Today is the day in PA

This probably won't come as news to any regular readers of gun blogs, but today, the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee meets, with several restrictive gun laws on the agenda. Virulently anti-gun Governor Ed Rendell will speak to the committee in support of the bills.

Here are the bills of which I speak:

The package includes legislation, House Bill 22, for a one-gun-a-month policy. Rep. John Myers (D-Philadelphia) is sponsoring the bill, which would disallow a law-abiding Pennsylvanian to purchase more than one handgun in 30 days.

"To some extent, we need to create a public policy saying we want to cut down on the availability of guns," Rep. Myers told The Bulletin. "I really can't even imagine where I would store 12 guns in my house in a year."

"Cut down the availability of" a legal product? So basically, you mean make it an illegal product, right (not that such an approach works for reducing availability--see "War on Drugs"). By the way, notice that the article says that such a law "would disallow a law-abiding Pennsylvanian to purchase more than one handgun in 30 days." Whether intentional or not, I applaud the article's author, Bradley Vasoli, for his perception--such legislation prevents the law-abiding citizens (exactly the ones we don't need to worry about) from buying multiple handguns in a month, but will have no effect on the felons who buy their guns on the street.

House Bill 18, sponsored by Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Philadelphia), would strengthen the ability of municipalities to enact gun-control measures that could supersede state law. Gun-rights supporters, who tend to regard Pennsylvania law as tolerant of firearms ownership, believe this would weaken residents' ability to protect themselves and confuse gun owners who travel from one jurisdiction to another.

Yeah--some folks just can't seem to see the wisdom in allowing communities to pass laws that make mockery of fundamental human liberties.

A third measure, House Bill 29, would criminalize the failure to report a handgun missing or stolen within 24 hours of its disappearance. The National Rifle Association and other gun-rights advocates believe this measure will only harm Pennsylvania residents who have not acted maliciously.

"My bill would tell people that they must be responsible to report their guns lost or stolen," the bill's sponsor Rep. Jewell Williams (D-Philadelphia) said. Gun owners "should be thankful" for it, he said, because it will extricate them from liability for paying a victim's medical bills or punitive damages if their gun was used by another individual.

Yep--that's my favorite part--"Gun owners 'should be thankful' for" being held responsible for what criminals do with the guns they steal from peaceable gun owners.

The Philly Daily News editorial board seems to take a view somewhat different from mine.

WHAT WILL it take to bring our Harrisburg lawmakers to their senses, to break them out of the National Rifle Association's hypnotic trance and pass the handgun laws we so desperately need?

A splash of cold water to their faces? A sustained high-decibel scream? A sharp snap of the fingers?

You could try those things, I guess--seems a bit puerile to me, but I suppose it's about par for course.

Just gotta like this guy

Readers of Armed and Safe are, if they know what's good for 'em, also readers of War on Guns, and should thus be familiar with Bradford Wiles. For those who need a reminder, Mr. Wiles is a graduate student at Virginia Tech, and also a holder of a concealed carry permit. Even before Cho's evil atrocity last April, Mr. Wiles had argued strongly for a campus policy that does not claim to foster safety by mandating helplessness.

The VA Tech associate vice president for university relations, Larry Hincker, loudly ridiculed Mr. Wiles for his position. Hincker is, of course, the one who trumpeted in triumphant glee over the death of a bill that would have compelled universities in Virginia to allow licensed individuals to carry on campus.

As it turns out, Mr. Wiles is still fighting against state-mandated defenselessness.

Larry Hincker believed that Virginia Tech had a sound policy preventing students from bringing guns to campus. However, there is an important distinction that needs to be addressed. What Hincker really meant is that Virginia Tech had a policy prohibiting people from bringing guns to campus, but it did nothing to prevent someone with no regard for the law or policy from bringing a gun to campus and killing.

Don't you get it, Mr. Wiles? It's not about what the policy will actually do--Hincker just wanted a policy that will help people "feel safe." If illusion matters more than reality, gun bans are fabulous.

Hincker ridiculed students like Mr. Wiles, for having the audacity to believe themselves capable of participating in their own defense, rather than depending on "the professionals." Mr. Wiles, apparently, has no more patience for such arguments than do I.

But put the emotions aside again and reflect on the logic of what happened here. When the perpetrator was shooting and killing students, the police were called. Why are the police called to stop a gunman? Are they superhuman? No. They have guns and can shoot back.

I am not a policeman, but I am able to defend myself immediately when I have my gun. When properly armed, I don't need to wait nine minutes for the police to come to save me. When seconds count, the police are still minutes away. While I am not interested in chasing down a criminal, or policing my campus for petty crimes, I am very interested in assuring my own safety, which the police both cannot, and are not obligated, to do.

Mr. Wiles' parting words sum this up at least as well as I could, so here's one more quote.

The university's policymakers would rather we all just die defenseless, because someone could get hurt with a gun. That's the reasonable, common-sense gun-control policy for the children that is currently in place.

Prohibitions only influence law- and policy-abiding citizens and do nothing to stop people bent on violence from harming others. Prevention is a different story. Properly armed, we can prevent someone from killing or seriously harming us or our friends, families and classmates.

It is time that those of us who wish to be responsible for our own safety be allowed to prevent violence against us. Prohibitions do not prevent violent crimes; people with guns do.

I sometimes fear that the next generation of citizens is going to consist mainly of empty-headed, "American Idol" watching, utterly useless Eloi--Mr. Wiles gives me hope that I have perhaps judged hastily.

More Illinois counties pass Pro-Second Amendment resolution

In the barely over two weeks since I last visited this topic, four more Illinois counties have passed resolutions reaffirming the counties' commitment to the Second Amendment, and condemning Chicago-style attacks on the right to keep and bear arms.

On Monday (Nov. 12th), it was Ford County, passing the resolution unanimously. The next day, Vermillion, Grundy, and Marion Counties followed suit (Marion County, you might remember, is where the resolution ran into some problems, at one point).

Bond and Jackson Counties have the resolution on the agenda for the near future (full board vote in Bond County set for next Tuesday). The updated map thus looks like this:
(click to enlarge)

That's an amazing sixty out of one hundred-two counties that have embraced liberty, and rejected citizen disarmament. The good folks at Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution show us real grassroots in action.

Help put the brakes on Sullivan confirmation.

Ryan Horsley, over at Red's Trading Post, has given plenty of reasons for gun owners to oppose the appointment of Michael Sullivan as head of the BATFE, so I'm not going to try to repeat them all. War on Guns has also been a big part of the endeavor to warn gun owners of what to expect from a Sullivan-led BATFE, and even I have had a bit to say on the matter.

Hey, I'm not trying to claim that the "right" choice to head the BATFE would suddenly give the agency the Constitutional legitimacy it lacks, but it does seem possible that someone could be found who does not derive personal satisfaction from the exercise of crushing bureaucratic power over one's fellow citizens. If we are looking for such a person, it would seem that we have not found him in Michael Sullivan.

Red's Trading Post and War on Guns are urging readers to contact their U.S. senators (as soon as possible--now that he has been approved by the Senate committee, the confirmation vote by the whole Senate could come any day), asking them to vote "No" on Sullivan's confirmation. As David points out, even anti-gun Senators should be able to find plenty to not like about this character.

Find a reason besides guns (see this link) if you think it will help: He's attacked health care companies; A dozen US attorneys quit on his watch; He's done patronage hires with his buddies; He's alienated federal judges with his heavy-handedness; Ah, here's one--his policies single out minorities for the most extreme punishment. You get the idea.

If our Senators don't hear from their constituents that Sullivan is unacceptable, we have only ourselves to blame.

Florida sheriff takes heat for defending Second Amendment

This editorial in Florida Today breathlessly warns us that violent crime is on the upswing.

Watch your back, because Brevard County's streets are getting more dangerous.

How bad is it?

Really bad.

The local crime rate spiked 9 percent during the first six months of 2007, as compared to the same period a year ago.

Scary stuff, indeed. What's the solution? (Re-)banning so-called "assault weapons," of course.

However, a federal anti-crime bill proposed by Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., could bring timely help and deserves strong, bipartisan support.

It would invest $18.6 billion over six years to hire more police, FBI agents and prosecutors, buy crime-tracking technology, reduce recidivism and fight drug abuse.

It would also renew a ban on assault weapons Congress let lapse in 2004.

The bill referred to here is, of course, Biden's "Crime Bill", or S. 2237, which (as mentioned here) would both close the mythical "gun show loophole," and re-establish the 1994 ban on so-called "assault weapons."

The International Association of Police Chiefs backs the reauthorization, including past-president andcurrent Palm Bay Police Chief William Berger.

And we all know how impartial the IACP is about private gun ownership.

In fact, it seems that everyone supports re-implementing the ban (the one that the Violence Policy Center's own Tom Diaz described as not making "one whit of difference").

"It's turning into an arms race out there," says Berger.

He echoes the words of Miami Police Chief John Timoney, who armed his officers with more firepower in September after one officer was slain and three others wounded by an assailant with an AK-47.

Timoney also supports a renewed ban on assault weapons. So does the National Association of Police Organizations, which lobbies in Washington for the Coastal Florida Police Benevolent Association, representing some 1,100 officers in Brevard.

State Attorney Norm Wolfinger says an assault weapons ban isn't a silver bullet, but state agencies crippled by budget cuts need all the help they can gather.

Well, almost everyone.

We agree, and it's why we're deeply troubled by Sheriff Jack Parker's opposition to the renewed ban, which he claims wouldn't be effective and could erode citizens' right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Ooh--that's the problem, Sheriff--they just don't like hearing about the Second Amendment.

But 63 police officers nationwide have been fatally shot this year, up more than 37 percent from the same period last year, according to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund in Washington, D.C.

If an assault weapons ban saves the life of just one officer next year, it's worth it.

And I suppose that any officer killed with an "assault weapon" will be touted as "proof" that such a ban would have saved lives.

Too many elected officials like Parker -- who faces reelection next year -- cower before the National Rifle Association and refuse to support sensible laws for stricter gun control, even when it means a potential death sentence to cops on the street.

Hmm--before an upcoming election, he makes a strong, unambiguous stand on an important issue--doesn't sound like "cowering" to me, unless he is "cowering" to the will of his constituents. Kind of what one would hope for in an elected official, isn't it?

I have to wonder if the writers of that editorial have a lot of room to talk about "cowering."

Virginia Tech panel chairman: End gun 'proliferation'

W. Gerald Massengill, the chairman of the panel that investigated the Virginia Tech murder spree, blames Cho's atrocity on the "proliferation" of guns.

The former Virginia State Police superintendent focused on gun control laws and the gun purchase and campus policy recommendations set forth by the eight-member review panel.

"There just has to be some reasonable processes and procedures out there to address these issues," Massengill said, predicting that gun control will be debated "to a new height" in the upcoming Virginia General Assembly session.

Well, there you have it--"there just has to be some reasonable processes and procedures"--Massengill says so. If he says there "just has to be" a way to reconcile "reasonable processes and procedures" (what--the word "restrictions" is a bit too honest for you, Massengill?) with "shall not be infringed," who am I to argue?

"The thought ... of people losing their firearms is just something that Americans can't tolerate and quite honestly shouldn't. But on the other hand, we cannot allow the proliferation of guns to continue like they're continuing," Massengill said.

Now, suddenly, he shifts this to a debate about confiscation, and assures us not to worry--he certainly doesn't advocate that. By the way, " . . . cannot allow the proliferation of guns to continue like they're continuing"? That's some . . . interesting grammar.

The article then goes on to say that Massengill and his panel support legislation requiring background checks for all firearm sales (with a possible exception for transfers between family members--gee, thanks, buddy).

"The instant background check for everyone, maybe except family, to me is just a reasonable approach," Massengill said. "There's just a lot of good reasons in today's society to tighten up these restrictions on buying guns."

At least now he's admitting that his "processes and procedures" are really "restrictions." Anyway, we have "just a lot of good reasons in today's society to tighten up" these very same restrictions--enough reasons (good reasons, no less), I'm sure, to far outweigh some pesky, old-fashioned Bill of Rights, and the rantings of the paranoid, homegrown terrorist types who insist on reading it literally.

Wanna hear Massengill's idea of the "perfect system"?

Massengill said the perfect system would have everyone undergo a mental health screening before being able to get a gun, but said "that's not going to happen."

Don't be modest, Massengill--it's not the "perfect system"--it's the Final Solution.

What, no mention of lifting policies of victim disarmament? Actually, there was, right at the end:

Audience members also brought up the discussion of people being able to carry guns in college campuses, which some argued could have lessened the casualties during the massacre. The panel recommended banning guns on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law.

"Unless mandated by law," eh? Does mandated by the Constitution count?

"When you analyze it in totality, it's just not a good idea," Massengill said of guns on campus.

Well, as long as Massengill says so, and states his reasoning so clearly (and with a four syllable word!), I guess it must be true. Apparently, the best way to keep students safe is to ensure that the only armed person in the building is the sick bastard who wants to kill everybody. Sounds counterintuitive to me, but I've never been a high-ranking "Only One," so I'm obviously not going to know this stuff unless wise masters like Massengill tell me what to believe.

The proliferation I would like to see the end of is the proliferation of statist herbivores who would trade liberty for . . . not even safety, but for the illusion of safety--I guess that's not going to happen, either.

Miami-Dade County Commission pushes citizen defenselessness

The Miami-Dade County Commission has voted to lobby for the reinstatement of the ban of so-called "assault weapons."

Miami-Dade County commissioners on Tuesday joined a growing chorus to reinstate the assault weapons ban that President Bush let expire in 2004.

The commission ordered their lobbyists to pressure Congress to renew the law, and urged the Florida Legislature to institute a ban on assault weapons, and to lift a preemption in place that keeps local governments from imposing the ban.

The Miami Herald then enlightens readers with the following tidbit:

Murders with the high-powered, quick-shot weapons have been on a steady rise throughout most big cities in the nation since 2004.

And murders without the "high-powered, quick-shot weapons" have also been on a similarly steady rise.

By the way, the following really annoys me:

Miami-Dade lobbyists will urge Congress to renew an assault weapons ban the president let expire three years ago

Bush did nothing to bring about the demise of the "assault weapons" ban, and I'm tired of him getting credit for it. He promised to sign a reauthorization, were one to reach his desk. The fact that no such bill did reach his desk is not due to anything special he did, I'll wager.

A Florida state senator seems not to be impressed with this endeavor.

''I doubt the Legislature will do either one,'' said Eustis Republican Sen. Carey Baker, a gun-shop owner. ``This type of gun control probably isn't constitutional, it doesn't keep criminals from committing crimes, and it's really unpopular.''

Just drop the "probably," (in front of "isn't constitutional") and I'm on board 110%, Senator.

Another Florida legislator takes a different view.

Republican House Rep. Julio Robaina of South Miami supports a ban, but said ``it will be a war in Tallahassee with the NRA [National Rifle Association] to pass legislation to ban any type of weapon.''

So, the NRA doesn't like legislation "to ban any type of weapon," eh? You don't suppose they're hung up on that "shall not be infringed" silliness, do you?

The assault weapons have become so easily found in South Florida, and are so affordable, that Miami Police Detective Delrish Moss said he's heard they're being sold from the trunks of cars for as little as $200 or $300.

Well, if Miami Police Detective Delrish Moss hears that, it must be true, right?

The chief of the police union claims to "support the Second Amendment"--unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand it.

Also joining the call to reinstate the ban was Miami-Dade's police union chief John Rivera, who said that while he supports the right to bear arms, ``I do not believe there's a place in society for certain assault weapons, an AK-47 is one of them. It was blue-printed for war.''

Just let us know which guns aren't protected by a Constitutional amdendment that enshrines a right that shall not be infringed, John.

Miami Police Chief John Timoney shows off the eloquence that no doubt got him his current high position, while the Second Amendment gets some more false "support."

Timoney called the sunsetting of the ban 'a friggin' disgrace.'' Miami-Dade County Mayor Carlos Alvarez also supports a ban. The former county police director said he's noticed an increase in assault weapons on the black market. He also said ``while I strongly support the Second Amendment, we must get illegal guns off the streets.''

With this kind of "support," the Second Amendment hardly needs detractors.

Biden's 'Crime Bill' gets a cosponsor

Any guesses as to who might support a bill that both closes the mythical "gun show loophole," and re-establishes the old ban on "assault weapons"?

Here's a hint:

New AG Mukasey says Second Amendment secures individual right?

Breaking news from War on Guns. The first part is probably fairly well known by now--late last night, Mukasey was confirmed by the Senate as Attorney General.

Of concern, as already voiced by both Robert Levy and War on Guns (and undoubtedly others), has always been the question of Mukasey's position on the Second Amendment. As Levy points out, the Attorney General's opinion will probably be sought by the Supreme Court, if the Supremes take up DC v. Heller, as expected, and that opinion will probably be given some weight.

Given some of Mukasey's shady associations, there was some cause for doubt.

Supposedly, there is reason for hope on that front, but from an odd source--my own virulently anti-gun United States Senator (one of them--the one that isn't Obama) Dick Durbin, in explaining his opposition to Mukasey's appointment:

Take another unsettled legal question: whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to bear arms. Here is what Judge Mukasey told me: “Based on my own study, I believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

In other words, Judge Mukasey agrees with the Bush Administration when it comes to retroactive immunity and the Second Amendment.

If true, this is certainly encouraging news. I'll echo WoG here, and state that I'm not trying to evaluate Mukasey on other issues, or what kind of AG he would be, but that's certainly the answer I would hope the prospective AG would give to that particular question.

Forgot to mention: By the way, I suppose it goes without saying (but I'm going to say it anyway)--another major reason that Mukasey's position on the Second Amdendment is hugely significant for us is that with the BATFE now being part of the Justice Department, and thus under the command of the Attorney General, another Attorney General like Alberto Gonzales is not what we want. With Sullivan looking to be the next Director of the BATFE, and considering this, and this, it would seem imperative that we get an AG who will keep him on a short leash. If Mukasey is such an AG, that's also good news for us.

This just in--Governor Rendell is still anti-gun rights

I notice that Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is supporting more restrictive gun legislation (that's news?). The murder of Philadelphia Police Officer Chuck Cassidy apparently inspired Rendell to
advocate . . . the same kinds of things he has advocated all along.

Visibly moved by the funeral Wednesday for slain Philadelphia Police Officer Chuck Cassidy, Gov. Rendell yesterday called for tougher penalties for shooting at a police officers and pledged to renew his fight for three gun-control laws stalled in the Legislature.

Alright, I have a big problem with this, even before we get to the "fight for three 'gun-control' laws" part. Whenever I see calls for "tougher penalties for shooting at a police officers [sic]," I get the impression that we are expected to believe that the lives of police officers are implicitly more valuable than the lives of us "Average Joes." That's a concept I utterly reject.

I am not at all "anti-cop," and I would be 100% behind a drive for stiffer penalties for assault with lethal force (on anyone, cops included), but to say that such assaults are less offensive when perpetrated against school teachers, carpenters, or blues harmonica players, than they are when perpetrated against police officers is to epitomize the "Only Ones" mentality.

Rendell proposed raising the sentence to 20 years for anyone who shoots at a police officer, and said he'd raise money for an intensive public information campaign so criminals know the rules have changed.

"We want to get out onto the street a clear message," Rendell said. "Even if you shoot at [a police officer] and miss, you are going to jail for 20 years, no ifs, ands or buts. No guilty pleas can save you, no judge can save you. . . . You do not shoot at police officers."

O'Brien backed the idea, saying, "We ask our men and women in blue to take these risks. When they walk into a Dunkin' Donuts and someone shoots them, it's because they're wearing that uniform. We can't tolerate that in this society."

The fantasy of a "no ifs, ands or buts" approach to criminal justice, in the (in)famously porous Philadelphia "justice" system would be laughable, were the reality not so disgusting.

Pennsylvania House Speaker O'Brien, in saying that cops are being shot because they are cops, might be trying to argue that the enhanced penalties for shooting at cops is not because he thinks that their lives are inherently more valuable than everyone else's, but because they are at greater risk. If that is his argument, it's a weak one. The fact that more people might see a benefit in shooting an officer than in shooting a truck driver does not make shooting the truck driver any less evil.

The three "gun control" laws mentioned earlier are the usual suspects:

The proposed laws would require gun owners to report lost or stolen weapons, limit handgun sales to one per person per month, and enable municipalities to enact their own gun laws.

So, we have the "criminalize the crime victim" law, the gun rationing law, and the "allow us to be as brilliantly successful in combating violent crime as Chicago and Washington DC have" law.

Oh--look who else supports these laws:

One NRA member, influential Philadelphia Democratic state Sen. Vince Fumo, said through a spokesman yesterday that he'd support Rendell's bills if they reached the Senate.

I'd call Fumo a traitor, but if LaPierre himself advocates maintaining schools as victim disarmament zones, and actively helps write a massive expansion of the NICS program, I suppose the NRA has little room to fault Fumo.

About that proposed law to require a gun owner to report the loss or theft of a gun--I'm no attorney, and am in no position to give legal advice, but if such a law ever passes here in Illinois (it has been proposed, by the way), I know what I'm going to do. The very day it goes into effect, I am going to tell the police that I went canoeing on the Mississippi river, with all my guns in the boat, and that the canoe capsized, and all my guns were lost.

None of the "report lost or stolen gun" laws I've seen required the gun owner to report finding the guns again, so as long as I don't file an insurance claim, I don't see how I can be charged with anything, even if it is eventually discovered that I have the guns. Never mind that I'm paraplegic, and can't really imagine how I'd get in and out of a canoe, and never mind that in the event of a capsizing, I would most likely drown--I'm still clinging to the naive idea that one is innocent until proven guilty. If, by then, I have one hundred guns (a man can dream, can't he?), I'll say I took twenty trips, and capsized every time.

If they insist on passing freedom-destroying laws for no purpose other than to . . . destroy freedom, they'll have to deal with said laws being treated with the contempt they deserve.

Here's a headline you don't see everyday

Plumber admits having assault rifle and alligator

EAST COUNTY COURTS: An El Cajon plumber accused of keeping deadly snakes, an alligator and illegal firearms in his home has pleaded guilty to one felony weapons charge and a misdemeanor violation of state wildlife laws.

I didn't even read the whole article--I just liked the title.

Maybe I should change sides . . .

I see that the VPC is recycling a 4 1/2 year old press release on their main page. What's wrong, guys--can't afford to hire someone to write something more current? Ain't that a shame--citizen disarmament advocacy used to pay so well, too.

The funny thing is that if they wanted a pro-rights piece, they could have chosen from among scores--probably hundreds--of eloquent, compelling writers, who would have been happy to write something for free. I am not, by the way, trying to claim that I belong among such company--I'll never write with the skill of the gun rights bloggers I admire. My point is that the myth of the money-laden "gun lobby" notwithstanding, we in the gun rights blogging community aren't doing this for monetary compensation (at least I hope we're not, since none is coming our way); we do it because when rights need defending, we see ourselves as duty-bound to provide that defense. Being peaceable people, we would prefer to fight that battle with words.

The citizen disarmament lobby, by contrast, owes almost its entire internet presence to paid shills, whose advocacy is bought and paid for by money from organizations like the Joyce Foundation. I am not claiming that the internet is entirely free of people who attack the Second Amendment simply out of deeply held principles (muddled and twisted as those principles are), rather than for money, but the ratio of (unpaid) pro-rights bloggers to those who advocate citizen disarmament must be overwhelming. Not that there isn't interest on the other side to change that, but it almost certainly ain't gonna work.

So, with my limited writing skills, perhaps I could feed my ego better by trying to break into a vastly less crowded field--the whole ""big fish in a small pond" thing. I'd have to change the name of the blog, of course, and "Disarmed and Dependant on the State for my Defense--Who Needs a Silly Old Bill of Rights, Anyway?" is a bit awkward.

Hmm . . . after giving it some thought, this anti-rights blogging thing is harder than I'd thought--it takes a certain kind of genius to defend positions that are so . . . indefensible. Guess I'll have to stick with being a little fish in the big pond of gun rights advocacy.

Call to arms (so to speak)

Ryan Horsley (of Red's Trading Post) has designated tomorrow (Thursday, Nov. 8th) as National Report ATF Abuse Day.

I am declaring tomorrow, November 8th, NATIONAL REPORT ATF ABUSE DAY. I am encouraging everyone to contact the US Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (who has been very critical of the ATF in past reports) and your Congressional Delegates.

The BATFE has done more than any other Government Agency to destroy our rights in order to justify their own existence. We need to begin reporting these abuses and there are quite a number of them. Whether it is their agenda of shutting down the firearms industry, the continued waste of tax money, or their development of a gun registration system.

United States Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine can be reached here: oig.hotline@usdoj.gov.

Let's do it, folks.

The media's assault on truth

I hesitate to write this, because the issue has already gotten so much superb coverage recently at War on Guns, Say Uncle, Snowflakes in Hell, Call me Ahab, Illspirit, Dustin's Gun Blog, Carnaby Fudge, The Real Gun Guys, Days of Our Trailers, and undoubtedly others. Those are some sharp folks, and I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think I have much to add.

Still, KX Blogs and Talk takes us back to another instance of media (CNN, once again) distortion about so-called "assault weapons" that is so grotesque that even though it's several years old, deserves another look. I refer here to the time they tried to claim that a round of ammunition fired from an "assault weapon" is much more powerful than an identical round shot from a more politically correct rifle.

First, a deputy fired what Jenne described as "a AK-47, the Chinese version," which is "currently banned." [this was before the 2004 sunset of the AWB]

Viewers saw bullets fired into a pile of cinder blocks and chunks of the cinder block flying off, leaving a big hole in one block. Then, the deputy fired into a bullet-proof vest. Zarrella observed that the bullets "clearly fired right through" the vest.

Second, Jenne set up the next model to be tested: "This is an AK-47 also, but a civilian model. It has some differences and right now this only has a clip of 10 in the magazine -- or 10 rounds in the magazine. So this is a big difference than the 30 rounds in the previous magazine."

Viewers then saw the deputy fire four shots toward the cinder blocks, but nothing happened, not even a speck of the cinder block flew off, never mind any hole being created.

The very clear implication: The illegal model punches right through cinder block with devastating and deadly force, but the legal model can't even cause a speck to fall off.

That, of course, is so far from the truth as to be laughable, were it not for the fact that this kind of distortion is part of a campaign to render American citizens disarmed.

The real reason for the cinder block's seeming imperviousness to bullets fired from politically correct firearms, is that the bullets were being shot elsewhere, as CNN was eventually forced to admit, when called on it:

"When a BSO employee fired a banned weapon, the camera showed bullets ripping through a cinderblock target. When a legal semi-automatic weapon was fired, the camera showed another cinderblock seemingly unharmed.
"In fact, the bullets from the legal gun never hit the cinderblock. CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said the camera operator didn't realize the sheriff's employee had switched targets and was firing into the ground....
"The comparison seemed to imply the banned weapon packed more punch than its legal counterpart. In fact, the two are the same in terms of firepower."

Whether CNN was a willing participant in the deception, or if the Broward County (Florida) Sheriff's Office hoodwinked them, in addition to their viewers, the obvious conclusion is that a campaign of disinformation (a nice way of saying "lies") was waged in order to try to rally public support for continued banning of so-called "assault weapons."

As my fellow bloggers have demonstrated, that campaign of lies is still in full force.

As an aside, if we go to the CNN article that inspired the recent storm of retorts from my fellow bloggers, we come to this . . . interesting tidbit:

Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.

"High-powered weapons," of course, being the Bradys' term for what they would call "assault weapons" when owned by private citizens (or criminals, or terrorists--the Bradys apparently don't see three distinct groups there--only one). I guess someone forgot to tell the Bradys that the preferred term for police-owned "assault weapons" is "patrol rifles," but they and the media do seem united on the idea that police need these weapons that "are useful only for killing large numbers of people," and the rest of us must not have them. I guess we know why, now, the Brady Bunch never expressed "outrage" over this mass killing with an assault weapon . . . er, high-powered rife/patrol rifle.

The Bradys call for private citizens to have their most effective arms removed, while at the same time supporting equipping agents of the government with those same arms. Maybe it's just me, but I find that just a teensy bit sinister. Ladd Everitt and the CSGV approve, I'm sure.

'Second Amendment allows limited gun control'

That's what Rudy says, anyway:

From there, Giuliani went on to explain that while the Second Amendment allows limited gun control, it also guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.

Hmm--my copy of the Bill of Rights must be defective. I can't find anything about "limited gun control." I do find " . . . shall not be infringed," but I don't see " . . . shall only be infringed in a limited fashion."

By the way, what exactly is Rudy pinning himself down to, by supporting the idea of "limited gun control"? It would seem to me that the only thing that he is clearly saying is out of bounds is "infinite" gun control--which, I suppose, would be an outright ban on every kind of firearm. Good to know that he acknowledges the Second Amendment will not permit that, but then again, that can be said of even those who claim that the Second Amendment guarantees only the right to keep and bear 18th century firearms.

I don't know--maybe I'm overly skeptical--Rudy seems to be winning over some gun owners:

Just that easily, Micola was sold. “I was undecided, but now I’m voting for him,” said

Micola, who is from nearby Nashua. “I like everything he stands for. The only thing I was concerned about what his stance on gun control, and now he’s answered that.”

Glad to see that gun owners are asking the tough questions, and not falling for any kind of evasive "answers." By the way, Mr. Micola, when you say that you "like everything he stands for," are you saying you like his definition of freedom?

Speaking of what Rudy says (these days) about gun rights/"gun control," I'm still burning with curiosity about what he said to the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

I wonder if he even bothered with the word "limited." If anyone can find the text or a recording of that speech, please let me know, either by comment, or by emailing me at 45superman@gmail.com.

Don't these people know 'he can't win'?

I dunno (I'm no political guru), but if enough people refuse to buy into the "can't win" line, what's to stop him?

Meanwhile, the supposed GOP front-runner (and aspiring tyrant) apparently hopes to emulate the "success" of his potentially prison-bound New York City police commissioner.

Shouldn't we, as a country, set the bar just a teensy bit higher than that?

' . . . but in a manner to be prescribed by law.'

Friday, I discussed an excellent point made by a fellow gun rights blogger and oppressed Illinoisan. His point (very briefly) was that if one compares the language of the First and Second Amendments, a stronger case could seemingly be made for applying the Second Amendment to not only the federal government, but to the states as well, than could be made for doing so with the First. That, of course, is not how things currently stand, as aspects of the First Amendment are incorporated, but the Second Amendment (to the extent that it's recognized at all) is applied only to the federal government.

Now, DW has made an equally astute observation regarding a comparison between the Second and Third Amendments.

What I find terribly interesting about this Amendment are the words "but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

It seems that this oft-forgotten Amendment carries in its text a provision specifying that limitations can be applied to the right by lawmakers.

The First and Second Amendments, in contrast, carry no such provision. I think this is an embarrassment to those that would like to pass laws infringing upon our rights.

The point here is that the citizen disarmament advocates (those who have finally found themselves unable to maintain the fiction that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, but instead relates only to some mythical "collective right") claim that the Second Amendment does not bar the government from imposing "reasonable restrictions" on that right--said restrictions always understood to be a matter of public safety ("For the children!" of course).

The problem with such "logic" is that the Third Amendment would seem to demonstrate that when the Founding Fathers wished to allow "reasonable restrictions," they damned well said so. They wanted to make a provision that would permit the government to, in time of need, mandate that private citizens quarter troops in their homes, so they put that provision right in the amendment (". . . but in a manner to be prescribed by law.").

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, contains no such caveat. Quite the opposite, in fact--as illustrated by the unequivocal statement that the right in question " . . . shall not be infringed."

The only reasonable conclusion is that "reasonable restrictions" on the Second Amendment are just as much a myth as the "collective rights" interpretation. "Reasonable restrictions" make exactly as much sense as "reasonable tyranny"--which might make sense to Giuliani, but would, I hope, be seen as an offensive oxymoron by those of us who consider ourselves the custodians of a nation borne of a resolve that demanded "give me liberty or give me death!" "Reasonable restrictions" are no more sensible than "reasonable government usurpation of citizen authority," and no more acceptable.

Stick your "reasonable restrictions" where the sun don't shine, or give me death! Alright--I'm clearly no Patrick Henry, but you get the idea.

Be sure to read DW's piece (here's the link, again)--I'm basically just repeating it, but less eloquently (and more verbosely--how did I manage that combination?).

'Freedom,' Giuliani style

In case anyone still wonders why I'll never vote for Rudy:

"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.

No matter one's thoughts about "gun control"/gun rights, I don't see how anyone can look at that and not see that Giuliani is a two-bit aspiring Big Brother--one who claims that freedom is about submitting to authority.

I won't vote for that--not to save my life will I vote for that.

Are they trying (incompetently) to play a shell game, or are they really this logic impaired?

Most of this article simply reinforces the notion that this is a dangerous world, with evil, brutal people who think nothing of ending the lives of those who get in their way (as if that notion needed reinforcing). It's the story of Miami-Dade police officer Keenya Hubert, who was recently on the witness stand to testify against just such a man, who is finally on trial for shooting her.

The shooting occurred in 2004, when Hubert, after hearing gunshots, saw a car moving at high speed. She gave chase, after which the fleeing driver stopped and fired at her with what the Miami Herald refers to as an "AK-47." That may be the firearm he used, although I'd be willing to bet a box of .500 S&W ammo that it was actually some semi-automatic copy of the AK-47 type rifle. That's not really important, at least for now (perhaps later). Whichever, she was hit twice, including a shot to the forehead.

Fortunately, she not only survived, but has recovered fully, and is back on the job. Apparently, being shot with a "high-powered assault weapon" (or even a "souped-up, body-shredding death machine," right Chris?) isn't the automatic death sentence some would lead us to believe.

This is when we get to the part that makes me wonder if the citizen disarmament advocates are trying to prove the theory of evolution wrong by demonstrating that they, at least, haven't improved on the cognitive abilities of australopithecus.

The shooting occurred just days before the federal assault weapons ban expired in September 2004, leading some in South Florida to question [the wisdom] of letting the ban expire.

Get that? The shooting occurred before the end of the ban, which might be an indication to those with an IQ larger than their shoe size that the ban was doing little in the way of its stated purpose of protecting law enforcement officers from "deadly assault weapons." Nope--not to these Mensa candidates--they are somehow using an instance of the failure of the legislation to accomplish its ostensible purpose, as evidence that it should have been renewed. What did Einstein say about the definition of insanity?

There is, I suppose, another possibility. As I mentioned earlier, it is possible that the firearm that Holt (the would-be killer) used really was an AK-47. The problem is that since real AK-47s were not regulated by the AWB, the expiration of that law would have exactly zero relevance.

So . . . again I ask, are they trying to fool the public into believing that an instance of a policy's utter failure constitutes evidence that the policy should be continued, or do they actually believe that themselves?

More from the genius who thinks liberty is a 'cult'

Sebastian (Snowflakes in Hell) dealt with Chris Floyd's first installment of anti-NRA hate speech quite well, and I thus didn't see a need to add my own take (which would have been pretty much along the lines of "Yeah--what he said"). I see now that Chris has decided to expand on his position. I guess I'll take this one.

However, I am somewhat dubious of the "gun ownership is an indispensable bulwark against The Man" argument. You can have a house crammed full of AK-47s, but if they send a SWAT team – or the 101st Airborne – against you, you are still going down

If they don't know who has "a house crammed full of AK-47s," how will they know where to send their stormtroopers? Getting a clue yet about our utter rejection of gun registration schemes?

Having some guns around the house might let you take a few with you, but they are not going to stop the gargantuan armed might of a modern superpower.

Have you mentioned that to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, Chris? It would probably save a lot of lives if they realized that their lack of fighter jets, tanks, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships, and submarines (or any navy at all) dooms their insurgency. But I think you know that's wrong. Insurgencies are devilishly difficult to fight, even for superpowers.

Or even a backwater tyranny: as we've learned in recent years, almost every household in Iraq traditionally packs heat, and did so throughout Saddam's reign, and that didn't stop him and the Baath Party from imposing a ruthless dictatorship.

The Baath Party dictatorship rendered privately possessed weapons largely irrelevant by crushing the will to resist, by creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia in which secret policemen would destroy any nascent rebellion before it ever began.

They won't march, they won't strike, they won't boycott, they won't put spikes under the Black Maria's tires; they won't do anything except carp to a pollster every now and then. It doesn't matter if such a quiescent populace has weapons at home or not; they're not going to stand up against "The Man" in any case.

Don't be so sure. The sleeping giant of Americans' love of liberty might be maddeningly difficult to wake, but I do not believe it to be dead. Those in power seem hell bent on exploring the limits of the people's patience with the state's innumerable usurpations of power that belongs, rightfully, to the people. If those limits are reached, today's "gun violence" that has the gun restriction advocates in such a bed-wetting uproar will be looked back on with nostalgia.

As for the lapse in the assault ban fueling the Mexican drug war, this was a statement by a law enforcement official involved in the situation. I didn't just pull the idea out of my hat. If he's wrong, well, he's wrong, and I was wrong to quote him. Send me stats or evidence to counter the notion, and I'll be happy to see it.

Sebastian already addressed that, and I quote:

It was allowed to expire because it was worthless. Machine guns are already, for all practical purposes, illegal. The assault weapons ban covered things like pistol groups, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs. Can you explain how any of these impacts the function of the rifle?

Not to mention that the "ban" on "assault weapons" didn't even actually ban even the ones that did have two or more of the "evil" features that put them on the "assault weapon" list--if they had been in the country before the effective date of the "ban," they were perfectly legal to own, to buy, and to sell. There were thus many hundreds of thousands of "assault weapons" in the country, perfectly legally.

As for the NRA, it is the organization's national leadership itself that boasts of its political pull, its intimate connection with the White House, etc. I didn't make that up either.

So you don't think advocacy groups should try to cultivate political pull? What, exactly, do you suppose is the point of advocacy groups?

Nor did I make up the fact that the NRA has pushed laws restricting the rights of communities to exercise their freedom to take issues to the courts. Of course, every case that a city might file against gun corporations might not be legitimate and well-grounded; some will be, some won't – but that's for a jury to decide. (And if the case is truly specious, it will be thrown out anyway.) But I do think that it is heinous and dangerous to dictate by legislation what issues a community or individual can or cannot take to court.

I suppose this is a reference to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which, contrary to your objections, leaves plenty of room for legitimate lawsuits (and, with the help of activist judges, apparently still leaves enough even for the illegitimate ones)

I got into the NRA angle in the post because I was upset at the treatment doled out to my AFP colleague Jayne Stahl after she wrote an article stating her beliefs on America's gun culture. For this expression of her ideas, she was subjected to death threats, and ugly behavior exacerbated by an official NRA website.

Have any evidence that the NRA made, or even endorsed, death threats? By the way, have any arrests been made in conjunction with those threats? If I understand correctly, the capability exists to track such threats to their source--if the threats were truly made, one would think action would be taken. Stahl's screed was offensive and inaccurate--she has the right to be both of those things, but she ought not be surprised that there will be a backlash.

Chris wrote more, but I have already spent enough of my time on this vacuous bed-wetter. Chris takes issue with much of what the government does (I can hardly hold that against him), but he seems to want to minimize the force the people can use to stop it. Kind of odd, don't you think?

A case for incorporation

My fellow blogger and oppressed Illinois gun rights activist at We Are the Militia made a point way back in March that I think needs to be repeated. In his post, he explores the language of both the First and Second Amendments, and makes a pretty compelling case for the argument that the Constitutional grounds for incorporating the Second Amendment--that is, applying it not only to the federal government, but to the states as well--is actually stronger than the argument for incorporating the First Amendment.

Currently, aspects of the 1st Amendment are applied to the States by the 14th Amendment, whereas the 2nd Amendment is not considered to be applied to the States.

I find this odd, given that if you read the text of the two amendments, a case can be made for a stricter adherence to the right of the 2nd Amendment over the 1st.

He then points out that the 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law . . . ." In other words, the only entity of government prohibited by the First Amendment from suppressing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc., is Congress, the makers of our federal laws. Nothing is said in the First Amendment about other units of government (the states, for example) making such laws.

I am not trying to argue that states (or counties, or municipalities) should have the power to control what people say, or compel them to worship in a manner dictated by the state. I am quite grateful for the incorporation of aspects of the First Amendment, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

However, if the First Amendment can be said to apply to the states, how can it be argued that the Second Amendment does not? The Second Amendment, after all, describes a right that "shall not be infringed"--with no limits placed on by whom it shall not be infringed. In other words, the Second Amendment does not state that "Congress shall not infringe" the right to keep and bear arms--if anyone infringes on a right, it cannot properly be claimed that said right "shall not be infringed."

The right to self-defense is a fundamental, natural, human right. Any unit of government that tries to deny citizens any means of exercising that right is, by extension, denying--and thus violating--that fundamental right. Any such violation is therefore illegitimate.

Suffering succotash! I actually agree with Sylvester

That's Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson, and agreement with him is not something I really expected. Sylvester, after all, has a long history of blaming guns, gun owners, and "lax gun laws" for Philadelphia's violent crime problem. An example of that would be his (wildly inaccurate) lament about Pennsylvania's "lax gun laws":

"We have the most lax handgun law in the entire nation."

Another example would be his explanation for the double murder perpetrated as part of a recent armored car robbery in Philly:

Johnson blamed the loss of life on the availability of handguns in Philadelphia and around the country.

As I said, Sylvester is no friend to the Second Amendment, which makes him no friend to the Bill of Rights, which makes him no friend of liberty, which finally makes him no friend of mine. On what, then, do I agree with him?

His stance against the proposal by an even greater enemy of freedom, Michael Nutter (is that a great name, or what?), who wants to trample the Fourth Amendment, along with the Second.

The city's top law-enforcement officer says Michael Nutter's proposed "stop-and-frisk" policy would be a "disaster."

Departing Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson said the presumptive mayor's promise to invoke the more aggressive law enforcement strategy would undermine the community rapport that Johnson feels he has developed in six years on the job. He said the next commissioner "is going to have a problem" with discontent - or worse, civil unrest - if that goodwill is undermined.

"What Nutter is saying - this stop-and-frisk is going to be a disaster," Johnson said in an interview with The Inquirer. "What he's saying, too, is that he wants a police commissioner to be harder. Well, harder on what? . . . Do you think locking people up is making a difference?

Nutter's advocacy of a "stop and frisk" policy has been discussed before. Of course, some might not refer to such proposals as advocating Fourth Amendment violations--maybe we should think of it as "persons, houses, papers, and effects supervision," lest we be accused of being "Fourth Amendment literalists," right Rob?

Nutter, by the way, does seem to agree with Johnson about guns being the cause of Philly's violence.

I should qualify my agreement with Sylvester's objection to the Nutter Plan--he doesn't seem to be talking about it as a Fourth Amendment issue, but as one about the police department's community rapport. I would think there is a legitimate cause for concern there, but to me, the greater issue is the utter unconstitutionality of a "stop and frisk" campaign. I should also point out that Nutter is apparently not alone (see the part about Lawrence G. Sherman, near the end of the post) in supporting suspension of the Fourth Amendment in Philadelphia (also see WoG)

Maybe Philadelphia should stop treating the Constitution as the problem, and do something about its revolving door "justice" system.

Anyone know any good recipes for crow?

. . . Because it seems that I'll be eating a big dish of it. Back on Oct. 2nd, I wrote very critically about a firearms demonstration given for the benefit of the jury in the case of a shooting that killed two people and wounded another.

The idea of busing the jurors to a gun range for a ninety second demonstration of someone shooting a semi-automatic AK-47 clone seemed utterly unnecessary to me for determining someone's guilt or innocence in the shooting. It seemed to me that the real purpose of such a demonstration was some kind of politically motivated crusade against so-called "assault weapons."

As it turns out, though, I was operating on incomplete information and (my own) incorrect assumptions. I became aware of that today, when Gary Eastridge, the Investigator who conducted the demonstration, was kind enough to send me an email explaining some facets of the case of which I was unaware. Here is an excerpt:

The demonstration was done to give the jury, most of which had no firearms experience, some way of relating to the testimony of the chaos involved in the shooting. The defendant had claimed that he suffered post traumatic stress syndrome and that he just accidentally fired 13 rounds into the victims vehicle. The demonstration showed the jury the steps involved to load and fire 13 rounds.

I had not realized that Simpson's (the defendant's) defense was that he had "accidentally" fired the thirteen shots that killed two people and wounded a third. I had assumed that he was claiming that it was not he who had fired the shots. A demonstration of the weapon itself, therefore, seemed superfluous (and struck my possibly overly suspicious mind as just a ploy to spread the irrational fear of "assault weapons"). On the other hand, a demonstration could be quite valuable in demonstrating the ridiculousness of a claim that the shooting was "accidental."

The bottom line is that I unfairly jumped all over the people behind the demonstration, without having taken the time to find out enough to be qualified to make such criticisms. Had I known more, I would have found little to quarrel with.

I was wrong, and I apologize.

NRA not willing to rule out supporting the enemy?

The Pistolero points out something that should be disturbing to all gun rights activists, about what the NRA is not saying about the 2008 presidential candidates. He notes that in the October issue of the NRA's America's First Freedom magazine, LaPierre warns of the undeniable threat to gun rights posed by a Clinton or Obama presidency. I doubt anyone on our side would dispute that, but what is troubling is that LaPierre seems to think the only threats worth guarding against are Democrats.

Now, all of those are certainly viable threats, of which we all should be ever mindful. But reading LaPierre's column, I noticed no mention of anyone on the Republican side. Which to me was a little bit off, because as you know, at least one candidate on the GOP side supports at least licensing and registration, and this candidate was one of the big-city mayors -- in fact, the ONLY Republican mayor -- to file suit against several firearm manufacturers for allegedly "flooding the streets with guns."

Folks, I'm not trying to deny that most of the avid advocates of citizen disarmament are Democrats, and I realize that all fifty-nine cosponsors of Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy's H.R. 1022 ("assault weapons" ban) are members of that party, but does that mean that all Republicans get a free pass? Are we to assume that any enemy of our enemy is an ally?

I certainly hope not, and I don't seem to be the only one. Jeff Knox makes a compelling case for "un-picking" some candidates--some of whom are Republicans.

Weeding out the Democrat side of the political garden is easy; all of the candidates are unrepentant gun-blamers and believers in limiting liberty except New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson who has a pretty good record on gun issues.

Weeding out noxious Republicans should be just as easy because the records are clear; Giuliani was an ardent gun control supporter as Mayor of New York; Romney advanced and signed harsh anti-gun legislation as Governor of Massachusetts; and McCain stabbed gunowners in the back by lending his name to anti-gun advertisements and pushing for restrictions on gun shows.

As Mr. Knox says, there is nothing wrong with the idea of withholding judgment, for the moment, on whom to support in the 2008 presidential race, but it's certainly not too early to eliminate some choices--designating some candidates as historical enemies of gun rights, and publicly stating that they will never be acceptable.

Also, if the message we send the Democrats is that nothing they do will ever get the pro-gun vote, then we have removed any incentive for them to be on our side. In fact, we are actually telling them that they might as well pander to the (far from insignificant) portion of their base that advocates citizen disarmament. Likewise, if the Republicans learn that all they need to do to get our vote is be less anti-freedom than the opposition (who, you remember, we are actively encouraging to be as anti-gun as possible), we have taken away their incentive to be any more than the most tepid of "allies."

If I were the suspicious type, I might suspect the NRA of deliberately leaving open the option of supporting Giuliani, or Romney, or McCain. I might see the NRA as being willing to set the bar for worthiness of its support no higher than "not as bad as Hillary" with regard to gun rights. Alright, alright--I'll be honest--I am the suspicious type, and that's exactly what I suspect the NRA is doing.

If the NRA fails to understand that "not as bad as Hillary" isn't going to cut it, and supports a Republican who is only marginally less bad, the NRA will be supporting the enemy. That's the kind of thing the Founding Fathers frowned on.

And another thing . . .

When I blogged Sunday about Dennis Henigan's blatant re-writing of the Second Amendment (at least he didn't say "the right of the National Guard . . . "), I missed part of his hypocrisy. Luckily, David Codrea spotted it:

My favorite hypocritical quote:

It is not appropriate for the courts to edit the Constitution

...he says, after editing the Constitution.

Today, though, the hypocrisy and irony of something else from the website of Mr. Henigan's employers caught my attention.



Not a very flattering picture of Dennis, is it?

By the way, I just noticed that the Brady Bunch has helpfully provided a transcript of Henigan's edit of the Constitution (and his pompous admonishment of the illegitimacy of . . . editing the Constitution) [Update 11-29-2007: The Bradys have done a bit more editing, and removed that page from their website. For now, the cached version (courtesy of Days of Our Trailers) is available here. When that goes (I don't think cached web pages stick around forever), I have a screen capture of it here.]:

The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And the Court has held, the Supreme Court has held, that that statement of purpose must be taken seriously and the right must be evaluated and interpreted in light of that purpose. And by ignoring that purpose the D.C. Circuit not only contradicted the Supreme Court but also years of precedent which establishes that it is not legitimate for courts to edit the Constitution. The courts must interpret the Constitution as it was written by the framers. That is what the D.C. Circuit did not do.

Hope you fix your combustible trousers problem soon, Dennis.

Back door gun registry?

The plight of Red's Trading Post (under relentless assault from the BATFE, despite being "guilty" of nothing worse than occasional, trivial clerical errors), and many other gun dealers suffering the same fate (but few fighting back as courageously) may mean more to gun owners than simply the inconvenience of finding a gun shop nearby when so many are being forced to close. It certainly should mean something to any gun owner who believes that "registration leads to confiscation" (which has proved true far too often to be ignored).

As Ryan Horsley (who managaes Red's, and whose family opened it more than seventy years ago), points out, nearly 80% of the FFL holders in this country were closed in the period from 1994 to 2005.

What does that have to do with gun registration? The BATFE Form 4473 that must be filled out for every gun purchase from a licensed dealer must be kept on file (for twenty years) by the dealer. The dealer must also record all the information from every Form 4473 in his "bound book." This book must be kept for the entire time the dealer is in business (in other words, there is no twenty-year "shelf life" for this information). No government agency may keep the 4473's, or even copies of them--this is what is intended to protect gun owners from a gun registry (the BATFE can of course inspect the forms as part of an investigation, but cannot demand them en masse).

However, once a dealer closes, for any reason, he must surrender his "bound book" to the BATFE, giving them the records of every sale made by that dealer. That, obviously, is just the information that prohibition against a gun registry was intended to keep out of the government's grasping claws.

So, from 1994 to 2005, that's almost 200,000 bound books, and untold millions of transactions, that the BATFE stormtroopers have gotten their hands on. That in itself might be much of the motivation behind the BATFE's jihad against gun dealers.

Still think it's not really your problem when the BATFE goes after a gun shop?

Must-read at War on Guns

David Codrea's dismantling of Stanley Crouch's pusillanimous call for more "gun-control" should be considered required reading for anyone concerned with the attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

In it, David includes a link to his "Rights Watch" column from the May issue of Guns Magazine, in response to an earlier anti-rights piece by Crouch. If that's not enough, he also includes a letter he wrote to former Cleveland, OH mayor Michael White.

It's all inspired (and inspiring) writing. I am definitely glad David is one of the good guys--I wouldn't want to face him as opposition.

Fifty-sixth county rejects 'gun supervision'

Once again, I have fallen behind the good news about the pro-rights movement sweeping the state of Illinois, county by county. Last time I talked about this, there were fifty-five counties that had adopted the resolution affirming the commitment to the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and condemning the Chicago-style attacks on it.

As of of last Wednesday, Tazewell County made it fifty-six (by a not-too-shabby 20-1 vote). As mentioned before, Jackson County will have a committee vote on it a week from Tuesday (Nov. 6th).

Our map, therefore, looks like this:
(click to enlarge)

Don't forget to check in with the Illinois Pro Second Amendment Resolution website for the most current updates.

It seems that our "gun supervision activists" are pursuing an agenda that lacks popular support (to put it mildly) over most of the state.

Forget something, Dennis?

A few weeks ago, I made a passing reference to a video clip of Brady Bunch legal director Dennis Henigan whining about the Parker v. DC decision, and something he did not say while reciting the Second Amendment. I have decided that it's worth a post of its own.

It happens about one minute into the following clip:



[Update 11-29-2007: In a bit of revisionist history, the Brady Bunch has pulled the page on which Henigan recites his version of the Second Amendment. The YouTube video is also no longer available. No problem--I suspected such tactics from them]:

Notice something missing? Yeah--me too.

Or, if you're in a hurry, you can click here for the short version.

Can't say I really blame him, though--if I were arguing for the interpretation of the Second Amendment as protecting some mythical "collective right," I'd try to gloss over that pesky "of the people" part, too.

Still, it seems a rather less than honorable way to debate.

Does anyone else smell burning pants?

'Petey' pulls a 'Snuffy'

Those citizen disarmament advocates sure hate violence, don't they?

In comments at Snowflakes in Hell, Peter Hamm (Brady Bunch cheerleader) threatened to shoot SayUncle.

Father "Snuffy" Pfleger must be proud.

Some day, I hope to be a big enough thorn in the side of the citizen disarmament advocates that they consider me worthy of a death threat. It's good to have goals.

I don't care if Giuliani is 'conservative'--he sure as hell isn't for gun rights

Best laid plans--with a blog post about this WaPo silliness all planned out, I discovered that Nicki had beaten me to it--I think she takes unfair advantage of time zones ;-) . To add insult to injury, she ripped it much more thoroughly than my meager capabilities allow. Still, I'm going to toss my two cents (probably overpriced, at that) in.

Anyway, the WaPo writer, David Greenberg, argues that the popular perception that Giuliani leans rather to the left of the Republican base is incorrect.

What's left of the case for Rudy's liberalism relies on three prongs: guns, gay rights and abortion. But even those positions, seen in context, don't render Giuliani a liberal or a moderate so much as an occasional and tepid dissenter from the GOP line -- which, over the past quarter-century, has become increasingly right-wing.

Obviously, I don't write about gay rights or abortion. It's not that I don't have an opinion on those issues, just that in a blog about gun rights, I don't need to touch either of those powder kegs--so why bother?

So let's see what Greenberg has to say about Giuliani and guns.

Take gun control first. Some people demand that their candidate endorse the right to plunk down a wad of cash anywhere, anytime, for a submachine gun. But for most conservative voters, what matters is a "tough on crime" stance, and if any issue has defined Giuliani's career -- from his years as a prosecutor frog-marching corrupt bankers down Wall Street to his staunch support as mayor for trigger-happy cops -- it's his conservative posture on criminal justice. While liberals such as Michael S. Dukakis were thought to embrace gun control to conceal their distaste for tougher measures, Giuliani has always been known as an avenger.

I consider myself a pretty hardcore advocate for gun rights, but I have never demanded that a candidate "endorse the right to plunk down a wad of cash anywhere, anytime, for a submachine gun." I don't think it's reasonable to demand that a clothing store, for example, sell firearms (so much for "anywhere"). I would also not expect even a gun shop to sell me a gun except during business hours (so forget "anytime"). Actually, if we're dreaming here, I'd kind of like to dispense with the "wad of cash" requirement.

(Lame) jokes aside, though, Greenberg seems to be arguing that all a candidate needs to do in order to mollify gun rights advocates is to take a "tough on crime" stance. Where he got that idea is something of a mystery. Gun rights activism has very little to do with crime. If the crime rate were zero, the Second Amendment would continue to be absolutely vital in protecting our freedom. In other words, I'm not holding onto my guns because I fear criminals--I'm keeping them because I want the government to fear me. My guess is that Greenberg will never get that.

Moving away from Greenberg's opinion piece (but staying on Giuliani and guns), a fair amount of ink has been spilled recently in reference to Rudy's vow not to deny blind (and otherwise disabled) people the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. I've never pretended to hold any affection or admiration for Rudy, but I'll never call him stupid--this claim to support gun rights for blind people is a prime example of his cunning. If I were him, and trying to pander to gun rights activists, I, too, would concentrate on the ones who couldn't see the following picture:



But guess what, Rudy--we're not all blind.

More about Biden's 'Crime Control and Prevention Act of 2007'

I talked briefly yesterday about Senator Biden's attempt to resurrect the expired ban on "assault weapons." Information is still lacking, but there's a bit more now.

It will apparently be S. 2237 (text not yet available). According to this pdf file (on page 16), the "assault weapons" component of it will be a straight-up reprise of the '94 version:

TITLE VI—PREVENTING ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF FIREARMS
Subtitle A—Firearms Background Check Enhancement Act of 2007:
• Amends the Brady Act to require all firearm sellers at gun shows to perform their sales through a
federal firearm licensee so that all firearms purchasers must submit to federal background checks.
Also requires that the gun show organizer alert the Attorney General of the location of the gun
show at least 15 days in advance.
• No authorization.

Subtitle B—Assault Weapons Ban Renewal Act of 2007:
• In September 2004, the assault weapons ban on the manufacture and sale of 19 specific militarystyle
semi-automatic assault rifles and copycats expired. This bill simply renews that ban with a
straight reauthorization in order to keep military-style assault weapons and high capacity
ammunition clips off the street.
• No authorization.

By the way, I have no idea what "No authorization" means in this context--I'm guessing that it's not a reference to the fact that the Constitution grants the federal government absolutely no authority for such legislation--purveyors of this kind of filth tend to try to keep that sort of thing quiet.

One thing that might be worth keeping an eye on is what the Violence Policy Center will have to say about a word-for-word repeat of the old ban. It was VPC senior policy analyst Tom Diaz, you'll remember, who had this to say in an interview on National Public Radio (March 11, 2004--listen here):

If the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another in terms of our objective, which is reducing death and injury and getting a particularly lethal class of firearms off the streets. So if it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass.

I dunno, Tom--maybe there has been a dramatic upsurge in bayonet crime since September, 1994.

Illinois State Police Department breaks the law to advance agenda

As I mentioned a couple weeks ago, the Illinois State Police are trying to impose an arbitrary minimum age requirement for the issuance of a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card. A FOID, you may remember, is required in Illinois for purchasing, possessing, transporting, or using firearms or ammunition (the draconian tyranny of requiring the FOID in the first place is a discussion in itself). My post of a couple weeks ago included links to contact information for the legislative committee that has jurisdiction over these matters--Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR). The idea was to let JCAR know that this rule change does nothing to make Illinois safer, but only to subject Illinois residents to yet more regulation. I even expressed my gratitude that the ISP cannot implement this rule change unilaterally. I should have known . . .

It turns out that the Illinois State Police have decided to make an end-run around the entire legislative process, and do exactly what I thought they could not do (and which is illegal for them to do), and have stopped issuing FOID cards to qualified kids, because the law might change in the near future. Yep--the Illinois State Police Department is enforcing a law that is not on the books, but that the director ("Dirty Larry" Trent) wants to have passed.

Although adoption of such regulations is strictly within the purview of JCAR, an investigation conducted by the ISRA has revealed that Illinois State Police Director Larry Trent unilaterally established a minimum age for FOID applicants and began denying FOID cards to citizens less than 10 years of age as early as May 2007.

“Director Trent has taken it upon himself to nullify the authority of JCAR,” commented ISRA Executive Director, Richard Pearson. “Last May, he issued a declaration to the FOID division staff that directed the denial of FOID cards to applicants less than 10 years of age. Since that time, the State Police have used this bogus age limit as justification to deny over 200 applications. Of course, Trent’s edict has not stopped the State Police from cashing application fee checks.”

I wish I could say that I was surprised, but this being Illinois, it's par for the course.

Senator Biden gets tough on . . . freedom

Although details aren't yet available (or at least I've not been able to find them), Biden's "2007 Biden Crime Bill" has been introduced. It includes both a reauthorization of the now-defunct (thankfully) 1994 "assault weapons" ban, and closure of the mythical "gun show loophole."

Stop Senseless Gun Violence: Renewing the Assault Weapons Ban and Closing the Gun Show Loophole. The Biden Crime Bill provides for a straight-forward reauthorization of the assault weapons ban that became law in 1994 and it closes the so-called gun show loophole by requiring all gun show sales submit to federal background checks, just like any store-based firearm sale.

Predictably, the Brady Bunch thinks it's a marvelous idea.

"Our country can't be tough on crime without being tough on guns. Many of our communities are under attack by thugs with assault weapons, and we must get these killing machines off our streets," Helmke said. "We are very grateful for Senator Biden's leadership in cracking down on crime and gun violence. The proposals should be welcome news to police leaders and families who are facing an onslaught of violent gun crimes."

If, by "killing machines," you mean the thugs, I agree with you completely, Paul. If, on the other hand, you mean the so-called "assault weapons," I suppose I agree that they shouldn't be left lying around on the streets--it can't be good for them to be run over by cars all the time. Somebody needs to pick up those guns and give them a good home--I'd be happy to, but I can't seem to find any on the streets around here.

Update: Forgot to mention the following part. Not sure about what it will mean for gun laws.

Update Current Law to Keep Up with Changing Technologies: The 2007 Biden Crime Bill also updates federal laws relating to child exploitation and violence against children, drug possession and trafficking, firearms, computer crimes and intellectual property and victims rights.

"Smart guns," maybe, or microstamping? No telling, at this point.

Due process? We don't need no steenking due process!

Louis Klarevas is worried--worried that people who might (or might not) be terrorists can buy guns. In his NY Daily News opinion piece, "Crack down on handguns--they're a tool of terror, too," he bleats that handguns are "one of the biggest terrorist threats to ordinary New Yorkers."

Yet America's strategy for keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists is lax beyond belief. It's so lax, in fact, that today, people on the federal terrorist watch list are not prohibited from purchasing guns. Just think - a person on the watch list can be barred from getting on a plane, but he or she cannot be prevented from buying some weapons.

The gist of his message is that America needs to pass the Lautenberg/King S. 1237/H.R. 2074, which would give the Attorney General the power to arbitrarily bar anyone on the (grotesquely bloated) terrorist watch list (and no, by "grotesquely bloated," I don't mean everyone's favorite occupant of the list, Sen. Ted "Hero of Chappaquiddick" Kennedy) from buying firearms.

I have made no secret of my loathing for this bill (also here, here, and here ). To grant an official (who is not even elected by the people) the power to unilaterally deny an American citizen his Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, without a trial, without an indictment, without even an arrest, is to voluntarily surrender our liberties to the police state.

In making his case for the "danger" posed what by he sees as "inadequate" laws regulating handguns, Klarevas makes the following observation:

But as the Virginia Tech case illustrates, all one needs is an abundant amount of reload ammunition, a densely populated soft target, and the will to kill to produce dozens of deaths in just minutes.

What he neglects to mention is what makes a "soft target"--state mandated victim disarmament. Cho's murderous rampage faced no effective opposition because university policy prohibited his victims the means to resist. Terrorists bent on committing the atrocity of a small-arms massacre (if they choose such an inefficient method of killing in large numbers) will no doubt choose their targets with an eye for similarly helpless victims.

So I guess I do agree after all with Klarevas' assertion that our gun laws make us vulnerable to terrorists, but not in the way he argues. Klarevas claims to be concerned about terrorists with guns, but seems not to be bothered by the idea of the potential victims being disarmed.

We are frequently told that the terrorists "hate us for our freedoms." It seems that some would adopt a strategy of trying to appease them by surrendering those freedoms.

Update: War on Guns has more.

More hysteria from our 'gun supervision activist'

Nicki, at the Liberty Zone, has found the latest attempt by Illinois to become the most pathetically bed-wetting nanny state in the union. This most recent mewling comes from an individual who is apparently now to be referred to as a "gun supervision activist"--a term chosen because, I suppose, "shrieking, sniveling, enuretic, wanna-be tyrant" is a bit too awkward.

What has Illinois' aspiring nanny, Thom Mannard, of the Illinois Council to Render Citizens Defenseless Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence off his feed (and thus unable to enjoy his tofu-kiwi burgers) is the fact that (gasp!) Illinois has apparently failed to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of firearms that can be kept in a home.

However, I am concerned that it is legal, as Mr. Sonka correctly asserts, to own 600 guns and keep them in your house, without any recourse afforded to neighbors who might object.

Not true, Thom--the neighbors could move away to a place even less free than Illinois--I hear Myanmar (Burma) has "strong, effective 'gun-control' laws." Alternatively, the frightened neighbors could grow up, get a life, and mind their own damned business.

Clearly, no reasonable concerned citizen should argue about the right to hoard 600 guns when weighed against the issue of public safety posed by such firepower sitting in the middle of residential community. Not only are such a large number of firearms a burglar's dream; they pose multiple potential scenarios under which harm could come to local residents.

So now he presumes to tell us what we should or should not argue about--apparently attacking the Second Amendment isn't enough for him, and he wants to go after the First, as well.

Nicki's reply to him is vastly better than I could ever manage, so I'll turn it over to her:

Guess what, you panty wetting douchebag! If he's not likely to kill anyone with one gun, he's certainy not likely to kill anyone with 600 of them. A "concerned" citizen should ask himself if someone's private property is any of his business. Frankly, if paranoid losers like you didn't continuously work to "out" gun owners in the press, showing criminals exactly where they live, the "burglar's dream" would probably not turn into a nightmare for anyone. But in your selfish zeal to cuddle yourself in a cocoon of perceived safety, you are just out to screw anyone who is actually willing to take responsibility for theirs.

You want to ban the keeping of six hundred guns--fine. Mobilize your political power (you're going to have to expand it nationwide, I'm afraid), and get the Second Amendment changed:

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear up to five hundred ninety-nine arms shall not be infringed."

That should take care of it.

I'm sure we'll all be much safer, Thom.