however, a legal way around that. I refer to "80% frames" (meaning that they are about 80% complete). These are, as far as the law is concerned, chunks of metal, requiring additional machining before they can be assembled into functional firearms. The significance of this is that as inert pieces of metal, they are not subject to all the onerous, draconian restrictions placed on complete firearm frames (and complete guns, of course), and can thus be sold to anyone, without any paperwork. All of the remaining parts necessary for assembling a gun are likewise not subject to regulation (with certain exceptions related to NFA weapons, such as machine gun parts, suppressors, etc.).

The bottom line is that, with the skill, the know-how, and the tools, one can perfectly legally build his own gun that need never appear on a single government-mandated form. I, sadly, am completely without such skills (or even the ability to ever learn them--I'm absolutely worthless when it comes to that sort of thing, with field-stripping and reassembly of my .45's being about the limits of my mechanical skills). Others, however, are not cursed with my incompetence, and with access to a garage or basement machine-shop, could simply make so-called "gun-control" laws irrelevant.

Unfortunately, probably the best known source of 80% frames, KT Ordnance, has already fallen victim to the BATFE's abuses (more here, here, and here). Mr. Celata's (the owner of KT Ordnance) case is still grinding its way through the courts, as the JBT's try to simply bankrupt him into submission.

KT Ordnance offered 80% frames for several types of guns, including both 1911's and AR-15's. Unfortunately, however, they are of course unable to take orders while our government tries to render Celata and his family destitute and homeless.

There are other options, though. Sarco, Inc., for example offers 80% frames for 1911 style pistols (part number C45214--about a quarter of the way down the page), for $19.95 (or 6 for $99.95).

Excellent descriptions of the build process can be found on a site helpfully set up by Ken Mays, with two accounts of 1911 builds (here and here), and an AR-15 build project. The work is clearly going to be beyond what many of us can do, but it is within the abilities of some.

For those who do have the ability (and the tools), perhaps you can guide your less skilled buddies through the process.

Laura Washington wants to "shove tougher gun policies right down [our] throats." I say let's shove our ability to resist civilian disarmament right down hers.

Tax money well spent

Update: New information has come to light, which makes it clear that I was wrong and irresponsible in making the following post. I am leaving it up, because I think I would just be compounding my unfortunate behavior if I simply tried to pretend it never happened. More details can be found here. I apologize to the people I maligned in the following post.

I'll try to come up with something more substantial sometime today, but in the meantime, I'd like point out a bit of silliness.

Monday, an investigator for the Oklahoma County district attorney's office described how assault weapons operate. Investigator Gary Eastridge also showed jurors how to fire one at an Oklahoma City Police Department gun range near Interstate 240 and S Air Depot Boulevard.

Thirteen jurors were bused to the site for the 90-second demonstration. They were joined by District Judge Twyla Mason Gray and her staff, the attorneys and investigators on the case and Simpson, who wore a stun device under the right sleeve of his shirt.

Eastridge showed them how to load the semiautomatic rifle before firing a single shot, then 12 in rapid succession.

The rifle blasts were muffled by heavy ear protectors handed out to everyone watching the demonstration.

Echoes from the last shot had barely faded when jurors returned to the bus for the 20-minute ride back to the courthouse.

Gray told jurors the demonstration was intended to illustrate some of the evidence presented to them during the trial.

This was all part of the trial of a man charged with two counts of murder (and of wounding a third victim). The crime was allegedly committed with an "assault rifle" (the type is unspecified in the article, but since the demonstration was conducted using a semi-automatic weapon, I assume that what was really meant was the civilian disarmament lobby's made-up term, "assault weapon"). So they spent forty minutes on a bus for a minute and a half demonstration of an "assault weapon."

What the hell for? What could such a demonstration possibly tell jurors about the defendant's guilt or innocence (and if there were some value in the demonstration, would a video presentation of it not be much easier, quicker, and cheaper)?

Snowflakes in Hell and Traction Control have pointed out what is starting to look like a campaign to demonize "assault weapons." My guess is that this little demonstration has more to do with that than with justice.

Comment problems?

I've had a report of extreme slowness in loading the comment pages. I'm trying to get a handle on it. I would appreciate it if anyone experiencing such problems would let me know.

Since it would obviously be difficult to do that through comments, you can send me an email: 45superman@gmail.com

Coalition to Support Government Tyranny

OK--that's not really what they call themselves. But recently, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Ladd Everitt (who is also the president of the Washington DC chapter of the Million Mom March--I know this is none of my business, but if he is one of the Marching Mommies, I wonder who the father is--on second thought, I don't want to know), as much as publicly admitted that supporting tyranny was the objective.

Mostly Livingston wanted the “Living Letters” to help advocate stricter gun control in the U.S. He was joined by Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, who bewailed: "We have a real pride in violence in our country." He likewise exclaimed, "We also profit from it,” fingering the U.S. films that “glorify violence and promote vigilante justice,” according to a WCC account.

More revealingly, Everitt insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force,” according to an account by my assistant Rebekah Sharpe, who attended the meeting. He identified the obstacles to fuller gun control as “hardcore gun owners” who have a “profoundly, virulently anti-government attitude.” Many of these hardcore zealots adhere to the National Rifle Association’s ostensible belief that “if our government becomes tyrannical they have a right to take over that government, our democratically elected government!” [emphasis mine]

"The government must have a monopoly on force," eh? I have never doubted that this was the core objective of the civilian disarmament groups, but I never expected them to come out and publicly acknowledge it. Note also his dismay at the thought of people believing they have a right to overthrow tyrants (especially if they are elected tyrants).

The article I quoted above is about a delegation from the World Council of Churches, which recently came to the United States "to investigate America's violence" (their itinerary wisely included Washington DC, with its rampant violence, and its draconian civilian disarmament laws--but I doubt they made the connection). The delegates were, oddly enough, referred to as "Living Letters" (is it just me, being a child of the '70's, or is anyone else having trouble shaking these mental images?). It was while they were in DC that Ladd made his speech to them. This speech was apparently well received--as evidenced by the agreement of the "Letter" from South Africa:

“Yes… the right wing out there wants to de-legitimize government… [If we give in to them] we are playing into the hands of the forces of chaos.”

Evidently, Africa has no history of governmental abuses--I'm so glad that I was apparently wrong about that.

The group also bleated and wailed in anguish over the various war memorials--reverence for courage and sacrifice is apparently very upsetting to their tender sensibilities.

The “Living Letters” also toured Washington’s many presidential monuments and war memorials, where they found lots of glorification of “violence.” Naturally, they were very concerned and asked, “Victory and sacrifice are the only way to build a great nation?” They also wondered why the “cost of freedom is paid by so many human lives.” While visiting the recently built World War II Memorial, they realized to their horror that “these praises of violence and sacrifice are not only memories of humanity’s past but are very much present today, in times we as churches are called to be protagonists.”

I suppose that's to be expected--anyone who opposes the use of force to free oneself from tyranny is naturally going to be horrified by the thought of using force to help free others.

Just curious, Ladd, when the tyranny you are trying to help bring about is imposed, do you figure to be one of those holding the whips, or is it your plan to survive through abject boot licking (I understand that some folks are into that sort of thing)?