Not that I'm surprised

Got a reply today from Senator Durbin, in response to my attempt to convince him to vote against Holder's confirmation for AG. Being a U.S. Senator, his response wasn't exactly "Up yours," but the message was pretty similar (except in length).

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

Thank you for contacting me about the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General. I appreciate hearing from you.

Over the last eight years, the Department of Justice has garnered a reputation for placing political interests above principle. At this time in our nation's history, we urgently need to restore the Justice Department to its rightful role as the protector of our laws and to renew America's faith in our system of justice. I believe Eric Holder has the experience, independence, and character to do just that.

Early in his career, Eric Holder spent ten years with the Department of Justice, prosecuting corrupt public officials of both parties. He was nominated by President Reagan to serve as a Superior Court judge and filled that position until he was nominated by President Clinton to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. In 1997, Mr. Holder was unanimously confirmed by the United State Senate to serve as Deputy Attorney General and held that position until early 2001 when he briefly served as Acting Attorney General.

Throughout his years of public service at the Justice Department, Mr. Holder showed a penchant for independence. As Deputy Attorney General, he advised Attorney General Reno to broaden the authority of independent counsel Ken Starr. Mr. Starr's investigation ultimately led to President Clinton's impeachment. Mr. Holder also recommended the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate President Clinton's Interior Secretary, Bruce Babbitt.

Mr. Holder's experience, independence, and character have garnered support for his nomination from a variety of law enforcement organizations including the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Sheriffs' Association. He also is supported by many former Justice Department officials including Larry Thompson and James Comey, who both served as Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush; William Barr, who served as Attorney General under President George H. W. Bush; and former FBI Director Louis Freeh.

I appreciate hearing your views about this important nomination. Thank you again for your message. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

Frankly, I would have been shocked by any other response from a hardcore statist like Durbin, but I had to try.

Shifting gears a bit here, but still speaking of hardcore statists (from Illinois) in Congress, David Codrea wrapped up his analysis of Congressman Bobby Rush's egregious H.R. 45 today. Yep--this bill is so bad that it took four days to explore everything wrong with it. If you haven't read them, here are each of his pieces, in order--consider them to be must read material.

'Qualifying firearms'
Kill (the) bill
Kill (the) bill - volume two
Kill (the) bill - volume three

'One of her proudest achievements'

This LA Times article is mostly about Senator Dianne "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in" Feinstein's sometimes contentious relationship with her own party.

As Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats celebrate their political ascendancy, Dianne Feinstein is front and center. And that is not always a welcome thing for members of her own party.

In recent days Feinstein has sent an unmistakable signal to the president-elect and the rest of Washington: California's senior senator will not be taken for granted or hew to the party line simply because that might seem proper at the rosy dawn of a new Democratic era.

Gun law issues are given only one short paragraph, and the article's author's take strikes me as a bit odd.

She would like to resurrect the federal assault weapons ban she regards as one of her proudest achievements. The ban expired in 2004, when Republicans controlled Congress. But such an effort could put Obama and Democratic leaders in a difficult spot, given their efforts to appeal to a broader swath of voters. During his campaign, Obama largely shied away from the gun debate.

I don't doubt that Feinstein is "proud" of her tyrannical efforts; what I question is the idea that she'll have to overcome any meaningful resistance from the Democratic Party leadership to bolster her pride some more.

What evidence is there that Obama and the rest are unwilling to venture into the "difficult spot" of a new and improved AWB? Certainly not on the Obama/Biden website:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

If I look hard at the list of Obama's cabinet appointees, I might find one or two who do not have a long record of rabid advocacy of citizen disarmament, but it certainly doesn't look like a cabinet chosen with the idea of avoiding the gun issue.

Who else in the Democratic Party would try to stop her? Senate majority leader Harry Reid has not been nearly as overtly hostile to gun rights as Feinstein has, but to count on meaningful resistance from him is to cling to a thin "Reid," indeed.

I don't see the Democratic Party leadership fighting Feinstein on this, and am frankly not seeing much reason to expect much of a fight from the GOP, either.

Brady Campaign looks on the bright side of Stockton schoolyard massacre

I've condemned the citizen disarmament movement's "blood dancing" in response to atrocities committed by sick, evil punks before, but am rarely given such a glaring example of it as this.

Twenty Years Since A Nightmare:
Stockton, CA School Shooting Of 35
Led To Strengthening Of Gun Laws

That's how a citizen disarmament advocate looks on the "bright side"--if the slaughter of innocent children leads to more restrictive gun laws, that's the price of "progress."

“Stockton was a critical moment in the history of the fight for sensible gun laws in America,” Helmke said.

The Stockton massacre was an unmitigated atrocity, and to portray it as anything else is reprehensible.

Still, the Brady Bunch hasn't yet caught up to Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy, and her introduction of H.R. 1859 (outlawing non-reduced capacity magazines), before the Virginia Tech bodies had gotten cold.

When the solution is more guns

My second St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up today, responding to St. Louis Police Chief Daniel Isom's claim that "The Solution is Not More Guns." Please give it a look, and maybe tell a friend.

As to "telling a friend," I have a lot of "Thank yous" to hand out. David Codrea tops the list, first by virtue of the fact that the entire Gun Rights Examiner concept is his baby, then by getting me on board for the St. Louis iteration of it, and finally by promoting it at both WoG, and on his own Gun Rights Examiner column.

Thanks also to Thirdpower, The Welshman, Steve in TN, JR, and Don Gwinn (if I missed anyone, that's just cluelessness on my part, not an intentional slight).

I've never met any of these folks in person, but they have all shown themselves to be true friends.

Thanks--to all of you.

Update: an example of that "cluelessness" I mentioned earlier--thanks, Uncle, and sorry not to have noticed earlier.

Mark your calendars, Illinois residents--IGOLD '09 is March 11th

Sleeping on the job again; I seem to have neglected to mention that plans for IGOLD '09 are already well underway. "What's IGOLD," you say? I'm glad you asked.

IGOLD stands for Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day--a day for those of us in Illinois who value the right to keep and bear arms to go to Springfield and make our voices heard in the Capitol Building. As gun owners and advocates of the right and responsibility to provide for our own defense, it's only logical that we exercise the right and responsibility to fight the political battles necessary to defend that right. Organizations like the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) do a great deal of good work on that front, but in the end, it's up to individual gun owners (who are, let's not forget, voters) to let our public servants in the Illinois General Assembly know what we want from them. IGOLD is a good way to get that message across, even to those legislators who are a bit hard of hearing.

IGOLD '08 was a great success, with between 2500 and 3000 gun rights advocates getting the message to Springfield. This year, we need to do even better than that. Here's the link (again) to ISRA's IGOLD page. Getting to Springfield can be quite a chore for folks in many parts of the state, but ISRA, Illinois Carry, and Guns Save Life (also known as the Champaign County Rifle Association) have thought of that, too, and have sponsored much of the costs for buses (from 25 starting points!) to Springfield and back--details are here.

Are your gun rights worth one day?

Soiling their bloomers over 'Big Boomers'

The VPC is (once again) trying to stir up hysteria--this time over large handguns.

Washington, DC—Powerful new handguns called “big boomers” by the gun industry are a growing threat to the nation’s law enforcement officers, a new 36-page study released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) reveals. (See http://www.vpc.org/studies/bigboomers.pdf for a copy of the study, see http://www.vpc.org/studies/boomerskeyfindings.pdf for a summary presenting the key findings of the study.) Body armor used by police has been able to stop handgun rounds and saved thousands of lives over the last three decades, the study states, but standard body armor cannot stop rifle rounds. "Big Boomers"—Rifle Power Designed Into Handguns warns that the gun industry is aggressively marketing a growing number of new handguns designed to fire bullets with rifle power. The rounds these guns fire can penetrate all but the most resistant body armor (such as that used in raids by many SWAT teams).

There's a lot of garbage to debunk there, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so I'm just going to make a couple quick points.

First--yes--cartridges like the .500 S&W Magnum, and especially the .460 S&W Magnum, will probably penetrate most police body armor without much difficulty. So, for that matter, will just about any centerfire rifle cartridge, including any popular hunting caliber (and hunting, by the way, is a large part of what these new(ish) S&W calibers were designed for). The difference, according to the VPC, is that handguns are more concealable than rifles, and are thus more likely to be used in crime (for some reason, they don't seem to want to talk about the lack of concealability, and thus unsuitability for crime, of rifles, when they shriek about the dangers of so-called "assault weapons" and .50 caliber rifles).

Being the troublemaker that I am, I'm not particularly upset by the fact that the armed agents of government (and is that not an accurate term for police officers?) are not invulnerable to the arms available to the people--but let's forget about that.

Let's remember instead that the "Only Ones" aren't always the . . . Only Ones who wear body armor.

Let's be clear here--the VPC's stated goal is the banning of all handguns, as VPC founder and executive director Josh Sugarmann has plainly stated. The "big boomers" are nothing more than the handguns that the VPC see as the lowest-hanging fruit. If they get those banned, it will be "a good first step."

It's a step down a road that a free people must not tread.

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

A bit of a project is coming to fruition today--with a great deal of help and encouragement from David Codrea, I have landed a gig writing the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner.

Although I live in Illinois, I'm less than 25 miles away from St. Louis, so I have some familiarity with the situation in the area.

Posting here might be light today, because I'm dealing not only with that, but with the Illinois legislative session, and the gun banning bills are already flying thick and fast.

Anyone who spreads the word about the new column will be doing me a huge favor (thanks again, David).

David Codrea on the Gill Report

Important stuff:

I'll be on the The Steve Gill Show tomorrow morning at 10:30 CST to discuss my Examiner.com reporting on H.R. 45. They must have seen today's WorldNetDaily piece.

Be there.

Specter to make a real go at blocking Holder confirmation?

Sadly, given the state of today's GOP, I have to celebrate any resistance at all to Obama's agenda.

GOP setting up roadblocks for Holder

Senate Republicans have invited the son of man killed in a 1975 Puerto Rican nationalist bombing as well as a former FBI agent who investigated two violent groups supporting Puerto Rican independence to appear at Eric Holder’s confirmation hearings.

A third GOP witness is a pro-gun rights attorney from Virginia.

These Republican witnesses signal the direction that Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking member of the committee, will take in trying to derail or delay confirmation for Barack Obama’s attorney general pick. Specter and other top Republicans, including Karl Rove, the former top political advisor to President Bush, have raised concerns about whether Holder can be truly independent from the president. [More]

Does today's GOP have a bit of backbone hidden away, after all?

Now that's audacity

I have, more than once, tried to get Americans United for Separation of Church and State to act on their stated mission, and go after "Snuffy" Pfleger's blatant politicking from the pulpit.

It seems, though, that AUSCS is only interested in stopping certain kinds of church politicking (and lobbying for citizen disarmament laws, campaigning for anti-gun politicians, and against pro-gun politicians, is apparently not what offends them), because, aside from a vague promise to look into it, I never heard anything from them--until now.

Yep--they want money--in part to help them end "church politicking":

8. Help preserve the ban on church politicking
The Alliance Defense Fund spent much of last year urging pastors to openly defy the law banning church politicking, eager to get a new test case in the courts. AU must be ready to meet this legal challenge and make sure the ban on pulpit politicking is upheld by Congress.

Find another sucker, guys.

Time running out

Just a quick note--David Codrea reminds us that anyone wishing to
contact the Senate Judiciary Committee about blocking the confirmation of Eric Holder for AG had better hurry--the hearing is tomorrow.

Surrendering the Constitutional high ground

I was planning to write about something else today (will probably get to it later), but I've decided that a couple comments left in response to an earlier post merit a more thorough response than is practical in comments. In that post, I castigated the NRA for criticizing Holder for his opposition to "Project Exile."

In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?

I actually haven't seen anyone try to argue with my claim that federal gun laws are unconstitutional not only because of the Second Amendment, but also because "gun control" is nowhere listed as one of the federal government's enumerated powers (in other words, I can make my argument without yelling "SNBI!" at anyone). For example:

In principle, I agree with you the federal government doesn't have any constitutional power to regulate possession of firearms by anybody. But if you go onto Capitol Hill and suggest that as a serious policy position you'll get laughed out of every Congressional and Senate office you're invited into.

Project Exile is one of those things I don't really like either, because I don't believe the federal government ought to be exercising police powers. But the Supreme Court disagrees with us on this, and so do both other branches of government. You have to approach things from that reality.

There's more, but most of the gist of it is summed up in those two paragraphs. As I read it, Sebastian acknowledges that all federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, but that's (apparently) a losing argument, hence the NRA's approach of trying to preempt additional gun laws by calling for enforcement of the (unconstitutional) ones already in place.

Here's another example.

You were, perhaps, expecting the NRA to PRAISE Holder for opposing the program that they support?

I can understand your opposition to "project exile" and I agree with it to a certain extent; but your post here seems to be making the rather silly contention that the NRA shouldn't have mentioned it because YOU don't support it.

Believe it or not, I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think what I support (or not) should matter to the NRA. Whether I like "Project Exile," or not, is irrelevant. What matters is that the Constitution doesn't like it.

Every time the NRA advocates "enforcing existing gun laws," they surrender the Constitutional high ground. How can they, with a straight face, argue that the Constitution prohibits all federal gun laws, except the ones that they endorse? How does that differ from rank hypocrisy? Finally, how dare they demand that the citizen disarmament advocates have any more respect for the Constitution than they do themselves?

If that's an example of the (dare I say it?) pragmatic approach, I'll stick to tilting at windmills.

Today's Holder developments

As promised, GOA is making an effort to mobilize membership to fight against the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General. I hope they have more on the way than that, but it's a start.

In other developments, I did finally get a reply today from the NRA in response to my dismay over their seeming unwillingness to get involved. I'll start with what I sent to them.

I am convinced that Eric Holder would be the most anti-gun Attorney General in history. I am disappointed to have seen no effort on the part of the NRA fight his confirmation, or to mobilize membership to do so.

This, I can only assume, is tacit acceptance of Eric Holder as AG. That is utterly unacceptable.

The NRA bills itself as the most important gun rights advocacy organization in the country, but I am simply not seeing that.

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

To which they replied:

Dear Mr. Hofmann,

We are vehemently opposed to Holder's nomination and are working with a number of U.S. Senators to try and prevent his appointment. Eric Holder is a radical enemy of the Second Amendment, and we will do what we can to keep him out of office.

Please review this recent letter Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox sent to Senator Patrick Leahy and Senator Arlen Specter:

http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf

Cordially,

Angus McClellan
NRA-ILA Grassroots

Um, yeah--I saw that letter, Angus. Nice job--criticizing Holder for his opposition to your brand of infringements on that which shall not be infringed. Alright, I admit it: the "Leave the NRA alone; fighting this isn't their job" people were right--I should have realized that LaPierre and friends would attack him for being not supportive enough of federal gun laws.

With "friends" like these . . .

Update: Well waddya know? A visit from the Lairds of Fairfax:

(click to enlarge)

Here come the gun bills

Congress has wasted no time in trying to exploit the power that the Constitution does not give the federal government to regulate firearms. Today, I'll be talking about the "Southwest Border Violence Reduction Act of 2009," introduced in the Senate by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and in the House by Representative Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX). These bills were just introduced yesterday, and are so new I can't even find numbers for them, much less details.

We do, however, have something of a guide as to what to expect, in the bills of the same name introduced last year, S. 2867/H.R. 5869. Looking over those, I'll acknowledge that as attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms go, this is fairly small potatoes.

Still, the bills call for millions of dollars of additional funding for the BATFE, and the hiring of more BATFE stormtroopers. Yeah--that's what we need--to take millions more dollars from taxpayers, and use the money to buy more jackboots for us to either kiss, or have placed on our necks.

By the way, the Senate version already has some co-sponsors, including anti-gun extremists Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and John McCain (R-AZ). Yep--that's right--I'm calling John McCain an anti-gun extremist. If casting a vote for a ban of "assault weapons," and continued, active support for closing the mythical "gun show loophole" isn't anti-gun extremism, there would not seem to be a gun law that isn't a "reasonable restriction."

These bills are ostensibly intended to reduce the violence in Mexico (and sometimes spilling across the border), stemming from fights over the profits created by the "War on Drugs." It has become fashionable, of late, to blame this violence not on the universally failed programs of prohibition, but on "lax gun laws" in the U.S.

By the way, apparently Mexico is considering banning toy guns, now. If they do, how long before we hear calls to reform our "lax toy laws" in the U.S.?

As I said, this bill, as noxious as it is, would be a fairly minor attack on liberty. For a look at a vastly more ominous bill, check out today's Gun Rights Examiner (should be daily reading anyway).

WoG has more.

Late to the party, and dead wrong, to boot

Well, whaddya know? The NRA has decided against dead silence as the best approach to the existential threat to private gun ownership that would be posed by an Eric Holder Attorney Generalship. Better late than never?

Decide for yourself:

In contrast to that case, Mr Holder was among those in the Clinton administration who strongly resisted a national expansion of Project Exile, a successful anti-crime program in Richmond, Virginia that used true "zero-tolerance" federal prosecution of convicted felons, drug dealers and armed robbers to achieve a remarkable reduction in that city's murder and violent crime rates. Despite the program's success in Richmond, Philadelphia, and other cities in which it has been implemented, Mr. Holder dismissed NRA's and congressional efforts to implement it nationwide as a "cookie-cutter approach."

In other words, the NRA is opposed (quietly and politely) to Holder not only for his zeal for so-called "gun control," but for his opposition to their brand of "gun control"--and who cares about the utter lack of any Constitutional justification for any federal gun laws, even without the Second Amendment?

Something I’m curious about is what those who previously argued that the NRA was absolutely correct in not entering the fray think of the NRA’s involvement (tepid–and downright counterproductive–as it is) now. Is that also absolutely correct?

A knife in the back from the 'NRA Winning Team'

I've written about (and again here) the NRA's being too precious to risk getting a bloody nose in the fight to block the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General. Sadly, tacit acceptance of a nightmare for gun owners is the sort of thing I've come to expect from the NRA.

What I didn't expect, though, is active support on the part of an NRA board member for Holder's confirmation (more here). In his letter (pdf file) to Senator Leahy, Barr had the audacity to praise Holder with regard to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

However, I never had reason to question his personal and professional integrity, or his deep understanding of and commitment to our Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.

Granted, the position of one NRA board member is not necessarily the position of the NRA leadership as a whole (actually, the NRA seems to have decided on a strategy of boldly not taking any position whatsoever--"800 lb. gorilla of the gun rights movement," indeed). Still, any organization that would tout Barr as a member of their "winning team" would seem to be a prime candidate for a coaching change, at the very least.

In other Holder news (courtesy of Gun Rights Examiner), opposition (not necessarily on gun rights issues) to his confirmation seems to be building.

"The attorney general nominee, Mr. Holder, has got serious questions to respond to with regard to his role in the . . . pardons at the end of the Clinton administration and some other matters," McConnell said yesterday. "Beyond that, I don't anticipate trouble for the new president's nominees."

That's funny--I keep hearing that we should just shut up and get used to the inevitability of Holder's confirmation.

Then again, I've never been very good at shutting up and accepting inevitabilities.

The 'crime' of traveling freely

Don't have time for much today, so this is just going to be a quick update to yesterday's post.

New information indicates that our "gun criminal," Phillip Dominguez, tried very hard to comply with California's byzantine, draconian gun laws, and apparently almost managed it.

Dominguez said he didn't think he was breaking any laws since all the weapons and ammo were in separate, locked boxes.

One would think that would appease the "authorities"--the guns were rendered useless for self-defense, just the way the statists like it.

He showed officials the paperwork proving the assault rifle was registered and gave them the keys and combinations of all the lockboxes, he said. The Bushmaster "Shorty," a semiautomatic rifle modeled on the military's AR15, was the reason he was finally arrested.

"It posed no threat to nobody," said Dominguez.

Well . . . yes and no. There was no threat, apparently, of the Bushmaster being used to shoot anyone, but to statist thugs bent on utter domination of the subjects . . . er, citizens, the mere possession by private citizens of an effective fighting arm is a threat (which, come to think of it, is kinda the point of the Second Amendment, isn't it?).

Dominguez said he got state permission to own and use the assault rifle last month . . .

He got permission for the exercise of that which shall not be infringed, just as the Founding Fathers intended he should have to, I'm sure.

. . . but the approval letter didn't mention it was illegal in California to make a pit stop while transporting the weapon from his home to the gun range.

That code requires that "registered assault weapons may be transported only between specified locations," according to the Web site of the California attorney general's office.

Ah--there's your mistake, Mr. Dominguez--you somehow failed to realize that when you transport a so-called "assault weapon," even if you have jumped through all the little, unconstitutional hoops, you sacrifice the right to travel freely.

By what authority does California deny that right? Don't worry about it--just do what you're told.

'No indication the man was out to do any harm'

Horrific terrorist attack thwarted:

A motorist with 16 guns and at least 700 rounds of ammunition in his pickup truck was arrested Friday at a vehicle checkpoint as he entered Los Angeles International Airport, authorities said.

[ . . . ]

The man was arrested for investigation of felony transporation of an assault rifle, he said.

Or maybe not.

Holcomb said there was no indication the man was out to do any harm at the airport and was apparently there to pick up someone.

"He just made a very bad decision and should not have been carrying those weapons," Holcomb said.

As the man's rapidly deteriorating legal situation sinks in, I imagine he would agree.

I'm not going to try to argue that it's a good idea to drive up to Los Angeles International Airport with a truck full of guns and ammunition (I'm surprised the article made no breathless mention of an "arsenal," or "massive cache"), but I can't help but wonder how society is helped by locking up (for years) a man who did no harm, and apparently meant no harm.

Oh, and if that's not quite enough trouble for him:

The FBI, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and Los Angeles Police Department are investigating whether the weapons were properly registered.

Now that's an efficient use of law enforcement assets--it only takes a large city police department and two federal agencies to determine whether or not the precious paperwork was done.

A later article has a few more details--the suspect's name, among them--(it also repeats the first article's "no indication the man intended to cause harm"), but I bring it up here because it quotes David Codrea's old friend.

"While much more must be learned, this incident demonstrates why security measures at LAX are so critical," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice).

Exactly, Jane--without such measures, this man might actually have gotten away with his non-intent to cause harm.

Now that should be a clean weapon

Not really gun rights commentary--I just thought this was funny.

"While the officers have gone through a block of instruction assembly and disassembly of the weapon, how to clean the weapon and how to clean the weapon and how to maintain the weapon," Lt. Soliz said.

Nothing wrong with that, I guess--"take care of your rifle, and it will take care of you," and all that. Oddly, though, the article didn't mention anything about the officers being trained in using the rifles.

Perhaps I should have titled this post "Cleanliness is next to 'Only Oneness.'"

GOA promises to fight; NRA still charging to the rear

On Wednesday, I asked readers to (among other things) contact the NRA, GOA, and CCRKBA about joining the Firearms Coalition in providing organized resistance to the confirmation of Eric Holder as AG. I, of course, conducted my own correspondence with them.

Today, I got a reply--Gun Owners of America says they're on it. I'll start with what I wrote them on Wednesday.

I am convinced that Eric Holder would be the most anti-gun Attorney General in history. I am disappointed to have seen very little effort on the part of GOA to fight his confirmation, or to mobilize membership to do so.

This, I can only assume, is tacit acceptance of Eric Holder as AG. That is utterly unacceptable.

The GOA bills itself as the most hard-hitting gun rights advocacy organization in the country, but I am simply not seeing that.

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

And now, the reply:

Kurt,

GOA is 100% opposed to the Holder nomination. The reason you haven't seen anything from us as of yet is merely a function of timing.

Here is just a PARTIAL list of what we are and will be doing:

* An official notice of opposition send to every Senate office...with a warning that the confirmation vote will be used for our Congressional ratings (already sent)

* Detailed and lengthy face-to-face meetings with numerous Senators and their staff (ongoing)

* A press release which will lead to GOA spokesmen taking to the airwaves to drum up opposition (scheduled for this coming Monday)

* Op-Ed pieces (release dates flexible)

* GOA alerts to get the grassroots involved (first one scheduled for Monday or Tuesday)

So, we're definitely not in the remain-silent camp regarding this particular battle, nor is there any "tacit acceptance" -- there is unalterable opposition. Please watch your e-mail for upcoming opportunities to make your voice heard.

In liberty,

--Craig.

Craig Fields
Director of Internet Operations, GOA

Maybe not quite as quick as I'd like, but it's action--rather than excuses about being "too big to risk losing," or something like that. Actually, I haven't heard even that much from the NRA (I have, instead, heard this), but that seems to be the gist of what others in a position to know are saying (also read about Western Rifle Association's conversation with the NRA).

Still nothing from CCRKBA.

Well, NRA? Should I assume this will be a repeat of your courageous stand on the sideline, when gun rights advocates were trying to block "Maximum Mike's" confirmation as Jack Booted Thug in Chief of the BATFE?

Half the Maryland contingent of Mayors Against Illegal Guns under indictment

And another one down. This time Baltimore's Sheila Dixon:

A grand jury indicted Dixon on 12 counts, including four counts of perjury and two counts of theft over $500. She was also charged with theft under $500, fraudulent misappropriation by a fiduciary and misconduct in office.

That would be Mayor Sheila Dixon of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and she's been a busy little gun grabber, and as I said in the title, she comprises half of the Maryland contingent.

Just how many of Bloomberg's little helpers are dirty, anyway?

Maybe it's time to change the name of his little club to "Illegal Mayors Against Guns."

Bipartisan unity?

I see that "The Lightworker" has named Virginia Governor Time Kaine as the new Democratic National Committee chairman. What do we know about him?

Well, one thing I know is that he considers 377 rounds of ammunition in the hands of a private citizen to be a "cache" that "authorities" should be able to "monitor."

In general, Kaine said, he is troubled that Virginia law allows any individual to stockpile ammunition with no way for authorities to monitor the cache. Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech gunman, began his rampage with 377 rounds of ammunition, according to police.

And guess what--the leading candidate for the Republican National Committee chair probably doesn't disagree.

I don't know that for a fact, but such a position would hardly be inconsistent with a belief that "[s]ociety should draw lines"--lines, that is, between We The People and so-called "assault weapons."

See--the two parties can work together.

But then again . . .

Yesterday, I praised STI for joining Barrett Firearms in cutting off the criminal government of California (and yes--in violating the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, California has violated the supreme law of the land--that's criminality, in my book). I very deeply admire the moral courage of any commercial enterprise willing to voluntarily sacrifice its bottom line, out of a sense of moral responsibility and reverence for the Constitution.

After giving it some more thought, though, it occurs to me that a much sterner test could soon be coming. I refer, of course, to the coming storm of federal citizen disarmament laws (and/or unilateral rulings by an unelected official--very possibly one with a huge chip on his shoulder regarding the Second Amendment) with which we are now faced.

Barrett, especially, does a great deal of business with the federal government, mostly in .50 caliber rifles. What happens if/when the Brady Bunch gets its way in regard to those (from page 14)?

Congress should enact strong legislation that closes the loopholes in the previous assault weapons statute and restricts civilian ownership of other weapons that were originally designed for military use, such as .50 caliber sniper rifles that have the range and power to bring down aircraft. High-capacity ammunition magazines and armor-piercing bullets should be similarly restricted.

I'm sure the business Barrett did with the California government was substantial, but it could hardly compare to what they earn in sales to the feds.

Are they willing to turn their backs on that business, too?

Personally, I'm an optimist (at least in this regard), and I have confidence that Ronnie Barrett will do the right thing.

I hope, of course, that we never find out whether or not my confidence is misplaced.

Breaking news: Holder hasn't (yet) gone after the entire Bill of Rights

I trust that no one who reads this blog needs to be told that Eric Holder would be the most rabidly hostile AG gun owners have ever seen.

However, as David Codrea points out, the Second Amendment isn't the only part of the Bill of Rights that offends Holder--the First Amendment also seems to annoy him.

The court has really struck down every government effort to try to regulate... We tried with regard to pornography. It is going to be a difficult thing but it seems to me that if we come up with reasonable restrictions; reasonable regulations on how people interact on the internet, that is something the Supreme Court and the courts ought to favorably look at.

Now, we learn of his willingness to go after the Sixth Amendment.

...Holder strongly suggested that, when deciding whether to indict a corporation — and indictment can be a death sentence for companies in certain businesses — they consider whether the company has "cooperated" in the investigation. "Cooperation" was partially defined by whether the corporation agreed to waive the legally protected attorney-client and work-product privileges...including corporate counsel's discussions with employees. Another factor, suggested Holder, would be "whether the corporation appears to be protecting its culpable employees and agents" by advancing or paying those individuals' attorney fees. A further sign of possible noncooperation would be whether the corporation kept the employees on the payroll or entered into a joint defense agreement with any of them. Put simply, the Holder Memo suggested that, by facilitating the ability of employees to continue working and to vigorously defend themselves, the company was demonstrating a noncooperative attitude that could get it indicted.

But I've found some good news. Even after extensive searching, I haven't found any indication that he has tried to suppress the Third Amendment.

So rest easy, NAQA (just as the NRA is apparently resting easy)--there's little reason to believe a Holder Attorney Generalship would lead to mandatory peacetime quartering of soldiers.

Whew--that's a relief.

Seriously, though--if you aren't pulling out all the stops to block this confirmation, what's your excuse--think you're Angus McClellan, or something?

Sheriff's Department arming the underworld

War on Guns has already covered the theft of shotguns and AR-15s from Contra Costa Sheriff's Department cars (does that mean that "patrol rifles" instantly transformed into "assault weapons"?).

I just have a couple observations to make, gleaned from this article. The first is this beautiful bit of bureaucratese uttered by BATFE spokesthuggette (what--that's not a word?) Nina Delgadillo.

"It's disturbing ... when you're talking about someone stealing (weapons) from a law enforcement agency," said Nina Delgadillo, a special agent with the San Francisco Bay Area division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Once a weapon is stolen, it has a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult for us to trace."

Two things: 1) a stolen weapon doesn't have "a degree of anonymity that makes it difficult to trace"--it's gone; and 2) notice that her biggest worry is that the feds can no longer keep track of the guns--interesting priorities, eh?

I also noticed this:

The weapons reported stolen, particularly the rifles, could be valuable in the illegal arms market because of state assault weapon restrictions implemented at the beginning of the decade, said Brian Rodgers, general manager of the Antioch Armory gun shop.

What--you mean prohibition fosters black market demand? Who would have guessed? Who could have imagined that the laws that make California the Brady Bunch's highest rated state would provide a lucrative incentive for crime?

Mumbai--coming to a 'gun-free zone' near you?

As I contemplated yesterday, I'm experimenting with a somewhat changed format. What I'm looking at doing is having one of my typical long, rambling, conciseness-challenged posts, for the continued "enjoyment" of the gluttons for punishment--probably posted in the morning, and followed throughout the day by shorter posts dealing with other things that I come across and think are worth commenting on.

This post will be the first of that kind, although I can already tell that it's going to run longer than I'd planned.

It seems that the Mumbai attacks have caught the attention of the Department of Homeland Security (I would certainly hope so), with the idea that it could happen here.

U.S. cities are vulnerable to an attack like the gun-and-grenade assault that terrorized Mumbai for three days and killed 179 people, the White House homeland security adviser said on Wednesday.

Ken Wainstein told a Washington think tank the Mumbai attacks in November showed the effectiveness of a low-technology coordinated assault on an open city.

"You can envision that happening in any American city, and it's chilling when you think about it," Wainstein told policy-makers and others in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "That's the kind of thing that is all too realistic anywhere in the world."

Hmm . . . what could be done to reduce the danger of that kind of attack in the U.S.? As it turns out, Ron Paul has some thoughts about that.

India’s gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.

Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.

I'm glad that at least elements within the Bush administration are giving some thought to the possibility of a small-arms massacre type attack on a soft target on U.S. soil, by terrorists. I would have been considerably more glad, though, if some thought had been given to this before . . . oh, I don't know--appointing "Maximum Mike" Sullivan to run the BATFE, or using the Solicitor General to try to sabotage a Supreme Court affirmation of the individual nature of the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

In fairness, of course, I'll have to acknowledge that I can only see things getting dramatically worse on that front in the days ahead.

I'll end with one more observation: if I were planning such an attack, Illinois (Chicago, specifically) would sure look like a nice, juicy, softest of soft targets.

STI follows in Barrett's proud footsteps

As most readers are probably aware, Barrett Rifles, in the wake of the California ban on .50 caliber rifles for private citizens, defied the myth of gun industry greed, and sacrificed the bottom line, out of reverence for the Constitution and a sense of moral obligation. By that, I mean they refused further sales to any unit of California government, because by violating the Constitution, the California government has itself become a criminal enterprise, and Ronnie Barrett will not knowingly arm criminals.

This was, as far as I know, an unprecedented display of both patriotism and moral courage, and I have ever since considered Ronnie Barrett something of a hero.

Now, he has company, as after suffering "a long train of abuses and usurpations," STI has adopted a similar policy (pdf file). Here's an excerpt:

As a company, STI adhered to California’s drop test certification and DOJ listing process in 1998 for the people in competition shooting and for those who desired self-protection DESPITE the financial strain placed on a small company such as ours. Listing our two most popular firearm models was not an inexpensive undertaking. We even redesigned our compensator systems to adhere to the CA “no threaded barrel” law. Then CA’s onerous liability laws were enacted and we chose at that time not to renew certification nor to sell to LEO and governmental agencies in CA, regardless of their exempt status, because there was no exemption from liability or legal fees which could bankrupt this company. When federal law overrode CA’s liability laws, we resumed LE sales because we felt our product could be used to LE’s advantage. With the micro stamping bill, we as a company have decided enough is enough. While our sales to Law enforcement agencies are not huge, all revenue sources are important to a company of our size and it hurts us to turn our backs on those revenues.

This, I am sure, is something of a financial hardship for STI, but certain things are more important than the bottom line. It takes moral courage to act on those priorities, and STI, like Barrett, clearly has plenty of that.

Any other gun manufacturers care to join this proud coalition?

Miscellaneous updates (most of them related to the effort to block the Holder confirmation)

Every new piece of information I come across related to Eric Holder provides yet more reason to fight his confirmation, so if any readers are getting tired of "all Holder, all the time," they're just going to have to deal with it. By the way, want one more reason for gun owners to fight this appointment tooth and nail? How about a move to give the AG the power to ban guns at will?

I'll start with some great work by JR, at A Keyboard and a .45, in putting together this contact list for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. These are the folks, in addition to your own U.S. Senators, who need our letters, calls, and emails laying out the objections (of which there are a bunch) to this appointment.

On Monday, I provided a copy of the letter I wrote to my own (although I don't enjoy claiming him) Senator Durbin, said letter not even mentioning gun rights, because Durbin is just as enthusiastic about trampling them as Holder is. That was probably not the best idea on my part, because a) if I had waited a day, I could have drawn from David Codrea's much better list of points; and b) as David points out today, it's probably best that everyone write his/her own letter, rather than us sending a "canned" letter. When composing the correspondence, mention gun rights concerns, or not, depending on how hostile to such concerns the particular Senator in question is. You can get an idea about that by checking the NRA Candidate Grades and Endorsements and the GOA Senate Ratings.

Mike Vanderboegh challenges us to shake our supposed "leaders" in gun rights advocacy out of their lethargy, and get them to issue an "all points bulletin" to mobilize folks for the Holder-holding effort. Jeff Knox, of the Firearms Coalition, has been leading the charge--the NRA and GOA, not so much. That needs to change. Light 'em up:
NRA web contact form
GOA web contact form
CCRKBA email address

Finally, and in a break from Holder, I'm thinking about a format change here at Armed and Safe. Most days, I do one fairly long post, about one topic, and if anything else comes up that day, I leave it for later. If I see it as really important or time sensitive, I'll add another post. It seems that most of my favorite gun bloggers, on the other hand, tend to write several posts per day, although each might be no more than a paragraph or two. I'm thinking it might be time for me to try to follow suit. I mention that mainly so that if I do it, readers won't be too surprised, but if anyone has any thoughts one way or another about the idea, lay 'em on me.

'You Are a Citizen'

. . . Says Mike Beard, president of a group that would reduce us to no more than subjects. I have written much about Mike Beard's Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV)--especially that group's startling and chilling assertion that government must have a monopoly on force. This week, though, he says that "You Are a Citizen," in a blog post that tries to sell itself as a celebration of American liberty.

To make his "point" (being generous here), he quotes the late Molly Ivins (herself no friend of the only sure means of defending freedom).

A few years ago, Molly wrote an essay exhorting Americans not to be cynical, to treasure the most magnificent political legacy any people has ever received.

In her words, we inherit certain powers and rights just by being born in this country:

...For more than two hundred years people all over the world have been willing to die for a chance to live by these ideals. They died in South Africa, they died at Tiananmen Square ... You have more political power than 99% of all the people who have ever lived on this planet. You can not only vote, you can register other people to vote, round up your friends, get out and do political education, talk to people, laugh with people, call the radio, write the paper, write your elective representative, use your email list, put up signs, march, volunteer, and raise hell. All your lives, no matter what else you do...you have another job, another responsibility; you are a citizen. It is your obligation and requires attention and effort. And on top of that you should make it into a heck of a lot of fun.

As far as it goes, I would call that some of Ivins' better work--she at least makes a valid point that freedom is wasted on those unwilling to do the work of enjoying the liberties paid for with so much blood and sacrifice.

Then, Beard gets to the punchline.

Let us make one more New Year's resolution: to have a heck of a lot of fun pushing the Obama administration, the new Congress and our state legislators to seek creative solutions to the tired old problem of gun violence. It is our duty as citizens. Happy New era!

I don't know how much "pushing" the Obama/Biden administration (and this "New era's" Congress, and many state legislators) is going to need to seek these "creative solutions" (what might those be, anyway--"creative solutions" like giving a rabidly anti-gun Attorney General the power to unilaterally "ban guns at will"?).

Beard says that "[i]t is our duty as citizens" to render ourselves (and our fellow "citizens") powerless to resist the whims of the government--to make "Defiance" of whatever tyrannical edict is handed down by the government impossible.

Go ahead and try it, Beard--but I seriously doubt you and your fellow travelers are going to "have a heck of a lot of fun" doing it.

III

'Assault Rifle Ban Would Enhance Rights . . . '

There's some New Jersey "logic" for you. I don't know if even Illinois legislators are brazen enough to make a claim like that, but that's what a "study," released by a "non-partisan" group in NJ claims--"NEW ANALYSIS: ASSAULT RIFLE BAN WOULD ENHANCE RIGHTS OF BATTLEFIELD RE-ENACTORS." The group in question is the Office of Legislative Services (OLS), and the proposed law under discussion, New Jersey A-2116, is actually a ban on .50 caliber rifles (including in-line muzzleloaders) and handguns.

So "How," you ask, "would such a law enhance rights?" I'll just let OLS explain:

The nonpartisan Office of Legislative Services (OLS) analysis found the legislation would enhance the rights of battlefield re-enactors. That’s because it includes an exemption for antique and muzzle loading firearms with a caliber greater than 60 that use a traditional flintlock or cap lock and rely on black powder.

A popular firearm for Revolutionary War re-enactors is the Brown Bess, a .75-caliber muzzleloader that, it turns out, is actually illegal to possess under state law.

Ah, well that explains it, then; it makes it easier to re-enact the Revolutionary War. On the other hand, it does make it more difficult to actually fight a battle to throw off modern tyranny, but we are apparently to believe that that's a small price to pay. If I seem to be trivializing Revolutionary War re-enacting, that's not at all my intention--I think it's a fine way to honor the courage and sacrifice that won American liberty, and established our national and cultural identity.

Still, given a choice between the ability to legally re-enact the War of Independence, and the ability to acquire the tools for fighting a potential future War of Restoration, I would have to put the re-enactment in second place.

Anyone who believes that such a law would be a net gain for rights must also believe "War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."

A hold on Holder--convincing a confirmed statist

One of the most important political fronts right now in the fight to defeat forcible citizen disarmament is blocking the nomination of rabidly anti-gun Eric Holder's confirmation as Attorney General. David Codrea is hoping to mobilize gun rights advocates (which tends to be a more monumental task than it should be--and I'm as guilty of being slow to act as anyone) here and here, and also with today's Gun Rights Examiner column, here.

In taking up this endeavor, David joins Jeff Knox, who has been sounding this alarm for a while now (here, here, and here).

Mike Vanderboegh (here and here) and Western Rifle Association have also been getting the ball rolling. I'm sure I'm missing some, but you get the idea--Eric Holder as Attorney General, as part of an Obama/Biden administration, with the Congress we have coming in, would be an absolute nightmare for the gun rights movement--but it's not a done deal, and can be stopped, with sufficient resolve and willingness to get involved on our parts.

The problem for me is that my United States Senator (my only U.S. Senator, for the moment, unless the appointment of rabidly anti-gun Roland Burris, by rabidly anti-gun and nearly unimaginably corrupt Governor Blagojevich, succeeds soon) is rabidly anti-gun Senator Dick Durbin. Obviously, all the excellent reasons to oppose Holder's nomination laid out in the above links won't help--he, no doubt, sees Holder's radical agenda of citizen disarmament as a good thing.

Therefore, I decided to point out some other reasons to oppose Holder's appointment. The letter I came up with will hopefully be convincing to a statist like Durbin. Keep in mind that I don't hold some of the sentiments implied in the letter (referring to tax evasion as "nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people," for example), but I think that Durbin might be receptive to them. Not especially honorable, perhaps, but as David says, "Any chair in a bar fight." Anyway, the following is what I'll be sending to Senator Durbin. Perhaps others with rabid statists for Senators might see something in it they can use.

Dear Senator Durbin,

As you are no doubt well aware, the Senate will soon be tasked with determining the suitability of President-elect Obama's choice of Eric Holder for United States Attorney General. Frankly, I would have difficulty imagining a less suitable choice, and I urge you in the strongest possible terms to refuse to confirm his appointment.

As Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton administration, Mr. Holder played a significant role in securing the presidential pardon of billionaire financier Marc Rich, whose tax evasion crimes constitute nothing less than theft, on a massive scale, from the American people. Some dismiss Mr. Holder's role in that pardon as nothing more than obedience to former President Clinton's quite legal (if extremely ill-advised and distasteful) prerogative, but the evidence points to Mr. Holder having played a large part in the pardon*.

Perhaps even worse is the prominent role Mr. Holder played in the granting of clemency to sixteen FALN terrorists. In an era when Americans face nearly unprecedented danger from terrorists, it would be the height of madness to entrust the Department of Justice to a man with anything less than a relentless drive to hunt down and stop every violent, radical extremist who threatens the safety, and indeed the very lives, of American citizens.

In the trying days that lie ahead, the United States will certainly need an Attorney General with vastly better judgment than can be counted on from Eric Holder. Senator Durbin, as your constituent, I urge you to fulfill your responsibility as a United States Senator, and block this dangerous appointment. Failure to do so would be an inexcusable dereliction of your duty to the American people. History never looks kindly on such failings.

* "Pardon is Back in Focus for the Justice Nominee," New York Times, Dec. 1, 2008

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

Follow the above links, and let your senators know that you will be holding them to their obligation to refuse to confirm clearly disastrous choices for important Cabinet positions. Those who cannot be bothered to do so will have no one to blame but themselves.

Update: For those with anti-gun senators who didn't yet get a letter written, David Codrea has something for you. No--this isn't yelling at you for not moving (although we really do need to be moving on this)--it's just that David came up with a lot of good stuff that I didn't think of, for convincing even a citizen disarmament advocating senator that Holder would be a disaster. Actually, even though I have sent a letter, I think I'll now be sending another.

Mandating a culture of victimhood

The Violence Policy Center is now loudly proclaiming that the door-to-door seizures of legally owned firearms in New Orleans, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, was apparently somehow a good thing, in light of a recent article in the far left The Nation magazine, claiming that white, racist (and armed, of course) vigilantes waged a campaign of terror against innocent black victims of the storm. The article, "Katrina's Hidden Race War," describes some indisputably horrid behavior on the part of armed white people.

Herrington shouted at the other men to run and turned to face his attackers: three armed white males. Herrington says he hadn't even seen the men or their weapons before the shooting began. As Alexander and Collins fled, Herrington ran in the opposite direction, his hand pressed to the bleeding wound on his throat. Behind him, he says, the gunmen yelled, "Get him! Get that nigger!"

I'll admit to having some reservations about accepting at face value these "revelations," in a magazine that makes little secret of having an agenda, of events of which (as far as I know) there hadn't been a hint previously.

Still, I'll acknowledge that it's almost certain that there were white racists in the area at the time, that some were armed, and that it's far from inconceivable that some of them participated in atrocities, and used firearms to facilitate their evil.

What I cannot help but contemplate, though, is how unlikely it would have been for this evil, predatory behavior to have taken place had some version of the Deacons for Defense and Justice (whom I have discussed here, among other places) been present. Ironically, the article in The Nation quotes Professor Lance Hill, the author of what is probably the most important book about the Deacons, The Deacons for Defense: Armed Resistance and the Civil Rights Movement, although he was quoted only in reference to the racism that is undeniably part of the problem, with no mention of the possibility of armed black citizens defending themselves.

The title of the article refers to a "Race War"--certainly a terrible thing to contemplate--but not the most terrible thing. What the article actually describes, if it's true, is something more terrible still--a Race Massacre, in which at least eleven innocent and defenseless black people were murdered by armed, white, racist vigilantes, who have not faced punishment, and who probably never will (although again, I am not vouching for the veracity of the portrayal of events presented by the article--that is simply something I am not in a position to judge). If it had been a war, in the traditional sense, the black people would at least have had some capacity to fight back.

. . . But would be criminals if they did so under policies favored by President-elect Obama, who "believe[s] in keeping guns out of inner cities."

Disarmament of those who live in the inner city--a bigot's dream.

Update on RNC Chairmanship selection

The most important part of my earlier post today was my urging to get involved with choosing the questions that will (hopefully) be asked of the aspirants to the chair in tomorrow's debate.

Since then, a great many good questions about what the candidates would do to thwart the citizen disarmament advocates have been submitted. Please keep voting for those questions.

Along related lines, there's a straw poll up now (with the clearly anti-gun Michael Steele currently holding a narrow lead over the clearly pro-gun Ken Blackwell).

Blackwell may not be the only good choice, but Steele is certainly a wrong choice--let's knock him down a few pegs.

Some housekeeping

A bit of a mixed bag of things I should have taken care of already:

David Codrea will be on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio today at 2 PM (Eastern). The topic will apparently be predictions on gun rights politics for 2009 (a somewhat frightening prospect, but no less important for that).

Also (and there's real time pressure here), if one registers at RNCDebate.org (a quick, painless process, that doesn't require one to provide personal or sensitive information), one can help determine what questions will be asked in tomorrow's debate (1:00 PM Eastern) for the Republican National Committee chairmanship. If you spend two minutes on it, you're taking your time--there's that little excuse to not bother. David Codrea asked (HTML code isn't allowed in the submissions on the RNCDebate website, but I inserted some links in the quote below, for the sake of clarity):

I want an unequivocal statement from each candidate on the right to keep and bear arms. I should note that Mr. Blackwell looks good*, and Mr. Steele's bizarre advocacy that "society should draw line" about the right to own semiautos** makes him about as acceptable to gun owners as Barack Obama. How about the rest of the field? No equivocation, please! It will be recognized and held against you. * "Gun Rights and Presidential Politics," Townhall.com, Nov. 26, 2007 ** Washington Post interview Oct 16, 2006

I, being an unapologetic plagiarizer when it suits me, asked pretty much the same thing, and Pistolero has a good question, as well. Time is running out on this, folks, and I hope the importance of it is obvious. By the way, in addition to submitting questions of your own, once you register, you can vote on questions already submitted. "Yes" votes on the three questions linked to above would be greatly appreciated.

Finally, I want to (very belatedly) thank Masters in Criminal Justice (a web resource for those interested in pursuing a career in criminal justice) for including Armed and Safe among their Top 50 Constitutional Law Blogs (#22, in the "Second Amendment" category). I'm not sure how my blog (not bad for a wannabe "3%" blogger) was chosen for that, when so many others were not, but it's much appreciated.

Triggers with a pulse?

A longtime nemesis of gun rights (and thus liberty) in Illinois, state Commissar Senator Dan Kotowski (whom I have discussed often) was interviewed last month by the citizen disarmament advocacy organization he once directed, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (ICHV). ICHV's website is laid out rather awkwardly, and I can't link directly to the interview, but at the moment, it's the top item here.

The interview is pretty much what one would expect ("Guns are bad, mmkay?"), but the last question sheds some light on what Kotowski apparently considers the next front in the war on the peaceable armed citizenry of Illinois.

ICHV: In your view, what should the gun control movement be focusing on in the coming years?

Sen. Kotowski: We have to think outside of the box. It's not just about focusing on owners, since the vast majority are law abiding, but making sure that the gun industry is looking out for the health and safety of children. How can we get this industry to be more accountable? That is where the battle will be waged.

In the next year or two, we have to show that there are reasonable ways to keep our kids and families safe. In Illinois, for example, we need to give the Attorney General authority to approve health and safety standards for loading indicators, drop fire tests, finger-printing recognition software, and trigger pulse standards.

So, California-style "safety" requirements, New Jersey-style "smart gun" requirements (just don't even get me started), and . . . "trigger pulse standards"? Being the generous sort, I'll give Kotowski the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he's no Carolyn "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy, and that it was whoever at ICHV who did the interview who mistook "trigger pull standards" (meaning, presumably, that guns would be required to have triggers too heavy to fire accurately) for "trigger pulse", rather than Kotowski himself.

Still, one would think that an organization whose sole purpose is attacking gun rights would at least have learned enough about the subject of what they're trying to regulate to know that triggers don't have a pulse.

What I don't understand about 'pragmatism'

I had pretty much made up my mind to step away from the rancorous, and apparently endless, debate between the "pragmatists," on the one hand, and the "3 percenters," on the other. It's an argument that will pretty clearly never be "won" by anyone, except perhaps the citizen disarmament advocates. After catching up on my reading of the Sispsey Street Irregulars, however ("catching up" being necessary after my month-long break from involvement with the gun rights issue), and seeing the intensity of vitriol* some of the more outraged "prags" have seen fit to direct at Mr. Vanderboegh and his "merry band," I feel compelled to once again wade into the fray.

In the interest of full disclosure, my sympathies are very strongly and unabashedly with the "3 percenters," although to count myself actually among them would be to give myself vastly too much credit, considering my physical inability to usefully participate in any militia endeavor. Still, if Mike and the rest don't object to me referring to myself as an "honorary 3 percenter," I'll gratefully do so.

As far as the "prags" go, I don't consider them cowards, or collaborators, or many of the other insults that "3 percenters" have tossed their way. I do consider them vastly overly optimistic about the prospects of gun rights prevailing through solely "within the system" activism. They remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain, with the Heller decision being their Munich Agreement (and by the way--don't give me Godwin's Law--that ain't what this is about).

And this brings me to the source of my confusion. The "pragmatic" strategy, apparently, requires gun rights activists to count on the Constitution for protection against people who have made it absolutely clear that they consider the Constitution to be so much Charmin substitute. At least one "prag," for example, has railed against some other gun rights advocates, for their refusal to vote for one of the chief architects of one of the most brazen attacks on the First Amendment in recent history.

I have frequently criticized proponents of restrictive gun laws for their bizarre "strategy" of attempting to use laws to rein in the behavior of the lawless. I can't really see much of a difference between that, and counting on the Constitution to protect freedom from those bent on subverting it.


* Some examples (just a couple, of many):

"Three Percenters" are self-righteous, anarchist, egotistical, self-centered, solipsistic, incorrigible asses, and are appropriately full of shit.

and;

I love this “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” nonsense from the .3-percenters. Fine: I’m against you. Not in principle, actually, but just in the childish, moronic way that you draw attention to yourselves. Typical, from people who’ve never actually had to fight a war against an oppressive state.

Pathetic bunch of losers.

Pretty please, with sugar on top, keep your filthy hooks off our @!#% guns, so we don't have to kill you

A couple days ago, I wrote about Robert Smith, Jr, who, in a blog he writes for The Detroit News, contends that the Founding Fathers were wrong to extend Constitutional protection to the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and who indeed argues that we should "Ban All Guns." I wasn't the only gun rights advocate to take exception to this advocacy of such an attack on liberty--Pistolero, David Codrea, and Mike Vanderboegh (must read) have all weighed in on the subject.

Some of the criticism came not in blogs, but in comments left at the site of Mr. Smith's opinion piece. Now, it seems that another Detroit News blogger, Libby Spencer, thinks the criticism is out of line (excerpt follows):

Nonetheless, the point is, most people who are for gun bans don't have experience with hunters or recreational gun owners. Their only knowledge comes from the real dangers of inner city use in the commission of crimes. When you respond to the slightest whiff of disagreement with hateful pile-ons such as we're seeing in the comment section now, you not only make supporters of your rights like me want to rethink my position but also solidify the fears of those who would ban guns altogether.

If you don't want to be treated like a raging pack of trigger happy hotheads, don't act like one. A little civility in making your case would go a long way.

In other words, it seems that Libby, although supposedly one of the "supporters of [our] rights" (she can keep her "support," as far as I'm concerned), thinks that we should be polite in defense of our fundamental rights.

The problem with that is that it's just so damned difficult to come up with a polite way of saying "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." The title of this blog post is about the best I could do.

Thanks, Pistolero, for bringing Libby's chastisement of gun rights advocates to my attention.

HopeandChange™: coming to a school near you!

One recent development I failed to cover during my last hiatus is the announcement of the "Lightworker's" choice for Secretary of Education--you know--to oversee the federal government's Constitutionally enumerated power to regulate education (what's that you say--nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government granted that power? An issue for another day). Obama's choice is the CEO of the Chicago Public School system, Arne Duncan.

Readers can be forgiven for wondering why, in a blog ostensibly dedicated to gun rights, I am talking about the next Secretary of Education. It's actually not as off-topic as it may seem. This is, in fact, not the first appearance of Arne Duncan's name on this blog. Duncan has a pretty extensive history of using his position as head of the CPS to push for ever more draconian forcible citizen disarmament laws. This, despite the fact that his area of operations has been Chicago, where private citizens are outright prohibited from purchasing handguns and most semi-automatic rifles.

Back in October, in fact, Illinois' chief citizen disarmament group, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence presented him with an award for his efforts to disarm peaceable Illinoisans, although he theatrically declined the award, because Illinoisans are not yet disarmed enough for him to think his work on this task is finished.

In refusing the Lincoln Award -- a statue of a hand holding a gun broken into pieces -- Duncan asked the crowd of dignitaries to renew their commitment to reducing gun violence.

"I won't accept this award today, but I will accept your hand in partnership -- and our commitment to keep on fighting to end the violence,'' said Duncan, who had been selected for his anti-violence efforts at CPS, including encouraging kids to text-message police with tips, and his lobbying against handguns in Springfield.

About that "lobbying against handguns in Springfield"--Duncan refused to content himself with doing his own lobbying--he also repeatedly bused CPS students down to Springfield to do that.

I imagine busing all those students all the way from Chicago to Springfield and back was pretty expensive--I'm glad the CPS is apparently rich enough to afford that--with state and federal budgets in such disarray, it's encouraging that Chicago will apparently not need help on the monetary front.

I guess it's not a concern that all these field trips to Springfield eat into classroom time--and why should it be a concern? After all, the CPS boasts a whopping 51% graduation rate.

That's the kind of leadership I want brought to the entire nation's education system.

Freedom--the Founding Fathers' greatest 'mistake'

Well whaddya know--the day I finally decide to end my sudden disappearance from the blogosphere, but am kind of hard pressed to find material, I stumble (pretty much by accident) on this little gem, by Robert Smith, Jr. (titled, simply enough, "Ban All Guns"):

The Founding Fathers of our country made a mistake when they said we had the right to bear arms. They did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.

Never heard of the War of 1812, eh Robert (and why should he have heard of it--it's not as if it inspired our national anthem or anything)? There's also the little issue of the fact that the Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms exists not only for fighting off British imperialistic ambitions--actually, that was never even the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

The right to bear arms is killing all of us.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that rights don't kill, I'm a little puzzled about how, with a national population that grows every year, anything can be said to be "killing all of us."

In 2005 the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,006 children and teens killed by gunfire, most of them young, black men in inner-city neighborhoods.

Most of these "children and teens" are men? Apparently, Robert defines either "children" or "men" (perhaps both) in a rather . . . unusual manner (unusual, at least, outside forcible citizen disarmament circles).

Robert then lays some numbers on us.

The Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois gun killings took 32 lives, and the world was upset and every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America and there is no outcry to change it, just report it on the local news.

Punctuation, evidently, is no more a strong suit of Robert's than history is. Looking at those numbers, I'm afraid I can't vouch for his mathematics skills either. I refer to his claim that "every day 128 young people are shot to death in hard-pressed, poor communities across America." That would come out to over forty-six thousand shooting deaths per year. The number of shooting deaths in the U.S. (all U.S. shooting deaths--more than half of which are suicides--with no filtering for age or economic status) has hovered around or a bit above thirty thousand per year for the last several years, but Robert somehow finds over one and a half times that number of deaths, just among young people in poor communities.

And this is the guy who would lecture the Founding Fathers about their "mistake."

Easing back into things, with an exciting announcement that's probably not news to anyone here

I've kinda developed a bad habit of burning out on blogging for weeks at a time, without warning or explanation. I really need to stop doing that. If I still have any readers, I apologize.

Anyway, I'm feeling motivated to write again, but after a month of being out of touch, I'm going to set the bar for myself kinda low, and instead of trying to come up with any deep insights, point to an exciting new development relating to one of my (many) betters (a much better, in fact).

Back in October, I mentioned that David Codrea (War on Guns) had a new gig (yet another one--this is a guy who knows how to work through the kind of burnout that shuts me down so often). I refer to the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column.

The exciting news is that the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner column will soon be known as simply the Gun Rights Examiner--it's going national.

Coming in early January, the "Cleveland" is going away.

The column has done well both regionally and in the "Politics" category. So the powers that be have decided they'll be better served if it goes national--meaning it will now show up on the national page as well as be accessible from 59 separate city pages.

This is big news, folks. This is one of the best gun bloggers (and I would make the case for dropping the "one of the") gaining a national audience that's not limited to the gun blogosphere.

Congratulations, David, and go get 'em.

This could have been the GOP's response to Obama

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving weekend.

I see that "Iron" Mike Ditka wants to disarm the entire NFL.

"This is all about priorities. When you get stature in life, you get the kind of contract, you have an obligation and responsibility to your teammates, to the organization, to the National Football League and to the fans. He just flaunted this money in their face. He has no respect for anybody but himself. I feel sorry for him, in the sense that, I don't understand the league, why can anybody have a gun? I will have a policy, no guns, any NFL players we find out, period, you're suspended."

This, of course, was in response to New York Giants receiver Plaxico Burress negligently shooting himself in the thigh in a Manhattan nightclub. Seems a bit drastic as a reaction to one knucklehead doing what knuckleheads do.

As for the Sean Taylors and Darrent Williamses
produced by such an edict, I suppose that's just their tough luck.

My point isn't that this could happen to the NFL--those guys can find a way to take care of themselves. My point is that Ditka--the guy whose "solution" to an ignoramus negligently shooting himself is to treat everyone as an ignoramus--was once pursued by the Illinois GOP to run against Obama for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Iron Mike declined, after some consideration.

I don't think he would have won, and I'm certainly not arguing that he would not only win, but go on to win the presidency four years later--my point is more about the state of the GOP in Illinois.

Even someone courted by the party as the next tough guy hero ends up being a nanny-stater.