Interesting choice of words, Josh

I'm not going to bother going into VPC executive director Josh Sugarmann's Federal Firearms License--that has already been well covered (here, here, and here, just to name a few examples).

What I do want to talk about comes from a 2-decade-old article written by Sugarmann. The thrust of that article is that no "gun-control" legislation short of an outright ban on handguns is going to be enough.

Recognizing the eliminating a disease requiresprevention, not treatment, health professionals have been in the forefront of those calling for a national ban on handguns. In 1981, the Surgeon General's Select Panel for the Promotion of Child Health traced the "epidemic of deaths and injuries among children and youth' to handguns, and called for "nothing short of a total ban.' It is estimated that on average, one child dies from handgun wounds each day. Between 1961 and 1981, according to the American Association of Suicidology, the suicide rate for 15- to 24-year-olds increased 150 percent. The report linked the rise in murders and suicides among the young to the increased use of firearms--primarily handguns. In a 1985 report, the Surgeon General's Workshop on Violence and Public Health recommended "a complete and universal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation, and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel).'

Sugarmann actually takes HCI (Handgun Control, Inc.--the name by which the Brady Campaign was once known) to task for calling for anything less than a ban.

Unfortunately, powerful as the NRA is, it hasreceived additional help from the leading handgun control group. Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) has helped the handgun lobby by setting up the perfect strawman for the NRA to shoot down. "Keep handguns out of the wrong hands,' HCI says. "By making it more difficult for criminals, drug addicts, etc., to get handguns, and by ensuring that law-abiding citizens know how to maintain their handguns, we can reduce handgun violence,' it promises. Like those in the NRA, HCI chairman Nelson T. "Pete' Shields "firmly believe(s) in the right of law-abiding citizens to possess handguns . . . for legitimate purposes.'

What really got my attention, though, was this little rhetorical gem:

But the final solution lies in changing the wayhandguns and handgun violence are viewed by society.

"Final solution," Josh? And the citizen disarmament advocates call us paranoid for pointing out the striking similarities between the wording of the Gun Control Act of '68 and that of pre-WW II gun legislation in Germany?

More at Days of Our Trailers.

Update: I know I said I wasn't going to go into Sugarmann's FFL, but now that Ryan has uncovered the apparent illegality of that license, I just had to point it out. And I thought the VPC was opposed to "kitchen-table" Federal Firearms Licensees, "who operate[d] out of their homes or offices."

Update II: Look who stopped by!



What--no time for some "reasoned discourse," Josh?

So why hasn't McCain signed on?

Looking at S. 2577, Lautenberg's latest attempt to close the mythical "gun show loophole," I notice that John McCain isn't one of the eleven co-sponsors (up from ten the last time I talked about it--Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)has signed on).

The question is, why not? Sure--I realize that passing feel-good laws that do nothing to prevent violent crime, and instead serve only to infringe upon that which shall not be infringed, isn't exactly in line with what one might normally expect from a "true conservative," but it is consistent with McCain's history.

"Despite the tragic lessons we have learned, it is still far too easy for a convicted felon to buy firearms at a gun show. That is wrong," said Senator McCain in a recent press release. "This is not about what's conservative and what's liberal, what's Republican and what's Democrat. It's about what's right and what's wrong. And quite simply, closing this loophole is the right thing to do."

Here's some more history.

S.890
Gun Show Loophole Closing and Gun Law Enforcement Act of 2001 (Introduced in Senate)

May 15, 2001

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. DEWINE, and Mr. CARPER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Of course, I realize that his support for Colorado's "gun show loophole" closure bill was back in 2000, and his introduction of S. 890 was in 2001, and that much can change in seven or eight years. So let's fast forward a bit.

Is the "John McCain for President 2008" website recent enough? Looking at the "Protecting Second Amendment Rights" page, we find this:

Background Checks at Gun Shows

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

Doesn't sound exactly like a renouncement of his old "gun show loophole" closing ways, does it?

So I ask again, why not sign on as a co-sponsor of S. 2577, Senator? Or is my timing wrong? Perhaps you want to officially lock down the nomination, before lurching after the voters who are considering Obillary?

Out of the frying pan (into the fire?) for Cook County gun owners

Cook County (IL) Commissioner Larry Suffredin, one of the most vocal enemies of private gun ownership in the Chicago area (and that's saying something), lost his bid in last Tuesday's primary to become the Democratic candidate for Cook County State's Attorney. While, as ISRA reports, this is good news, it's not unadulterated good news.

As it happens, the winner of the Democratic primary, Anita Alvarez, is no prize for gun owners, either. In fact, she is anything but.

Any doubts about that can be quickly dispelled by watching this video of her Dec. 9th interview on "Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz" (a Chicago area political talk show on cable TV). It's a half-hour program, with the gun issue not brought up until very near the end, so some might prefer to watch just that segment, rather than the whole thing in the above link, so here it is truncated to just the relevant portion:



Then again, some might just prefer to read a transcript:

Jeff Berkowitz: You’ve heard the saying, “More guns, Less crime.”

Anita Alvarez, Chief Deputy to State’s Attorney Dick Devine: Um-um.

Jeff Berkowitz: Make sense to you?

Anita Alvarez, Candidate for State’s Attorney, Democratic Primary: More guns, less crime?

Jeff Berkowitz: Yes, [the book with that title by] John Lott. Criminals…if they are in an area like Chicago where it is illegal to what, own a handgun?

Anita Alvarez (D-River Forest): Yes, it is.

Jeff Berkowitz: A bad guy goes up to a good guy and if the good guy is following the law, the bad guy knows the good guy doesn’t have a gun, and the bad guy has kind of an advantage. If [on the other hand], the bad guy thinks the good guy does own a gun, he is going to be more careful. Do you think that makes sense?

Anita Alvarez: No, I think—I believe in gun control. I believe less guns is better.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, you believe…people in Chicago not being allowed to own a handgun is fine.

Anita Alvarez: Yes.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, if somebody is in a home that is in an area that is somewhat crime ridden, and he would like to own a gun to protect himself (or herself) in his house, you say, “Nope, you don’t get to.”

Anita Alvarez: No, not at all [he should not own a gun].

Jeff Berkowitz: Call the police, they’ll get there in time, right?

Anita Alvarez: Well, that’s right. I don’t believe that people should be able to---

Jeff Berkowitz: But, you know that police often won’t get there in time.

Anita Alvarez: Well, it happens, sometimes. But, I believe in stricter gun control.

Jeff Berkowitz: And, in these cases for women who are being battered by their husbands, they can’t own a gun; they sometimes can’t get a protective order, they can’t get the police there in time—your answer is? Tough?

Anita Alvarez: I still would not—

Jeff Berkowitz: Because you just told me as a female, you can identify with women and so forth—would you identify with a female in that kind of situation?

Anita Alvarez: No, I don’t think that anybody should own guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, no concealed carry?

Anita Alvarez: No, absolutely not.

Jeff Berkowitz: If a woman is going down a street in a tough area and she would like to have a gun in her purse, just in case [a bad guy tries to assault her]-- it’s a felony [for her to have a gun in her purse], right?

Anita Alvarez: That’s right. I believe in gun control and I don’t believe that—and you are pointing out very specific cases that again if in fact a woman is murdered, I understand that. However, I think we are all safer in our society without guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: Should we have more gun control? Some people say we should have an assault weapon ban. We had it on the federal level and it lapsed. Should the state of Illinois

Anita Alvarez: I think we should

Jeff Berkowitz: Have an assault weapon ban? Some people say we should restrict the number of guns people can purchase. Some say restrict it to one a month, maybe one a year. Does either sound good to you?

Anita Alvarez: I agree with that.

Jeff Berkowitz: One a year? You would favor a law that said you could only buy one gun a year?

Anita Alvarez: Actually, I would favor a law that no one could ever buy a gun.

Jeff Berkowitz: So, you would take the guns away from people who own them legally now?

Anita Alvarez: I think we would be a safer society if people didn’t own guns.

Jeff Berkowitz: Do you think the 2nd Amendment [to the U. S. Constitution] has anything to say about that? I mean, should we follow the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: I think—we have put more danger in the street with people owning guns and the cases that I have seen and the children that I have seen get killed because of guns. It’s just too dangerous. I would favor—

Jeff Berkowitz: But, do individuals have a right to own a gun from the 2nd Amendment [to the U. S. Constitution]?. You have read the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: I have read the 2nd Amendment.

Jeff Berkowitz: You believe in the 2nd Amendment?

Anita Alvarez: People do interpret that way. I don’t believe I do. I don’t think people should own guns. I really don’t.

So, an aspiring State's Attorney who "doesn't believe" in part of the Bill of Rights--not exactly encouraging.

There is a ray of hope on the Cook County State's Attorney score. The Republican candidate, Tony Peraica (like Suffredin, currently a Cook County Commissioner) has a record of consistently opposing Chicago-style draconian gun laws.

He'll have a high, steep hill to climb, as a Republican in Cook County, and will need the support of every Cook County gun owner.

Perhaps there's hope for Congress, after all

For all we're hearing about the U.S. "turning a corner" on so-called "gun control," and about the "decline" of America's gun culture, over half of Congress seems not to have gotten the memo.

A majority of the Senate and more than half of the members of the House will file a brief today urging the Supreme Court to uphold a ruling that the District's handgun ban violates the Second Amendment.

That's 55 senators and 250 representatives, for 55% and over 57% of the Senate and House, respectively, who want the Supreme Court to recognize that Washington D.C.'s draconian gun laws violate the Second Amendment. These legislators are taking this position in an election year, which would seem to indicate that they believe their constituents will not be especially unhappy about it.

The pro-rights brief filed by a Congressional majority can be found here (pdf file), and the list of legislators here.

Perhaps the 45 senators and 185 representatives who did not sign would be more interested in looking into this idea of mine.

The voice of the Illinois gun rights movement

In the wake of the killings of five women in a Chicago area shopping mall last weekend (discussed a bit here), Illinois Carry spokesperson Valinda Rowe was interviewed on the Don Wade and Roma show (on WLS 890 AM, a Chicago area radio station).

The interview (mp3 file) is available here, and is well worth the time (it's not very long) to hear. In it, Valinda explains how Illinois law renders women defenseless against the kind of animal responsible for the deaths in Tinley Park last weekend.

I've mentioned Valinda before, and expressed my gratitude that she is on our side. That gratitude continues to grow. Valinda, by the way, also stars in the "Rights Denied in Illinois" video in the side bar.

Chicago's Mayor Daley and a great many Illinois lawmakers argue that citizens should not be permitted to carry defensive firearms when they go about their business. Carjackers, rapists and murderers (like the one in Tinley Park) undoubtedly agree. It seems to me that those elected officials have chosen the wrong side.

Florida to require gun dealers to have psychic powers?

As if it's not foolish enough to make violent crime more illegal if the weapon used is a so-called "assault weapon," Florida lawmakers want to punish gun dealers for failing to read minds.

People who use assault weapons to commit crimes and even gun dealers who sell the rifles to lawbreakers would face tougher penalties under new legislation, proposed in response to a spate of violence with the high-powered firearms.

Oh look--another "spate."

But where does the requirement for gun dealers to have mystical powers to read minds come in? Right here:

If a person buys or sells a semiautomatic or automatic weapon using false identification or identity theft, both the buyer and seller would face a mandatory second-degree felony with up to 15 years in prison and up to $25,000 in fines.

Fifteen years in prison, for the "crime" of not knowing the buyer is who his identification says he is.

The bills, HB 425 and its Senate counterpart, SB 782, are the legislative masterworks of Representative Evan Jenne and Senator Gwen Margolis. Gwen says it makes sense to go after gun dealers who fail to thwart sales to people using false identities.

Margolis said she didn't think the law was putting too heavy a burden on gun sellers, who might actually be the victims of deception.

''I don't think that they're really duped,'' Margolis said. ''What's happening is the gun sellers are not necessarily enforcing the laws that we have in this state, and we've never made them responsible for the enforcement.''

Well, as long as you don't think they're duped, Gwen. One question, though--if gun sellers are expected to enforce the law, why have paid law enforcement agencies and officers? And can we count on you, Gwen, to back us up when we're told that rather than having the means to defend ourselves, we should leave it to the professionals?

According to another article, the bills already have "Only One" support:

The legislation, Senate Bill 782 and House Bill 425, has already drawn support from those on law enforcement's front line.

"Assault weapons are the weapons of choice for criminals today," said Robert Parker, director of the Miami-Dade Police Department. The measure has also received the support of the Florida Police Chiefs Association, the Florida Sheriffs Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and the Police Benevolent Association.

"If this law were in place, we might have been able to stop the killer before a good officer lost his life," Margolis said of Jose Somohano, a four-year police veteran gunned down last year by an AK-47 that his assailant had purchased using false identification.

Yep, because the seller of the "AK-47" (I believe it was actually a MAK-90--which, by the way, was not designated an "assault weapon" by the now-defunct AWB--but I don't want to be picky) would magically have had the ability to spot false identification, if only the law had required him to.

While we're at it, maybe we should make it a felony for doctors to fail to cure their patients of (say) cancer--it's amazing what can be done by decree.

How much are your rights worth?

I've talked about this before (and again here), and I hate to nag, but David reminds us that the Academics for the Second Amendment are carrying a disproportionate share of the burden in fighting the good fight in D.C. v. Heller.

These good people have devoted much labor that will benefit us all, yet their costs are far from being covered. Who thinks it's fair that, in addition to doing all the research, writing, and production work, costs such as additional attorney fees, printing expenses, filing fees, travel and lodging expenses, etc., ought to come out of their pockets as well?

The brief will be online soon--they file it on Monday. While I have not seen an advance copy, I have been in correspondence with one of the attorneys working on it--David Hardy. I do know they will be raising some things that are vital, and that were not covered in the Respondent's brief. I also know and have faith in not only the reputations of the principals involved, but also the peerless quality of their scholarship and work to date.

If every WarOnGuns visitor today sent them the cost of a box of ammo, they'd be well on their way to recovering most of their costs. If you then took it one step further and sent a link to this plea to your gun owning friends, we'd be able to make them completely whole.

YOU can help. The expression, "Freedom isn't free" is rather over-used these days, in my estimation, but it is certainly accurate. Are we going to make others buy our freedom for us?

Citizen disarmament advocates eating their own

Few things are more satisfying than seeing various elements of the gun ban crowd squabbling amongst themselves. This particular incidence of that started with Hillary Clinton criticizing Barack Obama for "flip-flopping" on the issue of gun legislation.

Speaking to reporters on a flight between California and Arizona, Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of flip-flopping on the issue of gun control.

Earlier today, Obama said he had "no intention of taking away folks' guns.”

But Obama has a history of supporting gun control measures. And the Clinton campaign pointed out a questionnaire from 1996 where Obama said he "supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

Clinton said Obama has some explaining to do.

Back in December, Clinton also criticized Obama's history of anti-gun positions as being a weakness in terms of "electability"--a rather amusing criticism, considering the source.

Since then, Bryan Miller (executive director of Ceasefire NJ) has taken Clinton to task--not only for the hypocrisy of her "flip-flopping" accusations, but also for not being more vocally anti-gun herself.

But Clinton's bait and switch tactic should anger anyone hoping to elect a presidential candidate who might actually pursue a rational policy on guns. Clinton's attack is an obvious effort to frighten some with the false specter of gun confiscation under an Obama presidency, a prospect that is clearly not in the cards in this country, whoever is in office.

Clinton's attack is highly ironic, as well, both because she has changed positions on guns even more rapidly than Obama, and because she has one of the strongest gun violence prevention (GVP) records of any federal office holder. To wit: Clinton stated her support for national licensing and registration of all newly purchased handguns in a May 2000 meeting with newspaper publishers (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/09/hrc.guns/index.html), but stated during a debate last month in Nevada that she opposed implementing a national gun licensing registry..." (http://cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002655673).

Snowflakes in Hell, Days of Our Trailers, and Say Uncle all have some good commentary about Miller's criticism of Clinton. As all three of them point out, the Democratic candidates' (rather unconvincing) attempts to reassure gun owners about their intentions would seem to indicate that, Bryan Miller's cheerleading about the "demise of the gun culture" notwithstanding, gun rights advocates constitute a political bloc that even politicians like Clinton and Obama have to take seriously.

Miller isn't the only citizen disarmament advocate disappointed with Clinton, according to ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper:

In an email to me, Andy Pelosi of Gun Free Kids, writes, "quite frankly, there are many gun control advocates that find it distasteful that Clinton appears to be running to the right of Obama on guns."

Trouble in gun-free paradise?

Is there a legal term for 'shmackdown'?

I ask, because that's what D.C.'s legal team has just been handed by Heller's legal team. A couple highlights:

The rights secured by the first eight amendments were not conjured at random, but in reaction to specific outrages of the King’s rule. The Second Amendment is no exception. While Petitioners and their amici may not believe that English law secured an individual right to arms for self-defense, colonial Americans certainly did, and it was the repeated, wanton violation of that right that led them to demand and ratify he Second Amendment.

Those "specific outrages" are no less intolerable, and no less a threat, today (with the exception, perhaps, of quartering of soldiers--there doesn't seem to be much of a push to force that on us).

Petitioners plainly disagree with the Framers’ Second Amendment policy choices. Petitioners’ remedy must be found within the Constitution’s Fifth Article, not with linguistic sophistries or an anemic standard of review that would deprive the right of any real force.

The citizen disarmament advocates, in D.C. and elsewhere, don't have to like the Second Amendment or the right it protects--but that freedom to dislike it does not grant them license to change its meaning to something they find more palatable, or to say that it, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, can be reduced in power to that of little more than a suggestion to lawmakers. There is a process for amending the Constitution. Have at it.

P.S. Removing the Constitutional protection from a fundamental human right of the individual does not cause that right to cease to exist, or to cease to be fundamental. Banning guns is the easy part--coming to take them is where it might get a bit hairy. Who wants to try first?

'Sensible Gun Laws' not saving lives

Friday night, a 15-year-old mini-thug in Baltimore, Maryland, shot and murdered his parents and two younger brothers.

A 15-year-old boy fatally shot his parents and two younger brothers as they slept, then spent more than 12 hours with friends before returning home and calling 911 to report that his father was dead, police said Sunday.

On Saturday, five women were shot and murdered in a Chicago-area shopping mall, in what police believe was a robbery attempt.

A gunman fatally shot five women in a robbery at a store in a suburban Chicago strip mall before fleeing Saturday, prompting police to sweep through neighboring shops as terrified customers watched. The victims, including at least one employee, were killed at a Lane Bryant clothing store at the Brookside Marketplace, police Chief Mike O'Connell said.

The citizen disarmament advocates will undoubtedly put on their blood-dancing shoes and point to these atrocities as "justification" to disarm Americans. What they probably will not care to talk about is the fact that on the Brady Bunch's newly released "score cards," ranking the states on the degree to which citizens are disarmed, Illinois scored quite "well," and Maryland scored even "better."

Illinois, for example, was ranked ninth among the fifty states (meaning Illinois' gun laws are the ninth most restrictive in the country). That would put IL in the 82nd percentile. One area in which Illinois scored particularly "well" is concealed carry legislation:

States can earn up to 10 points by making it harder to carry “Guns In Public Places” (except for trained law enforcement and security) and by allowing localities to “Preserve Local Control” over municipal gun laws. This includes keeping guns out of workplaces and college campuses, not forcing law enforcement to issue concealed handgun permits on demand, not permitting
“shoot first” expansions in self-defense laws, and not preventing municipalities from passing their own gun laws. Illinois scored all 10 points in this category.

The reason, of course, that "Illinois scored all 10 points in this category" (that emphasis was the Brady Bunch's, by the way) is that not only does Illinois "not forc[e] law enforcement to issue concealed handgun permits on demand," Illinois bans outright the carrying, either openly or concealed, of firearms in public. In other words, Illinois achieves a high state-mandated defenselessness score. I certainly hope the families of the victims appreciate that.

Maryland, by the way, makes it to the Bradys' top three in restrictive gun laws, putting it in the 94th percentile.

Kentucky and Oklahoma, tied for "last" in the Brady Bunch ranking, are sounding better, and safer, all the time.

Insurrection Bowl!

If the government is going to continue to insist that our firearms have a "sporting purpose" (or, more accurately, if we're going to continue to allow our public servants to impose such a requirement upon us), perhaps it's time for a new sport.

If we're going to accept the position that the Founding Fathers devoted 10% of the Bill of Rights to the protection of a sport, it's time for the NIL (National Insurrection League), in which no firearm will be banned because it's too large, or too small, or too easily afforded by poor people, or too scary looking, or too accurate, or too quiet, or takes too long to run out of ammunition, or doesn't take long enough to reload with more ammunition.

Alright! Now that Auto Assault 12 shotgun I've been wanting has a sporting purpose, as does explosive, fragmenting, armor piercing ammunition for it.

We're going to need a pretty big stadium, though.

Tonight's "super dialogue" on Charter.net

I have made no secret of my admiration for Dr. Paul, and my belief that he is the only presidential candidate worthy of the unabashed support of gun owners. Now that the field has shrunk to Clinton and Obama (need I say more?) on one side; and Mitt "Weapons of Unusual Lethality" Romney, John "Close the Gun Show Loophole" McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Dr. Paul on the other; I think it bears repeating.

Huckabee, I acknowledge, is good on gun rights issues. Still, although I probably come across as a single issue voter, I do follow other issues, and Huckabee presents real problems on several of them. As an example, he likes to tax and spend, as illustrated by his proposed budget (biggest of the Republicans still in the race). Then there's his wish to change the Constitution to better align it with his religion. Oh, and the First Amendment? He doesn't seem to be a big fan.

That leaves Dr. Paul:



Getting to the title of this blog post, Charter.net is hosting a"Super Dialogue" tonight at 6 PM EST, featuring Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, and Dr. Paul. With Huckabee and Paul as the only Republicans participating, perhaps the campaign to ignore Paul will take a break.

A blind squirrel finds an acorn (but doesn't know what to do with it)

In a publication called "BostonNOW" there was an article yesterday with a title that (unintentionally, I am utterly convinced) strikes at the heart of the gun law/gun rights debate. The article is called "Mass. gun laws are strict, but guns still easy to get."

Yeah--as I understand it, during Prohibition, alcohol was easy to get. Throughout the decades of the "War on Drugs," the various (ostensibly) "controlled" substances have been easy to get. Hmm--I think I might be on the verge of identifying an underlying theme here. Could it be that when there's a demand for something, some folks will move to provide a supply, prohibition-type laws notwithstanding? Could it be that strict gun laws are useless, as well as unconstitutional?

By the way, for sheer amusement value, check out this sentence from the article:

Citizen Y carries a 9 mm semi automatic pistol. Citizen X carries a .38mm.

".38mm," eh? Now that's small. I thought the Swiss Minigun, at 2.34mm (.092 caliber), was tiny--but that's over six times the diameter of "Citizen X's" .38mm (.015 caliber). But I digress.

Back to our scheduled programming:

Every year 4,000 gun crimes are committed in Massachusetts, although the Commonwealth has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

But I don't suppose that the ubiquity of "gun crimes" has prompted the author to question the effectiveness of those "strictest gun control laws in the nation," has it?

"The problem is," according to Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis, "Instead of a few large illegal dealers in this state, we now have many small dealers who will sell maybe one, two, maybe five guns and there are many more of them, unfortunately."

Well, thanks for explaining to us what "the problem is," Commissioner. Tell me--how do people who sell "maybe one, two, maybe five guns" come to be seen as "dealers"? Is someone who sells one or two cars to be considered a car dealer, subject to a car dealer's licensing requirements? If so, I'll bet there are more "unlicensed car dealers" than "unlicensed gun dealers."

Team 5 Investigates went undercover to a gun show in Vermont, and within minutes, found a federally licensed dealer who was willing to sell us a semiautomatic weapon and its magazine, even though we did not have a permit.

Yeah, well--call it the pesky spirit of Ethan Allen, if you wish, but Vermont doesn't require a government-issued permission slip for the exercise of that particular Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual, so your lack of a "permit" was irrelevant.

The most chilling part of the article, however, comes next:

Suffolk County District Attorney Dan Conley says gun traffickers won't be permanently put out of business until the law is changed to go after smaller dealers. "A legislative idea that we will propose is just the mere possession of three or more firearms would infer that you were going to distribute," said Conley.

I'm not going to catalog my collection online, but suffice it to say that it's in the double digits (and financial realities keep it much smaller than I would like it to be)--and the only way I'm going to "distribute" those guns is, to borrow a phrase, "from my cold, dead hands."

Found the bill number

This morning, when I wrote about Sen. Lautenberg's "gun show loophole" closure bill, I couldn't find the bill number.

I finally tracked it down--S. 2577. Still no text, of course.

'Gun show loophole' closure goes nationwide

I've been writing a bit lately (with more here) about the recent efforts (all of which have died screaming) in Virginia to close the mythical "gun show loophole." Now, everyone's favorite citizen disarmer, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), along with Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), is trying the same thing on the federal level.

“It defies common sense that a loophole in federal law lets unlicensed dealers sell firearms at gun shows without running a background check on the buyer. Our legislation would require background checks for every gun purchased at every gun show across America. Without this change in the law, felons, fugitives and severely mentally ill people will continue to be able to buy guns – no questions asked,” said Sen. Lautenberg.

Those "unlicensed dealers," of course, are no more "dealers" than someone who sells his used car is a car dealer, but far be it from a citizen disarmament advocate to stick to facts, when menacing hyperbole works so much better.

How far will this go? Hard to say. A House bill, H.R. 96 (discussed briefly here) was introduced almost a year ago, and has languished for months, drawing only five cosponsors so far.

Senator Lautenberg's bill (haven't yet found a bill number for it [UPDATE: it's S. 2577]), though, appears to be a more serious effort. Although just introduced yesterday, it already has (in addition to Lautenberg and Reed) nine cosponsors (the usual suspects). From Lautenberg's press release:

The Lautenberg-Reed measure is cosponsored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Diane Feinstein (D-CA), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Carl Levin (D-MI) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).

Also, as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Chuck Schumer have already stated, the "next step" after the NICS "Improvement" Act is the attack on gun shows.

And the "next step" after that? The Brady Bunch has made it clear that they want to require that all private sales (not only those at gun shows) to involve a background check. In the their press release praising the Lautenberg-Reed bill, Helmke spouted their motto on that subject:

“The bottom line should be: ‘No background check. No gun. No excuses.’”

Catchy, isn't it?

It's funny, isn't it, that the citizen disarmament advocates, who routinely dismiss the slippery slope argument as paranoid fear-mongering on the part of gun rights advocates, refer to every gun law they pass as "a good first step." We certainly take a lot of "first steps," and if they had their way, would take a lot more.

UPDATE: Ryan has more.

Real reasoned discourse at Sharp as a Marble

It's rare enough to find a citizen disarmament advocate with whom it's possible to have "reasoned discourse" (although such advocates sometimes lament that fact, and imply that it's the fault of the freedom advocates). Robb, at Sharp as a Marble, believes he has found one.

I've been having a conversation with Brandon Bryn of Prevention Works regarding a post he wrote about the Gun Show Loophole. I, of course, disagree with the term "loophole" and have been arguing my point and Brandon has been respectful in his replies. This is what true reasoned discourse is like.

I'm not sure I'll enter this debate, as I'm approaching the point where I'm one of those gun rights advocates who cannot help but take personally what I see as an attack on my Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, even when the guy doing the attacking does so in a "reasonable" manner.

I'm also starting to lose interest in the pragmatic arguments for gun rights. Although I believe restrictive gun laws do not save lives, and can be demonstrated to have cost lives, I have come to believe that the utilitarian arguments for or against so-called "gun control" miss the point.

The point is that life and liberty, and the means to defend them, are fundamental, natural rights (and, as it happens, protected by the Constitution). Whether this or that gun law constitutes a net increase in safety to society, or a net decrease, is, to my way of thinking, window dressing.

Still, it's an argument that won't go away anytime, and for those interested, Brandon seems a decent sort with whom to debate it.

Laura Washington: Sure, Suffredin is a political whore, but he's my political whore

Rabidly anti-gun columnist Laura Washington wrote Monday of her support for rabidly anti-gun Cook County (Illinois) Commissioner Larry Suffredin in his bid to become the next Cook County state's attorney. This is in spite of Suffredin's other job as a lobbyist.

Larry Suffredin's fatal flaw may be his longtime lobbying for gambling, tobacco and drug interests. It raises conflict of interest questions that are tough to set aside.

A list of his lobbying clients can be found here.

Why, despite Suffredin's "fatal flaw," would she support him?

Still, Suffredin has made fighting gun violence a signature initiative. He's got the NRA and its minions in a frenzy. His plan to go after gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets will save our children.

In other words, so what about the clear conflict of interest--as long as it serves my pet agenda? By the way, does this make me one of the NRA's "minions"? Does Laura consider herself one of the Brady Bunch's minions?

Looking at that list of lobbying clients, we see that one of them is Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control, which, according to this, is another name for the rabidly anti-gun Illinois Council against Handgun Violence. Suffredin is also a longtime board member of yet another rabidly anti-gun, group, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

So let's see, a commissioner of a county board, who pushes every restrictive gun ordinance he thinks he can manage to impose on the county (in addition to his latest attempt to shut down every gun dealer in the county, he was the author of Cook County's huge expansion of their ban of so-called "assault weapons"), and now is running for State's Attorney, is also a paid lobbyist for anti-gun groups, and is a board member of one such group. This goes beyond conflict of interest--this is closer to incest.

But never mind that, Laura Washington says--it's OK, because he's going after "gun shop owners and others who are peddling death on our streets . . . "

Let's just put the fox in charge of hen house security, while we're at it.

IGOLD '08 update

Yesterday, I updated my original IGOLD '08 post with this information, but I've decided to mention it in a new post, to help ensure that it's not missed.

PK Firearms, in Shelbyville, IL, is generously sponsoring another bus to Springfield (with their sponsorship making the trip free for any gun rights activist who can make it). This one takes off from Effingham, with stops for additional pick-ups in Vandalia and Litchfield. Here are the details:

Effingham/Vandalia/Litchfield - Free, donations accepted
7:30 a.m. Effingham – Depart K-Mart parking lot – 1006 N. Keller at I-70 exit 160 Please park at edge of lot away from the building (Map soon)
8:00 a.m. Vandalia - Depart Harmon’s IGA parking lot, 827 Veterans Ave. 62471 just southwest of I-70 exit 63 Please park at N/W corner between Subway and IGA. Employee parking area. (Map soon)
9:30 a.m. Litchfield – Depart Tractor Supply (TSC), 20 Litchfield Plaza, Litchfield, IL Just east of I-55 exit 52 (Map soon)
10:30 am Springfield - Lunch - Old Country buffet $8.50 per person (includes meal, drink, gratuity, bus captain collects money)
On-line reservation or call 815-635-3198
Bus provided by PK Firearms of Shelbyville, IL
Donations accepted - Donations will go to the ISRA legal defense fund

By the way, while I'm pointing out PK's generous sponsorship of this event, I should probably mention other businesses and organizations that are working hard to make IGOLD '08 even bigger and better than last year. These include the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Guns Save Life (formerly Champaign County Rifle Association), Springfield Armory, Rock River Arms, Armalite, and DSArms. Without the hard work and generous contributions of these entities, IGOLD would still be invaluable in fighting against the scourge of restrictive gun laws in Illinois, but would be considerably less capable of making gun owners' voices heard in Springfield.

Also, the earlier post had document files (either pdf or MS Word) for flyers that could be printed up for distribution at gun shops, gun shows, gun clubs, etc., to promote IGOLD. Here they are again:

ISRA's flyer (pdf format)
Aurora info (MS Word doc)
Champaign info (MS Word doc)
Chicago info (MS Word doc)
Mt. Vernon-Fairview Heights info (MS Word doc)

Now, we have a few more:
Joliet-Chatsworth info (MS Word doc)
Moline-Galesburg-Peoria info (MS Word doc)
Marion info (MS Word doc)
Quincy-Barry-Jacksonville info (MS Word doc)
Rockford-Mendota-Normal info (MS Word doc)
Effingham-Vandalia-Litchfield info (MS Word doc)

Help spread the word.

Ammunition encoding--a nationwide effort?

Last week, I took a look at four bills festering in the Illinois Politburo legislature that would require ammunition to be encoded with unique (from box to box) serial numbers. The expense of implementing such a program, coupled with the near utter lack of any utility as a crime-fighting tool, makes, I suspect, passage of any of these bills quite unlikely, even here in Illinois.

Still, the citizen disarmers are going to take their shots (no pun intended), and while we on the pro-rights side busy putting out fires, that's effort we won't be using to actually advance our cause. I can therefore see, from a tactical point of view, why introducing such bills is seen as worth it to them, even if they aren't likely to pass (and who knows--maybe I'm underestimating how bad things have gotten in Illinois, and they really do intend to make a real fight over this abomination).

It's a bit more surprising to me to see such legislation proposed in traditionally gun-friendly states, but it's happening. War on Guns tells us of such efforts (both House and Senate) in Tennessee. I suspect such efforts are especially quixotic in Tennessee, but as WoG points out, Tennessee did give us Al Gore, so I should perhaps not take anything for granted.

Mississippi is another southern state, generally perceived as pro-gun, that is considering such legislation. Interestingly, a look at the text of the bill shows that one of the cosponsors is newly elected Senator Eric Powell. I say "interestingly," because of Senator Powell's NRA endorsement, his platform that includes "Second Amendment rights," and his promise that he "will lead the opposition to any move in the legislature to undermine our Second Amendment rights." He certainly seems to be "lead[ing] the opposition" in a rather odd direction, doesn't he?

I realize that Sen. Powell does not come up for reelection until 2011, but I hope Mississippi gun owners and his district remember his treachery then.

What's a dangerous weapon in D.C.?

Apparently, anything is, if so used in an assault. The "weapon" referred to in the linked-to George Washington University student newspaper article was a beer bottle (probably--the victim isn't sure, but is apparently convinced that it was a glass object), with which the victim was struck in the head.

Senior Isabella Bacardi was arrested for assault with a dangerous weapon - a felony charge - at McFadden's Saloon Oct. 21. Bacardi is accused of hitting a 29-year-old Alexandria, Va., resident on the head with a glass object, a court document states.

[ . . . ]

Michelle Lindsay, the 29-year-old alleged victim, said she believes the glass object was a beer bottle but added she did not see it because of the angle of the reported incident.

While calling a beer bottle a "dangerous weapon" may sound a bit silly, I actually don't really have a problem with that. Beer bottles can be, and undoubtedly have been, used to kill, as have bikini tops, and for that matter, so have fists and feet. As those of us who fight against gun bans constantly point out, it's the evil and aggressive intent of the person using an implement that makes that implement dangerous, rather than the nature of the implement itself.

Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the District's U.S. Attorney's office, elaborates:

Possession of a prohibited weapon is a charge added to an assault case to specify the weapon used in an attack, Phillips said.

"D.C. statute states anything that you use in a prohibited manner can be considered a prohibited weapon," he said. "Even a writing pen could be considered prohibited under certain circumstances."

They seem to take that "the pen is mightier than the sword" thing pretty seriously there, don't they?

How, though, do they reconcile that position with a handgun ban--a law that turns a peaceable citizen into a criminal, for merely having the audacity to maintain an efficient means of self-defense in the home? If a beer bottle is just a container until it's swung at someone's head, at which point it becomes a "prohibited weapon" (or if a pen is simply a writing instrument until it's stabbed into someone's eye, at which point it becomes a "prohibited weapon"), why isn't a handgun in the home simply part of the security arrangements, until it's used to harm an innocent victim?

Could the reason be that it's not very difficult for a tyrannical government to suppress a rebellion fought with beer bottles and pens?

Nicki hits one out of the park

And does a number on Virginia State Senator Dick Saslaw. I was going to just add this as an update to today's earlier post, but it's too good for to risk the possibility of people not noticing it.

Nicki can demolish a statist idiot without even putting any effort into it. For Saslaw, though, she put some time into it.

This letter is a must-read.

Contempt from the contemptible in the Virginia Senate

I'm feeling a bit lazy on this Sunday morning, so I'm not even going to try to come up with much original material today. I had been following the other side's efforts in Virginia to close the mythical "gun show loophole" (here, when the relevant House bill was defeated; here, when I realized that the greater danger was actually the Senate bill; and most recently, here, when that abomination was finally dispatched).

What I didn't cover was the contempt with which Senator Richard Saslaw (D-Fairfax, and member of the Senate Courts of Justice Committee, in which the bill was debated) views gun rights activists. From the Virginia Citizens Defense League:

On Monday, Executive member John Pierce was in an elevator in the General Assembly building, participating in the VCDL Lobby Day. John was in the back of the elevator and at some point Democratic Senator Dick Saslaw of Fairfax County, who is the Senate Majority Leader, entered the elevator with a companion.

The Senator, not realizing that John with his large "Guns Save Lives" badge was in the back of the elevator, continued a loud conversation he was having with his companion.

In a clearly audible voice, Senator Saslaw said to his companion: "I see we're debating a gun bill today. Half of the cast of Deliverance is in town."

Nice, eh? Sailor Curt and the Washington Post discuss this, as well.

Saslaw wasn't done, though. Once again, VCDL has the story:

In the following Washington Post blog, Saslaw doesn't deny making the "Deliverance" statement, but asks how gun owners know it was referring to them.

How about because it was obvious to anyone with more than a kindergarten education, Senator? You support every anti-gun bill that comes your way and we are to believe you are disparaging the anti-gunners?

It was Senator Saslaw, by the way, who rudely and contemptuously interrupted the VCDL's Phillip Van Cleave during his testimony to the Courts of Justice Committee--something he did not do when supporters of the restrictive gun law were speaking.

But even if you were referring to the anti-gunners, as a Senator you should have more decorum than to make such an offensive statement about ANY group, even the anti-gunners.

Adding insult to injury, Saslaw said this about gun owners who might think that his "Deliverance" comments were aimed at them: "some people must have one hell of an inferiority complex."

The point about the irrelevance of exactly to whom Saslaw referred is a good one (and one that Sailor Curt also made well). Saslaw is a public servant. Whichever component of his constituency he disparaged is composed of his employers (until they dismiss him, anyway).

Saslaw needs to be made aware that there are consequences attached to such egregious behavior on the part of an underling. Virginians need to let him know. Here's how (courtesy of Sailor Curt):

Senator Richard L. Saslaw
(D-Senate District 35)
Virginia Senate Majority Leader

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 613
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7535

Mailing address:
P.O. Box 1856
Springfield, Virginia 22151-0856
(703) 978-0200

email: district35@sov.state.va.us

VCDL also provides a tool for Virginia residents to use to contact their Delegates and Senators, urging them to demand an apology from Senator Saslaw.

Saslaw wants this to simply go away. Do not grant him that wish.

Paying the lawyers

Ryan Horsley, of Red's Trading Post, has some good news--the judge presiding over the case brought by the BATFE (not so much a case, really, as a jihad, utterly without merit) has denied the BATFE's request for summary judgment. The BATFE wanted to avoid trial, of course, because trials tend to deal in justice--something from which the BATFE shrinks, as a vampire shrinks from daylight.

That's the good news. The bad news is that trials are expensive, and the legal bills that Red's (and thus Ryan) is facing already add up to $115,000--and now the expensive part begins.

Ryan doesn't enjoy asking for money, and would much prefer to sell you a gun (here's the one I got--crazy, but I like it). Gun Owners Foundation has also set up a legal defense fund.

This isn't charity--this is defending the Second Amendment for all of us.

Along somewhat similar lines, Academics for the Second Amendment could really use some monetary help for the creation of pro-rights briefs in the Heller case. I've mentioned them before, and again, this is money well spent.

Get involved with urging Bush administration to withdraw DoJ's Heller brief

Wednesday, I wrote about Representative Virgil Goode's (R-VA) letter to the White House, urging Bush to direct the Department of "Justice" to withdraw its Heller brief. That brief basically says, you'll remember, that while the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is, indeed, a right of the people (the Brady Bunch's Dennis Hennigan notwithstanding), "shall not be infringed" actually means . . . well, nothing, apparently.

In an update, I finally caught up with the fact that another Virginia congressman, Representative Eric Cantor, had already spoken out against that brief, and is circulating an online petition along similar lines.

Now, Gun Owners of America asks that we urge the NRA to step up the pressure on members of Congress to sign Rep. Goode's letter.

As you know, Rep. Virgil Goode is rounding up other members of the U.S. House of Representatives to join with him on his letter to the President asking him to withdraw that brief.

Gun Owners of America has taken the lead in building public awareness of the Solicitor General's action, and the need to urge all members of Congress to support Rep. Goode's efforts.

We know it is imperative for the NRA to encourage their members to weigh in with their representatives on behalf of Rep. Goode.

It would be very helpful if you -- and as many gun owners as you can recruit to help -- would call the NRA and urge them to publicly encourage members of Congress to join with Rep. Goode by signing his letter to the White House.

The toll-free number to call at the NRA is 800-392-8683. To maximize your effort, please call rather than e-mail.

For your information, the GOA press release that explains what is wrong with the administration's brief is here.

While I agree with the GOA that a phone call probably has more impact than an email, I see no harm in contacting the NRA by both methods--their email address is ila-contact@nrahq.org.

Gun Owners of America catches a lot of heat for being unwilling to play nice with the NRA. Perhaps there is some merit to such criticism. In this case, though, GOA is implicitly acknowledging the NRA's importance in the fight to defend the Second Amendment.

Wow--you guys work fast!

Just kidding--I don't actually think that people responded in droves to my post yesterday, and thus inspired, flooded Commissioner Beavers' office with a mighty tide of calls and emails expressing righteous outrage, thus causing him to withdraw his proposal for a virtual ban of firearms in Cook County. Nevertheless, he is supposedly withdrawing it.

Commissioner William Beavers also introduced two other gun-control ordinances in December, but his staff said Thursday he is withdrawing them.

I had actually somehow managed to miss the fact that he had proposed two citizen disarmament ordinances (the other would have banned gun shows in Cook County--as Commissioner Suffredin's will, if passed--and required gun shop employees to undergo background checks; there were some other provisions, as well).

Anyway, although I know better than to try to take any credit for Beavers' retreat, I do believe that the grassroots activism of Illinois gun owners--led by groups like the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA), Illinois Carry, Guns Save Life (formerly Champaign County Rifle Association), etc.--was what forced him to back off. Grassroots works--remember that as we approach March 11th, and IGOLD '08.

The work in Cook County is far from over, of course. Not only does Cook County suffer already under an inordinately heavy burden of egregiously draconian gun laws already on the books, there's still Commissioner (and State's Attorney candidate) Suffredin's proposed ordinance, which would shut down every gun dealer in the county.

In the Daily Herald article I linked to earlier (here's the link again), Suffredin claims to have eight of the nine votes he needs to pass that abomination:

In the past, Suffredin has enacted county ordinances banning assault weapons, and he says he has eight votes for this one, needing just one more to pass it.

Curiously, by the way, in an earlier (Nov. 29th) article, he claimed to already have two more votes than he needed.

Suffredin was joined by Father Michael Pflaeger and the parents of several slain children as he predicted passage of his proposal which he says has 2 more than the 9 votes he'd need for passage.

So, Larry--were you lying then, or now--or have three commissioners stepped away from your citizen disarmament agenda?

We need to keep up the pressure on the Cook County Commissioners. Here, again, is their contact info:

District 1
Earlean Collins
Phone: 312/603-4566
Fax: 312/603-3696
ecollins@cookcountygov.com


District 2
Robert Steele
Phone: 312/603-3019
Fax: 312/603-4055
rsteele@cookcountygov.com

District 3
Jerry “Iceman” Butler
Phone: 312/603-6391
Fax: 312/603-5671
jbutler@cookcountygov.com


District 4
William M. Beavers
Phone: 312/603-6398
Fax: 312/603-4678
wbeavers@cookcountygov.com


District 5
Deborah Sims
Phone: 312/603-6381
Fax: 312/603-2583
dsims@cookcountygov.com


District 6
Joan Patricia Murphy
Phone: 312/603-4216
Fax: 312/603-3693
jpmurphy@cookcountygov.com

District 7
Joseph Mario Moreno
Phone: 312/603-5443
Fax: 312/603-3759
jmoreno@cookcountygov.com


District 8
Robert Maldonado
Phone: 312/603-6386
Fax: 312/443-9531
rmaldonado@cookcountygov.com


District 10
Mike Quigley
Phone: 312/603-4210
Fax: 312/603-3695
commquigley@aol.com


District 11
John P. Daley
Phone: 312/603-4400
Fax: 312/603-6688
jdaley@cookcountygov.com

District 12
Forrest Claypool
Phone: 312/603-6380
Fax: 312/603-1265
fclaypool@cookcountygov.com


District 13
Larry Suffredin
Phone: 312/603-6383
Fax: 312/603-3622
lsuffredin@cookcountygov.com


District 14
Gregg Goslin
Phone: 312/603-4932
Fax: 312/603-3686
commissionergoslin@cookcountygov.com

I've omitted the contact information for Commissioners Peter Silvestri, Timothy Shneider, Anthony Peraica, and Elizabeth Ann Doody Gorman, because they have committed to opposing this ordinance (although I am tempted to ask them how the motion to suspend the rule requiring public notification of the proposed ordinances passed unanimously).

By the way, some of the resistance to Suffredin's proposed ordinance is coming from the big, new Cabela's in Hoffman Estates, which would be forced out of business by Suffredin's ordinance (here's an article about that), which has the Hoffman Estates Chamber of Commerce agitated. The Daily Herald article says that Suffredin might try to take those parties out of the fight by buying them off:

"We're taking it very seriously," said Commissioner Tim Schneider, a Bartlett Republican who represents Hoffman Estates, where Cabela's Outdoor Superstore is located. The store does significant business in guns. Suffredin says he's negotiating with the store on a possible exception.

I hope Cabela's knows better than to sell the public's good will so cheaply.

Philadelphia's Nutter Doctrine

Back in May, I wrote about the Philadelphia city council's passage of a package of draconian gun laws, despite Philadelphia having no legal authority to pass such laws (Pennsylvania state law preempts local laws regulating firearms).

Basically, they passed laws that were themselves illegal. That is clearly a problem, so the laws were never actually put into effect. This year, however, under the administration of the appropriately named Mayor Nutter, Philly will apparently break the law, enforcing illegal laws.

Mayor Nutter yesterday said he would enforce new city gun-control laws even without state authorization to do so - setting up a possible legal and political showdown between the state and the new mayor.

At the first regular meeting of the new City Council yesterday, Council members Darrell L. Clarke and Donna Reed Miller introduced the same package of gun-control measures that languished last year while the state legislature refused to authorize them.

But these bills have a new wrinkle - they don't call for state-enabling legislation. The previous bills were conditional on companion state laws in recognition of a 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that said cities could not enforce their own gun laws.

But Nutter, Clarke and Miller, frustrated by the repeated failure of gun-control measures in the legislature, now appear ready to do just that.

"If these bills pass and if I sign them, then I expect to enforce them," Nutter said. "If you believe we can have a safer city by putting these measures in place, I think as good public servants we are compelled to take some type of action in the face of no relief coming from anywhere else."

If I were a Philadelphia police officer, I would be looking for a new job, because the municipal government would be putting me in the position of having to break the law in order to do my job.

Clarke said only that the new bills are "part of a legal strategy."

Perhaps Darrell actually meant "part of an illegal strategy," because that's what is being proposed here.

If the Philadelphia municipal government goes through with this, then they and every police officer who enforces these illegal laws will themselves be criminals.

I believe Pennsylvania law allows armed self-defense against criminals.

UPDATE: Sebastian (a Pennsylvanian) has more at Snowflakes in Hell

A new, creative way to endanger children

If the VPC describes the NRA's Eddie Eagle (gun safety for children) program as "Joe Camel with Feathers," what do they think of a pharmacy that gives kids free candy in prescription pill containers?

As War on Guns points out, accidental poisonings kill vastly more folks than accidental shootings.

Why the shift away from rights, Commissioner?

Right after Christmas, I wrote about Cook County (Illinois) Commissioner William Beavers' radical position shift--from advocating an end to Chicago's ban on handguns as a Chicago alderman in 1994, to proposing an ordinance mandating a near total ban on all firearms throughout the entire county last month.

That, obviously, is quite a reversal. I was curious about what would prompt such a dramatic shift, so I asked him--via both email and snail mail--about it.

Commissioner Beavers,

It was with a great deal of consternation that I learned of your introduction of the "Safe Streets/Weapons Registration Ordinance," which amounts to a near-total ban on firearm ownership in Cook County. This will serve only to force tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of heretofore law-abiding citizens to choose between becoming "criminals," and being rendered defenseless--subject to the tender mercies of the real criminals.

Upon reading "Gunning for Change," a 1994 article in Reason Magazine, that consternation became coupled with utter bafflement. As a Chicago alderman, your sentiments would seem to have been diametrically opposed to whatever is driving the recent introduction of your extraordinarily restrictive gun ordinance. Here are a few quotes from the article:

That sentiment is common among the residents of Chicago's tougher neighborhoods. It's easy for people with wealth and political power to push stricter and stricter gun control laws, notes Alderman William Beavers, who represents the working-class, mostly black South Shore district. The wealthy, he says, "can afford to pay a detective agency or some kind of police agency to act as security." His constituents, he argues, deserve the right to protect themselves.

Beavers is no stranger to gun crime. Before his election to the City Council 11 years ago, he spent 21 years in the Chicago Police Department, working some of the neighborhoods responsible for the city's nickname of "Beirut by the Lake." Now, for the second time in five years, he has proposed legislation to reopen handgun registration. The idea is endorsed by other prominent black political leaders, including activist Sokoni Karanja of the Center for New Horizons and Aldermen Virgil Jones and Robert Shaw, who feel that gun bans prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

Later in the article, we come to this:

Beavers, however, doesn't emphasize the racial dimension in opposing the gun-registration freeze. Instead, he stresses Second Amendment issues and pragmatic policy concerns.

"The Constitution allows you to bear arms in your home," he says. "But according to our city ordinance, it's illegal to own a firearm that is not registered."
(While he defends a right to ownership, the alderman is no Second Amendment purist. He is, for instance, against the issuing of carry permits.)

Beavers is also disturbed that the registration freeze forces law-abiding citizens into breaking the law if they, like Sen. Hendon, try to protect themselves by keeping a handgun in the house. And the freeze, Beavers thinks, makes the police's job tougher by making it more difficult to track stolen firearms. "Guns are stolen now from people who don't have them registered and won't report the [theft]," says Beavers.

Finally, the article ends with your expression of opposition to the extremely draconian nature of Chicago's gun laws--laws it would seem you now want to spread to the entire county--on both Constitutional and pragmatic grounds.

For his part, Beavers remains pledged to change Chicago's handgun registration law by hammering home arguments born out of real-world experience. Gun control will always fail, he argues, because criminals are never going to register their guns. And as for ordinary citizens who feel a need to protect themselves: "People are going to own guns. You cannot deny them the right to own a gun."

So to repeat my question, why are you now so in favor of forcing citizen disarmament on Cook County?

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

It has been more than three weeks, and I have still not received a reply from Commissioner Beavers. He is, of course, a busy man, and I am but one person--perhaps he is of the opinion that there is not enough interest in this question to warrant answering it. I think he would be wrong about that, but it would probably be easier to convince him of that if he received a significant volume of correspondence asking such questions. Care to help?

Main Office
118 N. Clark Street
Room 567
Chicago, IL 60602
phone: (312) 603-2065
fax: (312) 603-4678

District Office
2548 E. 79th Street
Chicago, IL 60649
phone: (773) 731-1515
fax: (773) 933-5535

wbeavers@cookcountygov.com

A Goode effort to get behind

With the Bush administration's Department of "Justice" having taken the position in its Heller brief that "shall not be infringed" apparently means . . . something else, it's good to see a Republican Congressman speaking out against this mealy-mouthed attempt to protect tyranny. Representative Virgil Goode (R-VA) has done just that.

Read the letter (in the link), and use Gun Owners of America's web mail tool to contact your own representative, asking him or her to join Representative Goode's effort to persuade the Bush administration to withdraw the brief.

Likely to happen? Probably not, but it certainly won't happen if gun owners stick to our standard "strategy" of doing . . . very little.

UPDATE: Nicki is on this, too, and reminds us (how did I forget already?) that Rep. Goode is not the first congressman (or even the first Virginia congressman to speak out against the administration on this.

Now it's dead

Tuesday, I reported that I had been a bit premature last Friday, in celebrating the death of the effort in Virginia to close the mythical "gun-show loophole."

Today, though, the Senate Courts of Justice Committee (chaired by the sponsor of the bill) voted it down 9-6 (actually, they referred it to the Virginia Crime Commission for further study--but that commission doesn't meet until May, so the bill is dead for this year, at least).

The Senate Courts of Justice Committee voted 9-6 this afternoon to reject a bill that would require criminal background checks for all firearms purchases at gun shows.

Sens. John Edwards and Roscoe Reynolds, Democrats from Roanoke and Henry County, respectively, joined the committee’s seven Republicans in voting against the bill.

Combined with a party-line committee vote in House of Delegates last week, the Senate vote would seem to doom the proposed legislation. The measure had been backed by Gov. Tim Kaine and families of Tech shooting victims who wanted to close Virginia's "gun show loophole," which exempts private, unlicensed sellers from a state law requiring criminal background checks for firearms purchases.

Even a last-ditch effort, on the part of Senator R. Creigh Deeds, to greatly dilute the onerousness of the bill was not enough to save it.

The amendment spelled out by Deeds at a Senate Court of Justice Committee hearing this afternoon, would change the proposed bill in three ways:
# It would exempt from a background check any prospective purchaser who already has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and who wants to buy a gun from an unlicensed seller.
# It would exempt from a background check any purchases of antique weapons from unlicensed sellers.
# It would make the background-check apply only on the leased premises of the gun show. Areas outside the leased space, such as parking lots, would be exempt from requiring background checks.

Way to go, Virginia. Now I eagerly await the anguished bleating of the anti-self-defense pantywaists.

Illinois Politburo House wants to ban ammunition

'Tis the season for insanely draconian gun legislation to be introduced in the Illinois Politburo legislature, and they've already gotten busy. Today I'm going to take a look at no fewer than four House bills that would require ammunition to be encoded with serial numbers, and registered in a database maintained by the Illinois State Police.

The first two bills, HB 4258 and HB 4259 could be considered to be one bill--they're both called the "Ammunition Accountability Act," the text of the two appears to be identical, and they were even introduced by the same representative. Here's a summary:

Creates the Ammunition Accountability Act. Provides that all firearm ammunition manufactured or sold in the State of Illinois on or after January 1, 2010 shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that effective January 1, 2010, all firearm ammunition used within the State of Illinois shall be coded by the manufacturer. Provides that on or after January 1, 2010, a person in possession of non-coded ammunition that was manufactured prior to January 1, 2010, may transfer the same only to an heir, to an individual residing in another state maintaining the ammunition in another state, or to a federally licensed firearms dealer. Provides that the Department of State Police shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining an Ammunition Coding System Database (ACSD) containing specified information. Establishes penalties and exemptions.

The "coding" is applied to the base of the bullet (where it's apparently supposed to hold together through firing and impact, in order to identify the ammunition. Now these bills (or this bill, really) exempt shotgun ammunition (which makes sense--the idea of encoding the hundreds of .08" diameter pellets in a round of #9 shot is obviously ridiculous), and muzzle-loader ammunition.

The other two bills, HB 4269 and HB 4349 are both called the "Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act," and although somewhat different from the first two bills, appear to be identical to each other. Here's the summary of these bills:

Creates the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act and amends the State Finance Act. Provides that a manufacturer of ammunition for handguns and certain specified assault weapons sold in this State after January 1, 2009 must encode the ammunition in such a manner that the Director of State Police establishes. Provides that ammunition contained in one ammunition box may not be labeled with the same serial number as the ammunition contained in any other ammunition box from the same manufacturer. Provides that on or before January 1, 2011, an owner of ammunition for use in a regulated firearm that is not encoded by the manufacturer shall dispose of the ammunition. Provides that beginning on January 1, 2009, the Director of State Police shall establish and maintain an encoded ammunition database. Creates the Ammunition Accountability Fund as a special fund in the State treasury. Provides that subject to appropriation, the Department of State Police may use moneys from the Fund to establish and maintain the encoded ammunition database. Provides that beginning January 1, 2009, each person selling encoded ammunition at retail in this State shall collect from retail customers a fee of $0.05 for each round that is sold and delivered in this State. Establishes civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Regulated Firearms Encoded Ammunition Act. Effective January 1, 2009.

These bills are apparently intended to mollify hunters, by "only" going after ammunition intended for handguns and so-called "assault weapons." This, of course, is ridiculous, as handguns have been built in nearly every caliber that rifles have, including the terrifying, airline-busting .50 BMG "weapon of war" (that's sarcasm, if you're wondering) and the .600 Nitro Express elephant gun cartridge. Additionally, "assault weapons" aren't chambered in special "assault weapon" calibers (although that little fact is conveniently ignored by the folks pushing bans of "high-powered assault weapons"), so there is no such thing as a special category of "'assault weapon' ammunition." In fact, the bill defines "assault weapon" by type, and among the designated "assault weapons" are several 12 gauge shotguns, meaning that, unlike the other bills, these two will apply to 12 gauge shotgun ammunition (.410 shotgun shells would also be affected, because the Taurus "Judge" means that .410 shells are "handgun ammunition"). Hunters take note.

Both types of bill have the program administered by the Illinois State Police--an organization that in its zeal for citizen disarmament, has no compunction about breaking the law.

In the title of this blog post, I mention banning ammunition, because although the bills won't explicitly do that, the enormous costs of tooling up to manufacture such ammunition will basically make it impractical for ammunition manufacturers to comply, meaning they'll simply have to stop selling ammunition in Illinois. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI) has more on that, from when they were fighting such legislation in California (before California went the "microstamping" route, instead). If manufacturers (and retailers) would continue to serve the Illinois market, the cost of ammunition for the consumer would be prohibitive (even without the nickel per round tax imposed by the second set of bills).

By the way, neither bill mentions provisions for an exemption for hand loaders.

Illinois has apparently gotten tired of the slow progress of a relentless "slippery slope" procession of draconian laws, and has decided to push the state off a "teflon cliff."

The battle for Virginia gun show freedom is not yet won

Last Friday, I apparently got a bit ahead of myself in celebrating the ignominious defeat of the Virginia House of Delegates bill to close the mythical "gun show loophole." I hadn't considered the fact that a Senate version, SB 109, is still very much alive, and is considered to have a better chance of passing in the Senate than anti-rights bills do in the House. Granted, if it does pass in the Senate, it will then go to the House of Delegates (and in fact to the same committee that so handily dispatched the House version). Still, the earlier such legislation is killed, the better.

The anti-rights lobby is pushing this bill hard, and has no compunction about exploiting the deaths of the innocent to further their agenda.

"Today, united with the families of our fellow Virginians whose loved ones have been lost forever, we fight back for change!" protest organizer Abigail Spangler told supporters, many wearing ribbons in Tech's colors of maroon and orange.

The protest organized by Ms. Spangler was called a "lie-in" (a surprisingly frank term to describe the actions of a group that advocates "safety" through helplessness), in which groups of 32 people, representing the victims last April at Virginia Tech, lie on the ground. The "change" to which she refers, apparently, is from the victim disarmament policy (so beloved of Larry Hincker) in place at VA Tech at the time of the killings, to . . . still more gun legislation.

Blissfully unconcerned with the fact that the killer didn't acquire either of his guns at a gun show, the anti-rights crowd lobbied Virginia's state senators to pass SB 109.

They, however, were not the only ones present.

Colin Goddard, who survived despite being shot four times by Cho, was taken aback when a member of the Firearms Coalition approached him and said students could have stopped the rampage if they had been allowed to carry handguns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Jeff Knox, director of operations for the Manassas-based group told Goddard. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal, I did it."

Goddard's response?

"I feel sorry for you--the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation," the Virginia Tech senior said. "You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things. Things are gonna happen out of my control.

No, Colin, Mr. Knox is not afraid, because he will be prepared to actively defend himself, rather than trying to hide under a desk. Save your pity for people who are unwilling to make such preparations--people like . . . you, for example.

"There are people within our society who we deem capable and correct, our police forces who are supposed to protect us--and I put my full trust in them."

And how well did that work out, Colin? Well, at least no members of "our police forces" were hurt.

The issue at hand, though, is SB 109--more specifically, how to defeat it. The Senate committee (Courts of Justice) that heard testimony from both sides today will vote Wednesday on whether to pass the bill along to the entire Senate. Before then (which basically means today), they need to hear from a bunch of Virginians concerned about the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Without wishing to intrude on the superb work done by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, here are the names and contact information of the committee members:

Senator Henry L. Marsh III (D) - Senate District 16 (committee chairman, and sponsor of the bill): (804) 698-7516 district16@sov.state.va.us

Senator Richard L. Saslaw (D) - Senate District 35: (804) 698-7535 district35@sov.state.va.us

Senator Kenneth W. Stolle (R) - Senate District 8: (804) 698-7508 district08@sov.state.va.us

Senator Frederick M. Quayle (R) - Senate District 13: (804) 698-7513 district13@sov.state.va.us

Senator Thomas K. Norment, Jr. (R) - Senate District 3: (804) 698-7503 district03@sov.state.va.us

Senator Janet D. Howell (D) - Senate District 32: (804) 698-7532 district32@sov.state.va.us

Senator L. Louise Lucas (D) - Senate District 18: (804) 698-7518 district18@sov.state.va.us

Senator John S. Edwards (D) - Senate District 21: (804) 698-7521 district21@sov.state.va.us

Senator W. Roscoe Reynolds (D) - Senate District 20: (804) 698-7520 district20@sov.state.va.us

Senator Linda T. Puller (D) - Senate District 36: (804) 698-7536 district36@sov.state.va.us

Senator Ken T. Cuccinelli, II (R) - Senate District 37: (804) 698-7537 district37@sov.state.va.us

Senator Mark D. Obenshain (R) - Senate District 26: (804) 698-7526 district26@sov.state.va.us

Senator Ryan T. McDougle (R) - Senate District 4: (804) 698-7504 district04@sov.state.va.us

Senator R. Creigh Deeds (D) - Senate District 25: (804) 698-7525 district25@sov.state.va.us

Senator Robert Hurt (R) - Senate District 19: (804) 698-7519 district219@sov.state.va.us

Long live the liberty "loophole."

UPDATE: Nicki says that it's not pity that Colin feels for Jeff Knox, but envy. David has a few choice words for him, too. Also see Sailor Curt's firsthand account of the day's events--a very good read.