New DoD ammunition policy will be bad for law enforcement

My point is that one does not have to care about the gun rights issue to be appalled by this development. At a time characterized by fears of high crime rates stemming from a reeling economy, concurrent with police cutbacks and early release of inmates, do we really want both the law-abiding public and law enforcement less well prepared for the worst? [More]

The St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column for today is up. The more I think about this new DoD rule (mandating mutilation of spent cartridge brass, rather than reselling it to be "remanufactured" into inexpensive ammo), the more alarming I find it. This is a big deal. Please give it a read, and tell a friend.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Atlanta: Atlanta ammunition supply is severely constrained


• Austin: DC gun control and ‘Governor’ Fenty


• Charlotte: Dial 9-1-1 and die ... again, and again, and again


• Cleveland: Why people carry guns
  


• DC: DC City Council afflicted by pistolgriphobia


• Denver: Economics 101: guns and monkeymeat


• Los Angeles: Sovereignty in 2009


• Milwaukee: Help wanted- Pro-gun Wolves


• Minneapolis: 'From my cold dead hands' and gun-owner apathy


• National: DoD under Obama squeezes already tight ammo supply


• Seattle: Obama administration ‘supports’ 2nd Amendment, but takes steps to prevent its exercise


• Wisconsin: Why does your health data get reported
  

You won't find that stuff at a gun show

I've mentioned before one of the problems (one of many) with the idea that the drug violence in Mexico can somehow be blamed on inadequate gun laws in the U.S. I refer to the fact that in a growing number of cases, the weapons involved are either banned outright for ownership by private citizens, or are extremely heavily regulated--weapons such as belt-fed machine guns, grenades (both hand grenades and grenades from launchers), RPGs, plastic explosive, and mortars.

What surprises me is seeing even the L.A. Times picking up on this.

The Feb. 21 attack on police headquarters in coastal Zihuatanejo, which injured four people, fit a disturbing trend of Mexico's drug wars. Traffickers have escalated their arms race, acquiring military-grade weapons, including hand grenades, grenade launchers, armor-piercing munitions and antitank rockets with firepower far beyond the assault rifles and pistols that have dominated their arsenals.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semiauto- matic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

But how could that be? I thought the U.S. was the "Arms Bazaar for Mexican Cartels." I thought the Mexican violence was due to "Too Many Guns" in the U.S. I thought we needed to stop importing politically incorrect rifles, because importing them here means they end up in Mexico (?). Back to the L.A. Times article:

These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

That last sentence kinda sheds a different light on the "95% of recovered crime weapons in Mexico come from the U.S." line we're constantly being fed, doesn't it?

Read the full article at L.A. Times--it has a lot of information about the growing use in Mexico of weapons much heavier than "assault weapons" we're told must be banned, and aside from taking a swipe at .50 caliber rifles, is reasonably balanced.

Gun rights--not a 'poison pill'

The thing is, if Democrats truly want to neutralize the gun rights issue as something that their political enemies can take advantage of, that's easily done. All they have to do is unite behind the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. To do so would be both tactically and Constitutionally sound. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is now up. Hope to see ya' there.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Atlanta: Court rules that legislator did not mean what he said


• Austin: Texas political two-step over border security


• Charlotte: Dial 9-1-1 and die ... again, and again, and again


• Cleveland: Gun control as a measure of safety and freedom


• DC: DC City Council afflicted by pistolgriphobia


• Denver: Economics 101: guns and monkeymeat


• Los Angeles: Sovereignty in 2009.


• Milwaukee: Help wanted- Pro-gun Wolves


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: Some journalists get it right on guns and liberty


• Seattle: Gun rights community should not cheer so loud over demise of Seattle P-I


• Wisconsin: Everyone including the cops need to know the Wisconsin preemption law
  

Suing for gun rights: now the shoe is on the other foot

Remember when litigation was the biggest hammer in the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's toolbox? Remember when the Violence Policy Center (VPC) trumpeted the advent of "cities and individuals alike . . . pursu[ing] innovative legal strategies"?

[ . . . ]

The anti-rights lobby may have been the first to discover the power of litigation, but I can't help but wonder if they now wish they'd never opened up that front in the battle of citizen disarmament vs. liberty. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Hope to see you there, with friends.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Texas political two-step over border security


• Charlotte: Multiple victim public homicide: Lessons of shootings in Alabama & Germany


• Cleveland: Another school shooting makes gun control the topic of the day


• DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color


• Denver: Shootings in the news: How do we respond?


• Los Angeles: Another Shooting: reactions can be irrational, too


• Milwaukee: Why are we tiptoeing?


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: Wrong reactions to shooting sprees make us more vulnerable


• Seattle: Tragedies in Alabama, Germany will fuel frenzy to ban guns while ignoring root causes of violence


• Wisconsin: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law

Chicago taxpayers backstop Oak Park's anti-freedom agenda

No "economic downturn" in Chicago, I guess, if the taxpayers don't mind being put on tap for this:

Chicago shields OP from NRA legal costs

The village board unanimously adopted a resolution Monday, accepting the City of Chicago's offer to protect Oak Park from legal costs created by the National Rifle Association.

The NRA is suing, attempting to overturn village's 24-year ban on handguns. Chicago and Oak Park are teaming up to fight the lawsuit. In the event the NRA wins, the city is offering to indemnify the village against having to reimburse the gun group's legal expenses.

A U.S. District Court judge dismissed the NRA's lawsuit against Chicago and Oak Park, Dec. 18. However, the gun group immediately appealed the ruling, hoping to prevail in a higher court.

The law firm of Mayer Brown is representing Oak Park, pro bono, in the case.

I take some exception to the "legal costs created by the National Rifle Association" wording--if Oak Park (well, now it would be Chicago, apparently) loses, and liberty wins, I would argue that Chicago and Oak Park created the legal costs, by fighting to keep unconstitutional laws in place.

That wording, though, should probably just be dismissed as typical "Authorized Journalist" editorializing posing as news--perhaps without the author even realizing that's what it is.

My real point is that Chicago taxpayers will now be on the hook for not only Chicago's share of the costs, but Oak Park's as well. Even worse, some of the people on whose behalf the lawsuits were filed in the first place are Chicago gun owners (and Chicago taxpayers), who are being forced to provide financial backing against their own interests.

By the way, some in the gun rights advocacy movement seem to see this case as something of a slam-dunk. I certainly hope they're right.

One more point. Is it too much to ask that those who claim to be covering this lawsuit acknowledge that the NRA isn't carrying the load all by itself?

Illinois gun owners made themselves heard in Springfield--IGOLD rocked!

Days of Our Trailers has lots of great coverage.

So does IllinoisCarry.com (with more pics here).

So does The Armed Schoolteacher.

With any luck, I'll write something of my own sometime today.

Two vastly different sets of gun laws; two very similar outcomes

That massacre was not perpetrated with the aid of an "assault weapon," but with a 9mm Beretta handgun. Don't even start with "high capacity magazines" (and I don't know if the killer had those, or not)--I've talked about that before--he could have inflicted as much carnage with a revolver.

The bottom line is that "weak gun laws," or "strong" ones--killers will kill, until they can be stopped. [More]

The new St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Drop by, and bring a friend. You may notice that I'm no longer putting Digg links in the box of other Gun Rights Examiner articles--I was asked yesterday in comments to stop doing that, because it's making page downloads take forever. Sorry about that. I still have them on my GRE articles at the Examiner page, so you can go there if you want to Digg all the other GREs easily.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Sean Hannity: 'Islamic terrorist training camps right here in America'


• Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!


• Cleveland: Holding gun manufacturers responsible for crime


• DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color


• Denver: Let's get guns on campus....in the right hands


• Los Angeles: Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C, Part II: The Hell of consequences


• Milwaukee: Why are we tiptoeing?


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: What exactly is 'contrived' about ammunition shortage?


• Seattle: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights, says Rasmussen poll


• Wisconsin: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law

Call to ban so-called 'assault weapons' has already begun

Earlier today, my colleague, David Codrea, asked "Will Alabama shooter bring 'assault weapon' ban to the front burner?" If the biggest cheerleaders for forcible citizen disarmament have their way, that will certainly be the case. [More]

I know my earlier post today was a bit . . . minimalist. Rather than a more substantial blog post, though, please go see my second, "bonus" article for the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner (my first two article day!).

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Gun control, pro-choice women, and the Brady Campaign


• Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!


• Cleveland: Holding gun manufacturers responsible for crime


• DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color


• Denver: Shootings in the news: How do we respond?


• Los Angeles: Another Shooting, and the worst possible response time.


• Milwaukee: Why are we tiptoeing?


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: What exactly is 'contrived' about ammunition shortage?


• Seattle: Tragedies in Alabama, Germany will fuel frenzy to ban guns while ignoring root causes of violence


• Wisconsin: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law

Break a leg!

Today is the day for IGOLD '09. I have a great many friends there, but health and practicality issues make that impossible for me, unfortunately.

Vast amounts of hard work went into making this happen, and to be associated with these folks, and able to call them friends, is a huge honor for me.

Go change the world, guys (or the state, anyway).

Would George Washington want American citizens to acquiesce to oppression?

That's right--to say that private gun ownership must be protected to ensure the people's ability to fight back against a tyrannical government is a "disturbing argument," according to Beard. He then goes on to further condemn the idea of citizens resisting the government by force of arms, referring to it as "insurrectionist chest-beating." What Beard forgets (or more likely, has chosen to ignore) is that when he called for obedience to the laws of government, Washington assumed that the government itself obeyed the Constitution. So long as it does, we the people are indeed obligated to obey. It's when the government exceeds the authority granted to it by the Constitution that all bets are off. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is now up. Hope you'll give it a look, and tell a pal.

We have a new Gun Rights Examiner--on a somewhat different beat--he represents not the nation (David's gig), or a city, but the state of Wisconsin. Please welcome Gene German, our Wisconsin Gun Rights Examiner.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Gun control, pro-choice women, and the Brady Campaign


• Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!


• Cleveland: Protection from predators, both two-legged and four


• DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to register handgun because it’s the wrong color


• Denver: Let's get guns on campus....in the right hands


• Los Angeles: Gun Lobby Outvotes D.C, Part II: The Hell of consequences.


• Milwaukee: Why are we tiptoeing?


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: Supreme Court Passes on Bloomberg Gun Suit


• Seattle: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights, says Rasmussen poll


• Wisconsin: Wisconsin's brand new 137 year old carry law

The Truth About IGOLD an Exposé

I don't know how I neglected to post this earlier today (can a person have Alzheimer's at age 40?).

Anyway, see this, and see how the media ignores thousands of peaceable gun owners lobbying for recognition of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.



Don has much more.

I have mentioned that IGOLD '09 is tomorrow, haven't I?

Get your lying Brady Bunch video clips while you can!

Regular readers are most likely quite familiar with the video clip of Brady Campaign legal director Dennis Henigan quoting the Second Amendment, except with the "of the people" part removed:
Video hosted by ICarry.org


That, of course, was a very . . . convenient omission for the Brady Campaign, because at this point (pre-Heller), the Brady Bunch argued the now soundly discredited "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment, and so mentioning it as being a right of the people would have been a bit problematic. No problem--all they had to do was the edit the amendment a little.

Oh--speaking of editing the Constitution, Dennis claims not to approve of that.



The full-length video, containing both of the above excerpts, can be seen here.

Anyway, I bring this all up again, because I don't know how much longer I'll be able to keep this available on the internet. Back on February 3rd, I posted that video on my Gun Rights Examiner column, and because the big-government loving statists at Digg.com hadn't yet found me (and thus hadn't started the systematic burying of everything I post), that column was something of a hit, by my standards, and got a fair amount of attention.

Too much, perhaps:

This is to notify you that we have received notice that the following material posted by you via the Photobucket [the photo hosting service which I had used to host the video before] service is infringing: http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v282/kjhof/?action=view&current=VideoofDennisHeniganmisquotes2A-Pho.flv In response, we have removed such material from the Photobucket service. Such material will remain unavailable from the Photobucket service unless you provide us with a completed copy of the following Counter Notice to Photobucket's Designated Copyright Agent: . . .

Now I don't know who is claiming copyright infringement, but if history is any guide, the Brady Bunch is playing a game of "The Commissar Vanishes," trying to hide Henigan's little creative editing on the Bill of Rights.

If so, they'll most likely come after these video clips, too.

The following one, with some nice commentary, is still available on YouTube, by the way (I didn't put this one together, and found out that it was done long before I posted anything about this--here I was thinking I'd "broken" the story).

Well, the Brady Campaign took it down, too, but Shaun came to the rescue again:Video hosted by ICarry.org

RNC Chairman Michael Steele has short memory about so-called 'assault weapons'

Chairman Steele seems to be criticizing Attorney General Holder for advocating a position essentially similar to the one that Steele himself has held.

There are few human failings I find more contemptible than hypocrisy. I guess the GOP is a bit more . . . flexible on that than I am. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Hope you give it a look, and encourage others to do so. Note, also, that after a long absence, our Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner Candace Dainty is now back in action.

Please welcome her back.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Gun control, Eric Holder, and racism
  


• Charlotte: Baiting liberals for fun and profit!
  


• Cleveland: Banning competition firearms


• DC: Federal law suit filed after DC refuses to
  register handgun because it’s the wrong color
  


• Denver: Let's get guns on campus....in the right
  hands


• Los Angeles: The gun lobby outvotes D.C.? Not
  quite.
  


• Milwaukee: David Olofson- now what?


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him
  inside
  


• National: Tyranny is counting on ignorance


• Seattle: Democrats still don’t get it on gun rights,
  says Rasmussen poll

Bad news for Bloomberg: Supreme Court says law means what it says

New York City's jihad against guns suffered a set-back today:

New York City on Monday failed before the U.S. Supreme Court to revive a lawsuit it filed against the gun industry.

New York sued several gun manufacturers in 2000, arguing the companies violated a state public nuisance law with their marketing and distribution of the firearms products they sell. Among the companies sued were Beretta USA Corp., Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC), Colt's Manufacturing Co. LLC, Sturm, Ruger & Co. (RGR) and Glock GmbH.

A federal law enacted in 2005 sought to shield gun makers from lawsuits like the one New York filed, prompting a federal judge to throw the case out. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in April 2008 upheld that ruling by a 2-1 vote.

New York, in a court brief, said the 2005 law violates state rights under the U.S. Constitution. "This congressional effort to control how states make law raises important questions about the Tenth Amendment's protections of state sovereignty," New York said.

The gun manufacturers, in a joint legal brief, said the federal appeals court correctly applied the 2005 statute and argued the law does not violate the Constitution. "This case does not qualify for Supreme Court review," the gun makers said.

Definitely good news. This, of course, doesn't affect the remaining cases Bloomberg's little "sting" operation produced, such as the one against Adventure Outdoors.

On the other hand, this makes the prospects of an appeal by the gun manufacturers who have fallen victim to the Indiana Supreme Court's (mis?)judgment in the Gary, Indiana lawsuit look considerably better, I would think.

I should probably acknowledge, though, that I can't quite dismiss the possibility that there might be some merit to NYC's legal counsel's argument that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act violates states' rights--I don't have the legal mind to make that determination. I know Dr. Ron Paul didn't vote for PLCA Act, for that very reason. I have to take that seriously.

Still, if the "interstate commerce clause" can be used by the feds as providing the only Constitutional authority justifying their insistence on regulating just about everything they want to, I can't help but take a bit of satisfaction at the thought that maybe the feds are once again exercising authority they don't have, but this time to thwart oppressive measures by state and/or municipal governments.

When the order of protection . . . provides none

What I'm getting at, of course, is that in the end, the final responsibility for our security, and for that of our families, lies with us. If an armed psychopath kicks down your door, shooting (or slashing, or bludgeoning, etc.) as he comes, that piece of paper signed by a judge has failed to stop him, and if you don't have something more substantial than that on hand, along with the skill, courage, and will to use it, you're in serious trouble. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is now up. Please give it a look, and encourage others to, as well. War on Guns readers probably know that we're trying to make a splash at Digg.com--something that's getting tough, as the statists are making more and more concerted efforts to shut us down. Any help you could provide on that front is hugely appreciated (Thirdpower is going way above and beyond what we could ask of him--it means a lot, Third). I'm trying something new, that should allow you to digg (if you are a Digg.com member) the other GRE columns right from here--hopefully it works).

Digg me?

 

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Gun control, Eric Holder, and racism


• Charlotte: FREEDOM: What the left wing of 'digg' cannot 'bury'


• Cleveland: 'Shoot first' legislation and the concept
  
  of fair play


• DC: Wall Street Journal lapses into newspeak when
  
  it comes to guns


• Denver: Keep them guessing


• Los Angeles: Saturday Special. Gun Owners: The last
  
  line of defense against tyranny, or the first line?


• Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns


• Minneapolis: The first thing you do is drag him inside


• National: March 1959 Guns Magazine is now online


• Seattle: Prison releases, police cutbacks pose a danger
  
  to citizens

Always good to have some lawyer friends

I've gotten away from weekend blogging, but I just wanted to express a quick word of thanks to the folks at Criminal Justice Degrees Guide, for including me among their "50 Best Blogs for Gun Enthusiasts" (number 20, under "Rights, Law & Politics").

If you take a look, you're likely to see some familiar friends there.

I appreciate the good word, folks.

NRA supports 'assault weapons' ban!

Not really, but I figured that would grab the attention of those who accuse me of harboring an obsessive (or was it "deranged"?) hatred of the NRA.

Anyway, this is some pretty funny satire (excerpt):

The NRA today came out in favor of the Obama administration’s attempt at reviving the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, citing experts who say that assault weapons perpetuate unhealthy stereotypes of physical beauty.

“We support the proposed assault weapons ban for much that same reason that West Virginia state lawmaker Jeff Eldridge supports a ban on the sale of Barbie dolls,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, “because they place too much emphasis on the importance of a weapon’s physical beauty, at the expense of a shooter’s intellectual and emotional development.”

Go read the rest, it's not long, and we could all use a Friday chuckle.

Still tightening the screws on Illinois gun owners

I'm still not planning to shut up about HB 48, and what I think we need to do to try to stop it.

The enemy is once again stepping up the pressure to pass HB 48, this time with one of their "polls."

The survey results show an overwhelming majority of Illinois voters strongly support common sense gun laws such as background checks for private gun sales and requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns to law enforcement.

Voters statewide expressed overwhelming support for closing the “private sale loophole” by requiring background checks for all gun sales, with 90 percent in support and 76 percent strongly supporting such a measure. Support for universal background checks was strong among Republicans (85%), gun owners (79%), and NRA members (70%). Women, voters residing in the suburbs of Chicago, and Hispanic voters had the highest levels of support for the measure, each at 96 percent.

“It’s not surprising that so many women support background checks on private gun sales,” said Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-Glenview). “The fact is that women who are the victims of domestic abuse are particularly at risk of being shot and killed and gun violence disproportionately affects children and young people. If you’re thinking about the safety of your family and your own safety, it makes sense to support something as simple and necessary as background checks to keep felons, domestic violence offenders, minors and people with severe mental illness from accessing guns.”

Not mentioned there is that most of the survey was done in DuPage County--one of the "collar counties" surrounding the Chicago area--where the responsible, peaceable gun culture has been all but smothered over the course of decades. The rest of the survey was in the Peoria, IL region--a good deal farther from Chicago, but not exactly "downstate."

I also have to wonder what kind of leading questions were asked.

It seems a push is also being made for HB 845, the Blame the Victim . . . oops--I mean Lost or Stolen Reporting Requirement bill. That just passed in a House committee Wednesday, and can come up for a vote on the House floor any time now. That might be their second biggest priority, at this point.

If it passes, I'm going to be reporting a lot of "lost" guns, I guess.

Did I mention IGOLD '09 recently?

Decorated Marine, disarmed by law

When a decorated Marine combat veteran is denied the opportunity to purchase a handgun, for the "crime" of telling the truth, gun laws have truly abandoned any pretense of a legitimate claim of being representative of "common sense." That, however, is just what happened in Omaha, Nebraska. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is up. Please give it a read, and suggest it to others.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Mexico’s gun laws responsible for violent holocaust?


• Charlotte: What is your state's Freedom Index?


• Cleveland: Fewer police on the street puts citizens at risk


• DC: Georgia legislator introduces bill to repeal permit requirement to open carry handguns!


• Denver: Mental toughness


• Los Angeles: Take Heart, Part IV: Explaining it to the Republicans.


• Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns


• Minneapolis: An open letter to Senator Jim Webb and pro-gun democrats


• National: Touching the 'third rail' of race and guns


• Seattle: At it again: Anti-gunners trying to demonize yet another class of firearms
  
  

The coming of Illinois' backdoor handgun ban?

It's that time of year again. Spring is the season in which my posts tend to become very parochially Illinois-centric. That's because the spring session is when the forces of citizen disarmament are most active in the Illinois Politburo . . . oops--I mean legislature. I've been hammering HB 48 (bans private handgun sales) pretty hard, because I'm convinced it's the biggest threat.

Today, I want to look at another bill, and the potential nightmare nexus of it and HB 48. This time, the focus is on HB 180, the "Handgun Dealer Licensing Act" (there's also the Senate version, SB 1848, but it's the House that seems to be moving most aggressively on gun laws at the moment).

HB 180 is essentially identical to last year's HB 796 (both were introduced by Rep. Deborah Graham), which I discussed here. The "highlights" from last year are the same, so I'll take the lazy approach, and simply suggest you read (or at least skim) that analysis.

As you can imagine, this will dramatically reduce the number of legal handgun dealers in Illinois (remember, since the state police may issue the license, they can refuse to do so, for any reason--or no reason at all--so in theory, it gives the state the power to force every legal handgun dealer out of business). Remember also that HB 48 would require that every sale by a private owner be conducted on the premises of a licensed dealer--just as the state seems intent on eliminating those through HB 180, so you couldn't even buy one on the (legal) secondary market (assuming you could raise enough cash for the inevitably inflated cost produced by this massive market distortion). Since federal law already prohibits buying a handgun out of state, we could have a de-facto handgun ban, in all but name.

Since two thirds of the sponsors/co-sponsors of HB 180 are also sponsoring HB 48, I seriously doubt this is an accident.

"But wait," you might say, "if HB 48 and HB 180 both pass, and do what you say, and the state refuses to issue/renew any licenses, I won't be able to get rid of an unwanted handgun, either--they can't want that, can they?" Fear not--they've got you covered with HB 3791, which legalizes gun "buy-backs."

"But wait," you say again, "they have gun 'buy-backs' all the time--how have they done that?" That's a good question.

Oh yeah--have I mentioned IGOLD '09?

Citizen disarmament lobby is waiting for the next tragedy to exploit

One of the things that strikes me about "gun control" advocates (that's a term I don't really like, or consider accurate--I much prefer "citizen disarmament lobby") is the ineffable cynicism that characterizes their expectant wait for the next great tragedy to exploit. Every atrocity perpetrated with guns is milked for every last drop of publicity in pursuit of the citizen disarmament agenda. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is now up. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: TSRA annual meeting: moving liberty forward


• Charlotte: Reports of 'gun lobby' death are greatly exaggerated


• Cleveland: Dashcam video exonerates police in toy gun bandit shooting


• DC: Georgia legislator introduces bill to repeal permit requirement to open carry handguns!


• Denver: Mental toughness


• Los Angeles: Take Heart, Part IV: Explaining it to the Republicans.


• Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns


• Minneapolis: An open letter to Senator Jim Webb and pro-gun democrats


• National: Ignorance, racism and 'gun control'


• Seattle: At it again: Anti-gunners trying to demonize yet another class of firearms
  
  

Illinois gun owners need to step up to the plate--now

As I mentioned Monday, I am convinced that HB 48, the private handgun sales ban, is the priority of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby in Illinois. We stopped its equivalent last year by only two House votes (which prevented it from coming up in the Senate, but then, as now, we thought our best chance for stopping it was in the House). The House composition has changed, and not necessarily in a way that bodes well for gun rights in Illinois.

The following is a list of representatives whom we believe could go either way in voting on HB 48, by virtue either of their voting records, or of being newly elected, with no voting record on which to base any conclusions.

Clicking on a given representative's link takes you to his/her webpage, with contact information for both the Springfield and district offices. The legislature is obviously active in Springfield these days, so that's where we need to concentrate our efforts, but there's no need to make the district office staff feel neglected. Besides, the reps. often come home for weekends, and you might catch them then. An office visit from a constituent is an excellent way to communicate the importance of this issue.

38th District	Representative Al Riley
41st District	Representative Bob Biggins
42nd District	Representative Sandra Pihos
43rd District	Representative Keith Farnham
46th District	Representative Dennis Reboletti
47th District	Representative Patricia Bellock
48th District	Representative Michael Connelly
50th District	Representative Kay Hatcher
51st District	Representative Ed Sullivan, Jr.
53rd District	Representative Sidney Mathias
54th District	Representative Suzanne Bassi
55th District	Representative Harry Ramey
56th District	Representative Paul Froelich
62nd District	Representative Sandy Cole
66th District	Representative Mark Walker
67th District	Representative Charles Jefferson
68th District	Representative Emily McAsey
92nd District	Representative Jehan Gordon
95 Distict	Representative Mike Fortner
96th District	Representative Darlene Senger
107th District	Representative John Cavaletto
114th District	Representative Eddie Lee Jackson, Sr.

One more thing: the five legislators below represent counties that passed the Pro-Second Amendment Resolution, declaring all further gun regulation illegitimate. Those reps. need to be reminded of that--reminded of whom they're supposedly representing. Here's that list:

Kay Hatcher, Kendall County--passed the resolution by a wide margin on May 6, 2008;

Charles Jefferson, Winnebago County--passed the resolution unanimously on Sept. 27, 2007;

Emily McAsey, Will County--passed the resolution overwhelmingly on Oct. 14, 2008;

Jehan Gordon, Peoria County--passed the resolution unanimously on Feb. 14, 2008;

John Cavaletto, Marion County--passed the resolution on Nov. 13, 2007

Have I mentioned IGOLD lately? One week from today.

Being 'allowed' to keep a gun in the home is not enough

I am not claiming that the Heller decision has won the battle against the carrying of firearms--just that it should have. The Constitution explicitly protects the right to bear arms from infringement, and the "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment has been decisively discredited. What remains is seeing to what degree the gun prohibitionists will succeed in obfuscating that reality. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Please give it a look, and help spread the word.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: TSRA annual meeting: moving liberty forward


• Charlotte: Eric Holder's sour note on 'assault weapons'


• Cleveland: Ohio Department of Natural Resources provides target shooting opportunities


• DC: Georgia legislator introduces bill to repeal permit requirement to open carry handguns!


• Denver: Who says it has to be a fair fight?


• Los Angeles: Take heart, the Republicans say they can undo the Socialism, Part III: The real test of loyalty


• Minneapolis: An open letter to Senator Jim Webb and pro-gun democrats


• National: 'Double Indemnity' meets 'Quest for Fire'


• Seattle: ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ misses the mark by blaming the tool
  
  

Hmm . . .

I'm not unaccustomed to site visitors from Fairfax, VA, but this one raised my eyebrows a bit:

(Click to embiggen)

The chair is against the wall.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: self-defense is a 'shimmering mirage'

Mike Beard, president of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is so unwilling to accept the idea of private citizens exercising their right of armed self-defense that he claims that those who do, are chasing a "mirage."

This Sunday, the New York Times Magazine ran an article by Bathsheba Monk titled “My New Gun.” Ms. Monk, a writer and resident of Allentown, Pennsylvania, described how—due to “the worsening financial news”—she has purchased a gun for “protection.” “You might as well get used to a .38 [caliber handgun]” a friend and gun enthusiast told her. “You want it to make a nice big hole.”

Ms. Monk wrote that a clerk at the gun store where she made her purchase told her that many handguns were out of stock. Background check records indicate that arms sales around the country have been increasing “in inverse proportion to the collapsing economy and in response to the unsubstantiated buzz that the new administration is going to tighten gun control.”

I am glad that Ms. Monk is taking steps to take responsibility for her own security, but I am puzzled as to why she thinks the threat of more federal citizen disarmament tyranny is an "unsubstantiated buzz." The Obama administration has been . . . substantiating the "buzz" from the very beginning.

I digress, though--Beard calls her account a "chilling story," and then quotes some poem about a traveler lost in the desert, lured on by a "shimmering mirage."

Tell me, Mike, do you think it was a "shimmering mirage" that saved the lives of Heath and Mirelle Miller? Was it a "shimmering mirage" that prevented Bridget DiCosmo from being raped a second time? Was it a "shimmering mirage" that protected any of these people?

Keep talking, Mike--more and more Americans are getting wise to your citizen disarmament efforts.

Legalized defensive handgun carry coming to Illinois?

I touched briefly on this back in late January, but there have been enough recent developments on defensive handgun carry in Illinois to warrant another, deeper look. Although such a change in Illinois law still faces a steep climb, the perception is that chances are better than they have been in many years. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Armed citizen saves 2 lives


• Charlotte: Eric Holder's sour note on 'assault weapons'


• Cleveland: Would you rather feel safe or be safe?


• DC: Georgia legislator introduces bill to repeal permit requirement to open carry handguns!


• Denver: Who says it has to be a fair fight?


• Los Angeles: Take heart, the Republicans say they can undo the Socialism, Part III: The real test of loyalty.


• Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns


• Minneapolis: An open letter to Senator Jim Webb and pro-gun democrats


• National: When lighters are outlawed...


• Seattle: 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' misses the mark by blaming the tool

The battleground takes shape in Illinois

Last year, freedom advocates in Illinois just barely defeated a private handgun sales ban bill, HB 758. The Brady Campaign, the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence had all designated HB 758 as their number one goal (or, in the case of the Brady Campaign, the number one Illinois goal), and when they fell (just) short, they were upset enough to resort to bullying tactics (and ignominiously failing).

Well, as one might have guessed, they haven't given up on the idea, and are in fact pursuing HB 48 very aggressively, with thirty sponsors/co-sponsors already.

This one is going to be a real battle, and it seems once again to be the basket into which the citizen disarmament lobby is placing the vast majority of their eggs.

Snuffy Pfleger and Co. are planning to be in Springfield on March 18th to make their push for it.

Keep watching here, Days of Our Trailers, The Armed Schoolteacher, and Illinois Carry, to get an idea of which legislators can be most productively contacted in an attempt to dissuade them from passing this abomination.

Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) lobbyist Todd Vandermyde has an excellent summary of the HB 48 situation.

Oh yeah--have I mentioned IGOLD lately?

The import ban cometh

Last week, Attorney General Holder announced that Rep. Engel's wish would be granted.

President Barack Obama's administration is beginning to respond. On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder promised to enforce a long-ignored ban on importing assault weapons, many of which are resold illegally and smuggled into Mexico to resupply the cartels.

Calderón applauded Holder's announcement as "the first time ... in many years that the American government is starting to show more commitment."

[More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is now up. Please give it a look, and spread the word.

Digg me?

Check out other Gun Rights Examiners:

• Austin: Attorney General Holder doesn’t appear to know federal law
  
• Charlotte: Save a Mexican drug lord: Surrender your guns
  
• Cleveland: What kind of people are gun owners?
  
• DC: Senate to DC’s rulers: If you wanna vote in America’s house, no more gun registration!
  
• Denver: Who says it has to be a fair fight?
  
• Los Angeles: Why they take guns from the people at all. With thanks to Paul Harvey, Patriot.
  
• Milwaukee: Time to change our attitude about guns
  
• Minneapolis: Open carry is the 2nd Amendment
  
• National: America's awakening on guns continues
  
• Seattle: Why Greg Nickels’ proposed gun ban would never work