More about Badger Guns, new (to me) blogger

I've written a couple times recently about Badger Guns in Milwaukee (or West Milwaukee, to be more precise, apparently). The very short story is that Badger Guns has a reputation as a major source of "crime guns," and is under heavy, relentless pressure by the mayor and police chief of Milwaukee, along with various anti-gun groups, to go well beyond the requirements of the law, and implement a policy of imposing all kinds of draconian, impractical intrusions on customers--brilliant business model, eh?

Anyway, the Badger-Baiters try to paint Badger as being the criminals' friend, and the enemy of law and order, and thus of society as a whole.

Upon my discovery of the Between Two Rivers blog, I learned of further evidence that folks are being misled on that score.

Badger Guns in West Milwaukee (earlier posts: Badger Guns update 10/6/09) gives an assist to local police and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doesn't bother to report about it. No they'd rather castigate the owners.

A local radio station gives kudos to the guns store. Controversial Gun Store Helps Police

Go check out the details.

Think I can get some Joyce Foundation grant money?

Yesterday, I discussed Joyce Foundation president Ellen Alberding's op-ed piece that, strangely, tried to exploit the savage beating death of Derrion Albert as justification for more restrictive gun laws.

On the other hand . . . with all that money the Joyce Foundation has to throw around at just about any anti-gun group that pops up and asks nicely, it sure is tempting to change sides.

That's why I am starting my new "gun violence prevention group": WithOut Really Terrible Handguns, Let's Enjoy a Safer Society (WORTHLESS). This will be right up the Joyce Foundation's alley--another WORTHLESS group, with all kinds of WORTHLESS ideas, proposing all kinds of WORTHLESS laws.

Brilliant, isn't it?

More about Derrion Albert's murder, and the response

In yesterday's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column, I wrote about the savage murder of 16-year-old honors student Derrion Albert. I focused primarily on cynical (and bizarre) efforts by the citizen disarmament lobby to try to turn a bludgeoning murder into a call for more restrictive gun laws--the ICHV's Thom Mannard was the star of that discussion.

Today, I have a bit of follow-up.

First, we have Ellen Alberding, president of the Joyce Foundation (you remember the Joyce Foundation--major source of funding for just about every citizen disarmament effort in the U.S., whose board of directors Barack Obama sat on for eight years), and her reaction.

We welcome the opportunity to talk about a comprehensive strategy to combat youth violence. But let's remember that the beating death of Derrion is in some ways unusual.

Every week young people here and in other cities are slain. Some are beaten like Derrion but in the great majority of cases the weapon of choice is a gun.

Alberding was certainly far less offensive than Mannard, but she, too, hopes to exploit a beating death as justification for more restrictive gun laws (in the city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation).

Another, somewhat surprising response, was from Snuffy Pfleger. Back in May, you might remember, Snuffy ordered the U.S. flag at Saint Sabina to be hung upside-down. The intent, evidently, was to draw national attention to the violence (particularly youth violence) taking place in Chicago. Snuffy is, of course, yet another who acts as if the problem in Chicago is not the violent, predatory, gangbanger thugs who commit the violence, but the guns (which are already outlawed in Chicago) they often use to commit that violence.

That's why it surprised me that Snuffy is apparently pleased by what he heard from Duncan and Holder (who never mentioned guns), and now plans to turn the flag right side-up again.

St. Sabina Catholic Church's Fr. Mike Pfleger, says new efforts to stem violence among young people in Chicago have given him reason for hope and so, Sunday, he plans to turn right-side up the American flag he turned upside down months ago.

In early May, the activist priest turned the flag upside down to signal "distress" over the gun violence that was taking the lives of so many young people.

What has him so happy, when so many other citizen disarmament advocates are fuming?

Yesterday, he was part of a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel in which the federal government promised $500-thousand in extra help to try to reduce the amount of teen violence around Fenger High School on the South Side. At the meeting were Obama cabinet members, Attorney General Eric Holder and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, as well as Mayor Daley and other community and religious leaders.

Ah--question answered--a cool half-million can buy a fair amount of cheerfulness. As Snuffy himself says, "it's all about the Benjamins."

Finally, it seems that Snuffy's usual joined-at-the-hip buddy, Jesse Jackson, is not nearly as happy:

Some were community activists and faith-based groups offended that they had not been invited to the meetings with Holder and Duncan.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was among them.

"They're not talking to the people," Jackson said. "They're talking to each other. This is top-down."

It's enough to make you want to "cut [somebody's] nuts out," isn't it, Jesse?

What Supreme Court 'victories' really mean for gun rights

This provides the forcible citizen disarmament lobby with a blueprint for exactly what they can get away with, and still be ruled to be in compliance with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment. Even when they are defeated on a given point, they merely have to back up an inch, and say, "well, we can still do that," after which they have to be challenged all over again--with no guarantee of victory at any step of the way.

This, in turn, affords politicians and candidates with Second Amendment "cover"--they can say "I support the Second Amendment," and even mean it, at least in terms of supporting whatever SCOTUS deigns to allow it to mean--while pushing for everything short of an outright gun ban. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Thanks for looking.

Illinois Supreme Court knows what a 'case' is--Illinois gun-haters get 'case' of indigestion

My Chicago Gun Rights Examiner colleague Don Gwinn wrote yesterday about the expectation that the Illinois Supreme Court would rule today on whether or not the center console of a car fits the definition of a "case," for the purpose of legally transporting an unloaded firearm.

Go read the article. I'll wait--it's not long.

OK--got the background now?

Good news: today, the Supreme Court ruled that the center console is indeed a "case," for purposes of this discussion.

Section 24-1.6(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code of 1961 provides that a person is not guilty of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if that weapon is "unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card." 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6(c)(iii)(West 2006). In the case at bar, we are asked to determine whether the center console of a vehicle is a "case" within the meaning of this provision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it is.

Not exactly a "knockout blow" for freedom in Illinois, but in this state, we madly celebrate the little victories.

It's certainly a significant victory for the defendant, Michael Diggins, who will now not be spending two-and-a-half years in prison, for carrying unloaded, fully enclosed firearms, while having a valid FOID card.

This would also seem to provide some clarity on the legality of "fanny pack carry" in Illinois.

Chicago GRE Don Gwinn now has much more.

Honor student Derrion Albert's brutal beating death 'wrong' kind of violence to talk about?

In other words, if a murder is not committed with a gun, and is thus not easily exploitable for the advancement of the forcible citizen disarmament agenda, ICHV would prefer it not be discussed.

The Brady Campaign was also apparently hoping to turn this into a discussion about further infringements on that which shall not be infringed, as Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke illustrated with this remarkable statement.

The youth violence problem in Chicago is a gun violence problem.

I call Helmke's statement "remarkable," because we have just seen that the violence in Chicago is not simply a "gun violence" problem. When the gangbanger thugs in Chicago cannot get guns (which, if gun laws actually worked as advertised, would be always, since handguns are virtually banned in Chicago, and since the vast majority of criminal shootings are committed by people who cannot legally own any firearm, anywhere), they use knives, fists, feet, and yes--railroad ties. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is unlikely to make me any friends at the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. Isn't that alone worth giving it a look?

Good news from Sipsey Street

Take a stroll down Sipsey Street, and see one reason the Three Percenters are not only not planning to ever back down--we also aren't planning to go down in a blaze of glory, either.

If the gangster government wants to play hardball, they'd better realize that the teams aren't distributed as favorably for their side as they've been thinking.

'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' scrambles for relevance

"Mayors Against Illegal Guns," an extremist anti-gun group started, headed, and bankrolled by NYC's fanatically anti-gun Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has petitioned the White House to crack down on private gun ownership. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

Anti-gun RINO for U.S. Senate!

U.S. Representative Mike Castle (RINO-DE) wants to move up to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Vice President Joe "I am the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban" Biden.

One would think that just about anyone would be an improvement over Biden. In Delaware, unfortunately, that's clearly not the case.

Castle is a big fan of legislation to close the mythical "gun show loophole," and in fact regularly sponsors such legislation, including this year's H.R. 2324.

That's not all:

* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)

I don't have much faith in high grades given by the NRA, but I've never accused them of giving an "F" unfairly.

I would argue that a win for Castle would be more damaging than the election of another anti-gun Democrat. At this point, the Republican Party can at least keep a straight face when claiming to support gun rights. The more Republicans who get away with betraying that part of the platform, the less important that part will become.

Praying for peace, but prepared for violence

The Colorado incident is particularly instructive. After killing two people at the mission center, the deranged killer hoped to commit a real massacre at the mega church. Fortunately, for all but the killer, this church's staff included some armed citizens who provided security. Among those was Jeanne Assam, who, though armed only with a handgun, against a lunatic with a rifle and over a thousand rounds of ammunition, stopped him before he could begin the slaughter in earnest.

By Michigan law, the church can permit, or not, congregants to carry firearms (if licensed to do so by the state).

It seems that a growing number are realizing that "God helps those who help themselves" applies also to defense against maniacs. [More]

Please take a look at today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column.

Goldilocks 'gun control,' revisited

Way back in March of 2008, I did a post about "The Goldilocks approach to 'gun control.'" At the time, I foolishly thought I had invented that idea, until Thirdpower pointed me to Mr. Bieser's cartoon. Damn it, Third--you just can't let me enjoy my thinking that I'm smarter than I actually am, can you?

Alright, so it's not a new idea--it's still a good one. In that post, I was referring to hardware--the Swiss Mini Gun being "too small," and .50 caliber rifles being "too big." There are plenty of other hardware possibilities: we hear so-called "assault weapons" demonized because they're too inaccurate (but can be fired quickly), and precision tactical rifles ("sniper rifles," in gun grabber parlance) condemned for being too accurate. That was, by the way, the VPC complaining about both the "too inaccurate" guns and "too accurate" guns. Even more amusing, the VPC refers to the Bushmaster XM-15 (pdf file) used by Malvo and Muhammad in Washington D.C. in 2002 as both an "assault weapon" and a "sniper rifle."

Today, though, it occurs to me that the Goldilocks school of forcible citizen disarmament is not limited to calls for banning (or at least restricting) hardware. Remember what the anti-rights people said about guns in national parks? Here's one example:

Passage of this legislation that would allow firearms of all kinds in national parks is an absolute travesty. There is simply no need for it, given the extremely low risks that visitors face in national parks compared with everywhere else. Legislators who voted for this Amendment now have to live with the fact that they have, in fact, increased the risk to visitors and employees, as well as the risk to wildlife and some cultural resources.

Get that? Guns shouldn't be allowed in national parks, because national parks aren't violent enough to justify being "allowed" to carry an effective means of self-defense. Aaalllriiighty, then.

On the other hand, Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) argues that efforts to overturn Chicago's draconian gun laws are misguided because Chicago is too violent for people to be trusted with an effective means of self-defense:

But the threat of gun violence has by no means dissipated. Chicago communities are still reeling from losses of neighbors, children and friends -- innocent bystanders caught by a stray bullet, someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. The last thing our city needs is more guns on the street and more children fearing for their safety.

So . . . is there anywhere that's just right for citizens to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?

To honor Marek Edelman, help put teeth into 'never again'

Mr. Edelman and his compatriots were horribly handicapped in their nearly doomed-from-the-beginning resistance, by the simple fact of their almost total lack of weapons, and training in their use.

If genocidal tyranny ever raises its hideous head in the U.S., we will have no such excuse. For the moment, at least, and in theory, at least, we have a Constitutional guarantee of our fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. If we lose that, through apathy, short sightedness ("that could never happen here, and now"), and lack of use, we will have only ourselves to blame. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner--please give it a read.

Badger guns, and 'crime guns,' Part II

Yesterday, we looked at the controversy that dogged a gun shop (Badger Outdoors) in Milwaukee. Since then, the store has a (slightly) new name: Badger Guns, and a new owner: former Badger Outdoors employee Adam Allan. What has not changed is the level of controversy, or the source of that controversy: Badger's reputation as a major source of "crime guns."

Back in the Badger Outdoors days, the owner, Mick Beatovic, despite his store's reputation as a "crime gun" source, had a personal reputation of willingness to work with the mayor and with law enforcement to address their concerns.

The store's owner then, Mick Beatovic, vowed to cooperate. He promised to stop selling certain cheap guns. He always quickly turned over gun sale records and surveillance tape and testified in court, Smith said.

"Their surveillance is excellent, the cooperation is good but it never stops the problem," Smith said. "It is the game we play with them.

I would actually call Beatovic a bit too cooperative--by agreeing to stop selling affordable handguns, he tacitly agreed to price poor people--the very people who live in neighborhoods where they will most likely need to defend themselves--out of the self-defense market. As I pointed out yesterday, there's also this:

Studies have shown that most crime guns change hands at least once after they are sold by a gun shop or other dealer. However, no background check or paperwork for sale is done after the initial purchase. That is wrong, Beatovic said.

He said he has done background checks for people who are selling guns privately and want to make sure they aren't selling to a felon. Beatovic said all gun sales should require background checks.

"Anyone in their right mind should not be against it - and that comes from a gun owner and NRA member," he said.

In other words, Beatovic lobbied in favor of outlawing private gun sales--a rather . . . convenient (self-serving) stance for a gun dealer.

Still, despite Beatovic's cooperation, he was still vilified and harassed--which is perhaps why the new owner seems to have seen little incentive in acquiescing to the demands being placed on him.

Those demands are considerable:

Mayor Tom Barrett called on Badger immediately to begin scanning the identification of everyone coming into the store, like some bars do, and to look up anyone who wants to shoot on the range to make sure he isn't a felon.

Police Chief Edward Flynn suggested that anyone who comes into the store to buy a gun or shoot on the range sign a sworn affidavit saying he is not a criminal or committing a crime. Then store managers should allow police to inspect it, he said.

These demands, let's remember, are not mandated by law--they're simply steps that the mayor and police chief want the owner to take "voluntarily." As a gun owner, I would never patronize a store that agreed to such demands. Not because I have anything to hide, but because I refuse to allow my exercise of my Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms to be used as justification to treat me as a second class citizen, as a suspect; and I would guess that I am far from the only gun owner who sees it that way.

Says Chief Flynn:

"We are past the point of negotiating," he said. "They need to get their act together."

Or else . . . ?

That's what I thought.

Allan, by the way, does work hard to block "straw purchases." He bans the use of cell phones in the store, because one way such purchases are made is that the person prohibited from gun possession recruits a purchaser with a clean record, who often knows nothing about guns, and thus needs some over-the-phone guidance to select the right one. Allan also claims to turn away a great many suspicious would-be purchasers--a claim I find quite plausible, because considering all the scrutiny his store has been under, I am certain that numerous "sting" attempts have been made, obviously without success.

Here's a recent anecdote about police surveillance of Badger Guns.

The felon finally fessed up but insisted he was only in Badger to help his 22-year-old girlfriend shop for a gun. Officer Joseph Honzelka quizzed the woman. He found her answers suspicious - she didn't know a handgun from a shotgun.

"I asked her what kind of gun she was looking for," Honzelka said. "She said she looked at all the guns and didn't like any."

Police suspected she was a potential straw buyer, but there was little officers could do. There was no gun in the car and no proof the felon touched a firearm while in Badger. The only option for police would be to tell the felon's parole agent he had been in the store.

In other words, no "straw sale" was made, and in fact, a straw purchase may have been thwarted by the alertness and conscientiousness of Allan and/or his staff.

The latest controversy is over a sign Allan had up protesting the constant police stake-outs in front of the store, and what he views as racial profiling of his customers. Columnist Eugene Kane disagrees--I've talked about him before.

Others calls to have Badger forced out of business (just what a struggling economy needs--more businesses shut down), despite zero evidence of wrongdoing:

Badger Gun Shop in Milwaukee
Badger Guns In West Milwaukee Should Be Forced Out Of Business
Changes needed

So much for the presumption of evidence pending proof of guilt, eh?

Badger guns, and 'crime guns'

Milwaukee's Badger Guns (formerly Badger Outdoors) is no stranger to controversy. With a long-established reputation as a major source of "crime guns," it has long been a favorite target of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby. From a May, 2006 article:

West Milwaukee's Badger Outdoors last year again was tops among all gun shops in the nation for selling guns that later were recovered by police during criminal investigations, according to new data from the federal government.

In 2005, there were 537 crime guns - an average of more than 10 a week - recovered and traced to Badger, the Milwaukee area's largest gun dealer. None of the others in the top five had more than 500 crime guns traced to them, according to the document from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

[ . . . ]

In 1998, Badger had the most crime guns traced to it among all gun dealers in the United States and then fell from the top spot, only to regain the spot last year. Badger has been criticized for selling cheap handguns, which were bought by "straw buyers" with clean records and then passed on to gang members. In a 1999 sweep, the majority of straw buyers bought the guns legally at Badger.

One fact that is always glossed over by those who screech these statistics is that traced guns are not necessarily "crime guns."

Mick Beatovic, the owner at the time, resented (with good reason) being blamed for whatever violence was committed with guns bought at his shop.

Beatovic attributed the high ranking to the low number of gun stores in Milwaukee, Badger's proximity to a high-crime area and the practice of Milwaukee police of tracing every recovered gun, something that not all departments do.

Beatovic said his store on S. 43rd St. isn't part of the problem. He said he often testifies in court cases, opens his records to detectives and frequently calls police to arrest people trying to buy guns illegally.

"We are not the bad guys, damn it. I don't care what those numbers say," he said.

Wisconsin's forcible citizen disarmament lobbying group wasn't buying it:

Jeri Bonavia, executive director, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, said Badger needs close scrutiny.

"Clearly, what they are doing is not enough," she said. "You don't end up number one in the entire nation by crossing all the t's and dotting i's."

No evidence--just a standard anti-gun witch hunt.

On the other hand, I can't muster a great deal of sympathy for Beatovic, as I see him as something of a traitor. This is what he said about a bill proposed in Wisconsin that would have required background checks even on private gun sales (which would then, of course, cease to be private):

"The anti-gunners say, 'Let's do it.' The pro-gunners say, 'Oh, my God. You can't do it.' Well come on. Somebody needs to wake up, smell the coffee, alright, this is the way to stop it," says Mick Beatovic of the Badger Outdoors gun store.

Whether he took that position out of a desire to neutralize what he might have thought of as a competitive advantage of private sellers, or he simply wanted to placate the citizen disarmament lobby, by compromising away that which shall not be infringed--or perhaps it was a combination of both considerations--matters little to me. Whichever--he was on the wrong side, and serving only himself. Thankfully, the bill failed.

In 2007, though, Beatovic sold the store to an employee, Adam Allan, who changed the name to Badger Guns. Since then, controversy has, if anything, intensified.

More to come . . .

Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments

I find it interesting (but hardly surprising) that the Obama administration has taken a position of opposition to these laws. What makes this interesting is that Obama, you may remember, once said during the 2008 campaign, in reference to gun laws, that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." Never mind that what he claims "works" in Chicago, works so well that Chicago was the "murder capital" of the U.S. in 2008, and that this past summer, Chicago violence was so pervasive and brutal that hospitals were running out of blood.

Never mind all that--consider instead the disingenuousness of advocating a need for different gun laws in different locales, while trying to drum up support for more restrictive federal gun laws, which would apply everywhere. Then, consider the fact that when states take the one measure that would allow them to opt out of gun laws that do not "work" for them, the administration opposes them. Is it not the case that "what works in Hoboken may not work in Helena?" [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Hope you like.

More about incorporation

Hmm--"new definition," Paul? Oh, that's right--the Brady Campaign, in the lead-up to the Heller decision, argued long and passionately for their now-discredited "collective interpretation" of the Second Amendment--the argument eventually soundly rejected by the Supreme Court.

The thing is, I thought the Brady Campaign had decided to be pleased by the Heller decision--despite having fought desperately for the opposite outcome. They seem to have decided to be preemptively similarly unconcerned about a potential SCOTUS finding in favor of incorporation. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Please give it a read.

Supreme Court to decide 2nd Amendment incorporation issue

Ending months of speculation, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about the Constitutional permissibility of Chicago's handgun ban. Presumably, to come to a ruling on that, SCOTUS will have to finally rule once and for all on whether or not the Second Amendment is incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment--whether, in other words, the Second Amendment is binding on not only the federal government, but on state and local governments, as well. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

Incomplete receivers: anti-gun show 'study' does gun rights unintentional favor

As a gun rights advocate, I argue strenuously against registration, knowing full well that "registration leads to confiscation" is far more than a bumper sticker slogan--it is a fact that we have seen played out time and again (in California, for example).

Unfortunately, gun registration in fact, if not in name, is already here, and has been since passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Since then, gun shops must retain purchase records for every gun they have ever sold, and keep those records--forever. The BATFE can demand any sales record at any time. If the shop ever goes out of business (and the BATFE is not above trying to bully even law-abiding shop owners out of business), all that shops sales records go to the BATFE for "safekeeping."

Wintemute, by bringing attention to one method for people to arm themselves with no government record of the fact, has done freedom a favor, albeit while intending the exact opposite. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

If you're going to 'preserve gun rights,' shouldn't you . . . preserve gun rights?

New Castle County, Delaware is mulling over proposed legislation that would put it in line with state law, in protecting gun owners from the kind of confiscations inflicted on New Orleans residents in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to an article titled "Bill would preserve gun rights in emergencies."

Farley, who also owns First State Firearms, said language that gives the county executive the right to place "limitations upon the carrying or stockpiling of firearms, weapons or ammunition" is out of step with state and federal statutes.

"Delaware state law prevents other municipalities from passing patchwork gun laws," Farley said.

"The concern is that what happened during [Hurricane] Katrina in New Orleans, where Louisiana passed a law that prohibited the accumulation of guns, doesn't happen here," Tansey said.

In the aftermath of the deadly storm, the City of New Orleans confiscated more than 500 legally-owned guns in what officials said was an effort to maintain order in the decimated city. The move sparked outrage among gun owners, an NRA law suit and prompted several states -- including Delaware -- to outlaw such seizures going forward.

I don't remember anything about a Katrina-aftermath-era Louisiana law prohibiting the accumulation of guns (although I suppose there might have been one), but who can forget chilling scenes like this?



Delaware, although home to James and Sarah Brady, passed a law against such seizures, in the wake of the backlash against New Orleans Mayor Nagin's and Police Superintendent Riley's assault on the Bill of Rights, but New Castle County is apparently a bit slow to catch up.

Unfortunately, I don't think some County officials quite "get it."

According to Dave Carpenter Jr., who heads the county's Office of Emergency Management, state law does clearly prohibit such a move. And while he acknowledged his office was working to update language in the county code to more accurately reflect the state's, he had some concerns about Tansey's proposal.

"My fear is this might open the door for people to think they have a little more freedom during those times than at other times," he said.

Carpenter said his agency would never go door-to-door and ask people to turn in their guns -- they'd be stopped by county attorneys even if they tried -- but said law enforcement officials do have a responsibility to make sure people aren't stockpiling.

"There's nothing that restricts you from keeping your current assets, but I think there would be an effort to try to prevent people from accumulating weapons or building up an arsenal," he said.

For one thing, this isn't about people "think[ing] that they have a little more freedom during those times than at other times"--people can "stockpile" guns at any time, just as they are free to stockpile other life-saving items, like long shelf-life foods, first-aid kits, drinking water, etc.

For another, Dave, just how do you intend to stop them?

Are opponents of Amtrak gun bill supporting terrorism?

Much more likely, and more terrifying, is the possibility of explosives being smuggled onto the train, to be remotely detonated, as happened in Madrid, Spain in 2004; or simply triggered by suicidal fanatics eager for martyrdom and the 72 virgins dating service. Recent events--in Denver/New York, Springfield (IL), and Dallas--would seem to indicate that explosives are still the preferred weapon of choice for terrorists. As I mentioned last week, Mayor Bloomberg himself has noted that security on Amtrak is not exactly air-tight:

Bloomberg said that the Amtrak security was already pretty lax, and if the new bill passes, there wouldn’t be anything keeping someone from carrying multiple assault weapons in their baggage.

"Pretty lax" security, it seems to me, is pretty unlikely to prevent explosives from being smuggled on-board. Therefore, it would seem to me that improving the screening of luggage would be a very prudent measure. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

'Look like' an 'assault weapon'?

Oleg Volk photo

At long last, I am going to make an effort to get back to posting more than just blurbs for my St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner columns.

Today's topic was inspired by this article about a 10-year-old boy who attempted to shoplift an "assault weapon" kit from a gun store.

Iowa City police say a 10-year-old boy who tried to steal a kit that makes a rifle look like an assault rifle may have thought he was stealing an actual gun.

[ . . . ]

The conversion kit includes a bayonet but no gun. Buyers use the kits to make ordinary rifles look like assault weapons.

The focus of the article, clearly, is on the young age of the aspiring master criminal, and the fact that he supposedly believed he was stealing an entire gun, rather than parts to modify one.

My focus, though, is elsewhere. I cannot help but note that the article says--twice--that the kit was designed to make a rifle look like an "assault weapon" (a term the article incorrectly uses interchangeably with assault rifle).

That, of course, is simply another piece of proof (as if one were needed) of journalistic ignorance about firearms. So-called "assault weapons" are defined by cosmetic features, rather than mechanical ones. I don't know the details of the kit, beyond the fact that it included a bayonet, but it presumably also included a folding stock with a pistol grip, and/or a flash-hider, etc. A semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifle equipped with two or more of those things would not merely look like a so-called "assault weapon," it would become what was once defined as one.

Coming out and saying that, though, would perhaps make it too obvious that what distinguishes a politically correct rifle from an "assault weapon" is merely a few simple accessories, thus making bans too obviously ridiculous.

Perhaps the article's wording was not based on ignorance after all, and was instead a deliberate distortion.

What happens when the 'hate group' is government sponsored?

And finally to the title of today's column, and the photograph. If we are to sic the government on the "voices of hate," what are we to do when those voices are commissioned by the government?

A blogger who once kept tabs on extremist groups as a paid informant for the FBI was ordered held without bail today while awaiting trial on charges that he threatened the lives of three federal judges.

The blogger in question is rabidly anti-semitic Harold "Hal" Turner, who is charged with threatening the lives of three federal judges, after writing on his blog that they "deserved to be killed" for denying incorporation of the Second Amendment in a case in Illinois. The FBI acknowledges that they have, in the past, employed him as a paid informant and agent provocateur. Although that relationship was apparently not in effect at the time of his articulating his wish for the death of the federal judges, that was exactly the kind of thing he was expected to say when on the FBI payroll.

What I cannot help but wonder is what those clamoring for "justice" against the "hate speakers" would suggest we do when the "hate speech" came at the government's behest. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column (better late than never). Please give it a look.

Gun rights are for everyone

I knew that all this rather . . . peculiar attention in one day could not be a coincidence, and with a bit of looking around, confirmed my suspicion that my "Hate group" article had been linked to by some nutball "white power" website (to which I will not provide a link).

Apparently, back in July, I failed to make something clear, and for that I sincerely apologize. Today, let me correct that lapse. Bigots, I am not on your side. I flatter myself with the notion that I stand (well, sit, in my case) with Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, with Pastor Kenn Blanchard, with the Pink Pistols. My heroes include the Deacons for Defense and Justice, and if the opportunity ever presented itself, I would joyfully perform messy bodily functions on the grave of William Luther Pierce. You, bigots, are at least as good a reason as the potential of an out of control government for the good citizens of this nation to arm and train themselves. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

Illinois Nazis.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

A runaway Amtrak of anti-gun hysteria

Perhaps Bloomberg's (and U.S. Representative "What's a barrel shroud" McCarthy's, and NYC Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly's) objection to guns locked up on trains is a New York thing--a New York Times editorial is positively incandescent with indignation, with the hysterical rhetoric starting before one gets past the title: "The Senate Brandishes a Gun at Amtrak." The quality of the commentary goes, amazingly, downhill from there.

The Brady Campaign denies being anti-gun, and to their (small amount of) credit, are refraining from joining in the howls of outrage from those who do not even bother to deny their hatred of privately owned firearms. Perhaps they would like to burnish their "not anti-gun" credentials, with an effort to convince Mayor Bloomberg and friends that terrorists have nothing to gain from this modest measure. I won't hold my breath. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you find it worth your time.

Gun sales up; crime down

Before writing this column, I had considered borrowing John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" title, but actually, my point is somewhat different from his. I am not trying to claim that crime is reduced by more widespread firearm ownership. I acknowledge the possibility, and the obvious fact that Lott has done a far more thorough and rigorous study of the numbers than I ever will, but I personally have some doubts that violent crime numbers bear much relation at all to firearm ownership numbers. There can be little doubt that violent crime has trended steadily down for the last couple decades, while the number of privately owned firearms has increased by millions per year over the same time period--if there is any such relationship, it is clearly in the direction argued by Lott.

In the end, though, I argue that the numbers are beside the point--that point being that self-defense is a human right. Inevitably, some will use the most effective self-defense tools (firearms) for aggression, rather than self-defense. I claim that their abuse of their rights has zero bearing on whether or not anyone else's rights should be recognized. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you find it worth a read.

Do supporters of restrictive gun laws sanction the rape of the handicapped?

The rape of a handicapped man is, of course, just one example of the strong preying on the weak: an adult abusing a child, a large, strong man assaulting a smaller, generally physically weaker woman, and a gang attacking an individual are a few others. I chose to write about this today because of the incident's personal relevance to my situation.

The above story is short on details, but one assumption I feel rather safe in making is that the victim was unarmed--even the sickest of perverts tend to prioritize their deviant sexual pleasure (and the joy of imposing their dominance over others) rather a long way below their personal survival. [More]

After all this time, I've finally posted another St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. Sorry for the long silence--been having some issues that have made use of the computer nearly impossible. Those issues have not entirely resolved themselves, and I don't know how much posting I'll be doing in the near future (today's effort was pretty taxing), but I'm chomping at the bit to get back in the swing of things.

The Brady Campaign to create 'gun crime'

Henigan succinctly explains what the "gun control" lobby's approach is to more "gun crime"--more gun laws! With the new gun laws, we have yet more "gun criminals," and thus more "gun crime," so the "good first step" (the most recent "first step") must be followed up by a second step (but they won't call it that). And so on ad infinitum.

I've written before about "What the Brady Campaign really wants." The above is how I believe they intend to get there, and I fear that the Supreme Court's Heller decision will prove to be a rather small speed bump in their road, at best. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I think it's better than a lot of my recent material.

The continued retreat from the '90%' claim regarding U.S. guns in Mexico

The claim that "90% of the guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States" has been thoroughly debunked (I talked about it here, for example). I have also discussed, here and here, various sources of drug cartel weapons that the forcible citizen disarmament lobby would prefer not to talk about.

The "90%" claim has, in fact, been so thoroughly discredited that even those who tried to make political hay of it have been forced to back away from it. Here's Brady Campaign president Paul Helmke:

Rather than argue about percentages, let's focus on the fact that 20,000 trafficked guns from America have ended up at Mexican crime scenes.

[More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. I know it looks like I ripped of Days of Our Trailers--and I did get some ideas there, but that's what I was planning to write about even before I saw his piece.

You, too, can be part of a 'hate group'

"While the amendment seeks to keep gang members and members of violent groups out of the military, the amendment by its language is much more broad. Specifically, it confers upon the Attorney General the ability to categorize groups as hate groups, and this sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as "extremists," warned Franks.

"I take extreme offense that the federal government -- through a report issued under the authority of a Cabinet-level official -- would dare to categorize people who are "dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition or abortion or immigration" as "right-wing extremists" and it begs the question of whether the Attorney General, under Mr. Hastings' Amendment, can look to the Napolitano report to decide who is an extremist, or can make the same categorization of the majority of Americans as extremists who may then be kept from joining the military, or who may be discharged," said Rep. Franks. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.

California 'assault weapon' ban not oppressive enough?

I especially like the last sentence--let's look at it again: "The round (it fires) is the same and the mechanism is the same," he said. "It's basically the same thing." That's exactly what we have been saying all along about faux "assault weapons"--they're functionally no different from guns that (supposedly) no one is trying to ban. Now the other side is saying it, and it's not hard to see where they're going with that--banning the heretofore legal guns, as well. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.

Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty

Oddly, though, the Brady Campaign itself not so long ago trumpeted that Obama's election heralded an era of much more restrictive gun laws (see "We Win, They lose. Now, Let's Get To Work," or "Barack Obama: I Am Not In Favor Of Concealed Weapons"). Weren't they "adding fuel to this toxic mix," with their "incendiary rhetoric"?

So, as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our free nation, the Brady Campaign continues its relentless lobbying for banning private sales of firearms, rationing the right to buy them, banning useful and hugely popular semi-automatic rifles, and giving the BATFE more money and power with which to abuse gun owners. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Happy Independence Day, everyone.

Minors, the Second Amendment, and incorporation

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Forget the U.S. Supreme Court, and what it may, or may not, rule, if it rules one way or another on incorporation anytime soon. We're still left with the fact that 9th Circuit precedent now holds that the Second Amendment applies to the states, and thus the Second Amendment is at play here (not to mention, as Mr. Reitz points out in his Supreme Court of Washington blog, that Washington's state constitution has its own explicity protection of the right to keep and bear arms).

The question thus becomes one of whether or not the Second Amendment protects a minor's possession of a firearm. Readers might guess that I'll have difficulty finding a way of reconciling shall not be infringed with a lack of protection for such a right. Those readers would be correct. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope it's worth your time.

Brady Campaign acknowledges proposed gun laws violate due process; doesn't care

That the Brady Campaign endorses legislation like United States Representative Peter King's (R-NY) H.R. 2159, the "Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act," and Senator Frank Lautenberg's (D-NJ) S. 1317 (H.R. 2159's Senate counterpart) is hardly surprising. These bills are, after all, draconian infringements on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, and as such, are what organizations like the Brady Campaign exist for.

[ . . . ]

What surprises me, though, is that Brady Campaign Vice President (and ostensible Constitutional law expert) Dennis Henigan acknowledges that people guilty of nothing will be swept up in such nets, and says that doesn't matter. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner--hope you like.

By the way, Days of Our Trailers has a good piece along the same lines--consider yourself as having been given your assigned reading.

Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence presumes to tell people how to worship

What struck me about that press release was not the over-the-top emotionalism of the rhetoric, which is, after all, fairly typical for citizen disarmament propaganda. No, what floored me was the arrogance inherent to telling people that they're worshipping "wrongly," and that their church service is "immoral."

It seems that along with the right to keep and bear arms, even freedom of religion offends OCAGV. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Area gun range fights for survival

That, I believe, is a significant part of the motivation for this kind of harassment. Resistance to legislative attacks on gun rights is still such that such attacks have a long road to hoe. The gun haters can be patient, though, and plan for years in the future. Shut down enough gun ranges, and there will eventually be fewer and fewer peaceable practicioners of responsible gun ownership. Eventually, the numbers will be so few that the gun banning legislative agenda will meet no effective resistance.

That's the goal. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

New Jersey to implement rationing of rights

Unless I'm missing a state or two somewhere, that makes New Jersey the fourth to pass this kind of law (or fifth, if you count South Carolina, which repealed its version of the law in 2004, after finding it to be ineffective at reducing violent crime). The others that still have such a law are California (no surprise there, with it's Brady Campaign Number One Tyranny Rating), Maryland (again, no surprise, with Maryland ranking almost as "high" as California), and Virginia. The fact that Virginia is one of only three (soon to be four) states with such a law is probably a surprise to some. Virginia, after all, is blamed for having "lax gun laws" that contribute toward it being part of the so-called "Iron Pipeline" of guns that end up illegally in places like New York City. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner.

By the way, I know that lately, the blog has had little aside from blurbs advertising my GRE columns. That's not a long term situation--I've just been a bit too busy for both lately. I expect to get back to writing original material here very soon.

'Gun free' Chicago is bleeding out

Ten to fifteen shootings and stabbings every night, at one hospital? Baghdad might be safer than that.

This is the city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. All guns must be registered--and re-registered annually--with the Chicago Police Department. The vast majority of semi-automatic firearms, and all handguns, are "unregisterable" (and thus illegal), unless they were already registered in 1982 (and every year since then).

And yet the city is bleeding to death. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner looks at the irony of hospitals in America's most "gun free" (according to the law) city being unable to keep enough blood on hand to treat victims of violence. Please give it a look.

Restrictive gun laws violate civil rights

That essay was written by Temple University Law Professor David Kairys, who, interestingly enough, specializes in civil rights law, and is known for fighting racial discrimination.

He is, presumably, an educated man, and an opponent of racial prejudice. Why, then, is he in favor of policies that have the goal of disproportionately disarming the very people whose rights he supposedly champions?

Sounds like someone who needs to watch "No Guns for Negroes." Perhaps I'll buy him a copy. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

I wonder if he says 'of the people' in the book

The Brady Campaign is busily pushing Brady Bunch Vice President for Law and Policy Dennis Henigan's new book, "Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy."

June 26 is the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s DC v. Heller decision. It is also the official publication date of an important new book by a tireless crusader in the fight against gun violence in America.

The author, Dennis Henigan, has long been one of the nation’s most prominent advocates for stronger gun laws, appearing dozens of times on national television shows, including 60 Minutes, The Today Show, Nightline, Larry King Live, and Dateline NBC. Henigan founded the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project twenty years ago to represent gun violence victims in lawsuits against the gun industry and his legal team has recovered millions of dollars in damages for victims against gun manufacturers and sellers.

As far as I'm concerned, what is most notable about Henigan is his . . . creative editing of the Second Amendment:



Yeah--that's the guy I trust to give me the straight story about gun laws.

The Brady Bunch press release announcing the book quotes a few parts, including some wisdom from that famous sage, Ozzy Osbourne:

“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Henigan counters with Ozzy Osbourn’s [sic] take on that: “If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?”

Perhaps someone should ask Ozzy the reverse question--if guns do kill, and people don't, why send the people, rather than just the guns?

Another bit of Henigan's "debunking":

“But what you really want [is to ban all guns.]” Henigan explains that for the gun lobby, “the gun debate needs to be a debate about banning all guns. The slippery slope argument is the NRA’s primary means of achieving this goal.”

Note that Henigan doesn't actually refute the slippery slope argument, he just claims that the entire logical basis for fighting restrictive gun laws depends on it (notice that every time a restrictive gun law passes, the citizen disarmament advocates call it a "good first step"?). Actually, of course, that's not even remotely true, either. If I thought there were no slippery slope, I would fight against all gun laws, because they're all unconstitutional, immoral, and utterly incapable of serving their stated purpose of stopping violence.

Henigan has to be one of the most unqualified people I can think of for talking about either gun policy or "logic."

VPC inadvertently exposes myth of gun control as 'public safety'

Never mind that, though, my point is that Sugarmann claims that all the gun laws on the books are apparently not "safety measures."

Yet these are sales standards, not product safety standards.

Now wait a second--you mean those tens of thousands of gun laws aren't about safety? I agree, of course, but I didn't expect the forcible citizen disarmament cheerleaders to come out and admit it. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

So much for me being back on schedule--I'm many hours behind, and working frantically to catch up.

Gun rights advocacy not responsible for killings

Crazy, violent, evil people do crazy, violent, evil things, with or without hearing "extemist rhetoric." All three of the perpetrators of the above mentioned murders had some rather serious issues that had nothing to do with anything they heard from Bill O'Reilly or the NRA. Now, the Bob Herberts of the world are trying to claim that simply issuing warnings about impending attempts to attack that right that shall not be infringed is immoral and irresponsible.

That sounds kinda familiar. Perhaps we should call him "Supreme Leader Herbert." [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

My new computer is here, my week from hell is over (just don't even ask), and I expect to be back on my regular schedule now.

When gun bans are not enough--the war on . . . pocket knives?

By the way, a discussion of the illegality of switchblades in the first place, and how to reconcile such a ban with shall not be infringed, is beyond the scope of this article, but it's a discussion worth having.

I realize that this is not the "St. Louis Knife Rights Examiner," but consider what a rule change banning 80% of the folding knives currently on the market implies about what the federal government will do with regard to guns. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. If they can do it to knives, they can do it to guns. Please give it a look.

DHS 'right-wing extemist' report--outrageous before Holocaust Museum shooting, and still outrageous afterward

As David Codrea discusses today, the statists have wasted little time in pointing to the Holocaust Museum shooter as vindication of the now infamous Department of Homeland Security "right-wing extremist" report.

"Does Holocaust Shooting Validate Homeland Security Report?" asks Ed O'Keefe in The Washington Post.

We talked about that report here. Now, with an almost "I told you so" glee, outlets like Politico are propagating a meme:

“I think this latest round of killing once again shows how ridiculous the criticism from the right of the Department of Homeland Security report was. That whole brouhaha was absurd,” said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center...

“We felt the DHS report was pretty right on,” said Deborah Lauter of the Anti-Defamation League.

The Holocaust Museum shooter was a dyed in the wool, hate mongering bigot (as well as a federal felon).

The DHS report, on the other hand, while it mentioned genuine threats, such as neo-nazi vermin like Von Brunn, cast a much wider net than that--including military veterans, gun rights advocates, and advocates of secure borders. The report, in other words, equated devotees of the Constitution with self-proclaimed "race warriors."

The conclusion that can be drawn from this atrocity is the futility of trying to stop violence with more gun laws. Von Brunn, being a federal felon, committed another felony by mere virtue of possessing a gun. Even without such a prohibition, carrying a rifle into a Washington D.C. museum would very definitely be illegal.

Evil people commit evil acts, have done so since long before the invention of firearms, and will no doubt continue to do so for as long as humanity exists. For such people, there are few sure cures. Here's one (photo courtesy of Oleg Volk):

Self-defense, the UN, and the 2nd Amendment

Both Congress and the Obama administration have appeared, so far, to be in headlong retreat from the kinds of citizen disarmament laws they have made clear they would dearly love to pass, supposedly in deference to political realities that for the moment, make such attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms too difficult. Groups like the Brady Campaign are growing increasingly strident about that.

With Obama's vocal support for CIFTA, though, I cannot help but wonder if that "retreat" is merely a feint--perhaps the real goal is an international end run around the Second Amendment--and possibly, self-defense itself. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and tell a friend.

Helmke's growing discontent with the Obama administration

I've written a lot (One hundred days in: citizen disarmament lobby is getting restless, Brady Campaign rhetoric then and now: what a difference six months makes, and More disappointment for the Brady Campaign) about the Brady Campaign's growing impatience with the Obama administration's reticence, so far, with regard to the radical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament favored by the Brady Bunch. I'm starting to think it's becoming quite a sore point with Mr. Helmke, because last week, he expressed his disappointment in, and impatience with, the Obama administration yet again.

Yes, the president has a lot on his plate. Yet not only did then-Senator Obama contemplate this heavy workload, he campaigned for it. As a presidential candidate, he famously said last September, "It's going to be part of the president's job to be able to deal with more than one thing at once."

Keeping this in mind, there is an immediate economic and public health crisis in America that, so far, both the president and Congress have chosen to ignore: approximately 12,000 gun homicides, 17,000 gun suicides, 650 accidental gun deaths, plus 70,000 non-fatal gun injuries occur every year in this country.

Yet rather than propose concrete action that makes it harder for dangerous people to get firearms -- while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners -- all Washington can seem to muster after high-profile shootings are "thoughts and prayers" for the victims and their families.

For his part, the president has also included sincere expressions of "deep sadness" at these tragic losses -- though without any call to change any of our policies to prevent those losses.

Paul then goes on to list several tragic shootings that had a high enough profile to warrant public statements from Obama (statements that clearly did not go far enough, in Helmke's view).

Interestingly, one of the incidents Helmke mentioned was the tragedy at Camp Victory, Iraq, in which an unhinged soldier suddenly turned his gun on eight fellow soldiers (killing five), before being taken into custody (Helmke erroneously states that the killer then committed suicide--he did not).

As with the other shootings about which Obama expressed sadness, Helmke claims that "being 'deeply saddened' at gun violence is not enough"--that Obama should join the Brady Campaign in attempting to exploit these murders in furtherance of the agenda to disarm people who have not killed anyone. So what does Helmke want--soldiers to be disarmed?

Anyway, back to Helmke:

Yet up to now, President Obama has been unwilling to do much more than express his deep sadness and send his thoughts and prayers to victims and their families in response to shooting after shooting in this country, repeating gun lobby rhetoric that we should just "enforce the laws on the books," and sidestepping the fact that there are only a handful of Federal laws which make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

He has yet to offer even a hint of his commitment after the Northern Illinois killings "to do whatever it takes" to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

I have little doubt that the Obama administration will eventually show it's true colors, and make a concerted effort to pass more draconian gun laws. In the meantime, though, it's fun as hell to observe the increasing stridency of Helmke and friends.

Celebrating gun rights in the enemy's back yard

This year's speaker should be no less compelling. Attendees will hear Ralph W. Conner, a long-time civil rights activist with the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). If readers seem to remember having seen that name recently, it was probably in National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea's announcement of the superb "No Guns for Negroes" DVD, made and released by Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), and which featured Mr. Conner. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Sorry to have dropped off the net for the past week. I'm not sure how regularly I'll be posting for a little bit longer. My computer problems are still some way from being resolved, and now I have some health issues, as well--nothing serious, or long-term, I hope, but very inconvenient. I just started antibiotic pills the approximate size of a 230 grain .45 ACP--hopefully they'll be as effective on my bug as Sgt. York's .45 slugs were on the Kaiser's men.

Computer issues--light posting ahead

I might be a bit quieter than usual for a bit--computers have suddenly decided they hate me (and I'm starting to hate 'em back). Anyway--have some electronic things to sort out--didn't want anyone to think I'm in some BATFE gulag (yet).

Vote to override TN self-defense in restaurants veto expected today

The Tennessee House, and possibly the Senate, are expected to vote today on whether or not to override Governor Phil Bredersen's override of a bill that would end mandated defenselessness in restaurants that serve alcohol. The Memphis Commercial-Appeal editorial staff is busily soiling their panties over the expected override.

The Tennessee House is expected to vote today on an effort to override Gov. Phil Bredesen's veto of a bill allowing handgun carry permit holders to carry guns into restaurants where alcohol is served.

It is the first of two opportunities Tennesseeans will have to register their concerns about efforts by members of the General Assembly to loosen the strings on where permit holders can bear arms. Senate supporters also will mount an override effort.

Never mind that the bill would change nothing about the legality of drinking while carrying a firearm, never mind that bars and restaurants will still be able to prohibit carrying firearms (if doing so makes them "feel safe"), and never mind that Bredersen promised to sign such a bill, in order to gain the NRA's support.

Given the fact that in Tennessee, only a simple majority in each chamber is required to override a veto, chances are good that the override vote will succeed, especially given the amount of support the bill received in the initial votes (70-26 66-23--sorry, had some bad information--in the House, and 26-7 in the Senate--well over the 50 House votes and 17 Senate votes necessary for an override).

The Tennessee General Assembly seems eager and poised to make Tennessee a more dangerous place

Ah--if only Tennessee legislators understood the "safety" inherent to defenselessness.

Update: House override vote successful--actually picking up three votes. On to the Senate.

Update II: The Senate vote is apparently expected tomorrow.

The Tiller murder, and the fragility of liberty

Got that? One murder, committed by one nut who, apparently, was acting alone, is being cited as justification to subject literally millions of Americans to heightened scrutiny as potential "terrorists."

I have no interest in entering the abortion debate, and I have no objection to portraying Dr. Tiller's murder as being as heinous as any other murder. That's not what this is about. What it is about is the attempt to exploit the evil act of one man as justification to chill the freedoms of people who have committed no crimes. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look.

Some may have noticed that I'm posting later in the day than is my usual habit. The reason for that is the death of the computer I generally did this on. While I wait for its replacement (which might be another few weeks), I have to make do with a less than satisfactory ad-hoc arrangement.

Why didn't I think of this?

A bit of a departure for me--this has less to do with gun rights than with gun . . . stuff that I find interesting.

Enter the Blanklock Muzzleloader Firing System:

I developed the blanklock device primarily as an alternative means to fire a muzzleloading firearm. The use of a blank cartridge replaces both the primer (percussion cap or primer) and the gunpowder. The blank cartridges (or power loads) to use are commonly available at hardware stores for use in power actuated nail guns. This system is ideal for light hunting, target practice, and firearms training, especially where low recoil and low report, and clean operation is desired. It can also be used to remove a stuck projectile from the bore when other methods fail to do so.

For use in re-enacting, stage or screen play use, a blank is used without any projectile in the bore. The loudness of the report can be adjusted by selecting whatever power level blank is desired. Level one is the lowest and level four is the highest commonly available in .22 caliber. Sometimes fives can be found. Velocity performance depends on factors such as caliber and bore length of the gun used as well as power load level and the weight of the projectile. Chronograph results on average using round ball and level 5 blanks are as follows; .50 caliber- 650 fps. .45 caliber- 900 fps. .32 caliber- 1400 fps

This unit is designed to fit many right hand side hammer muzzleloading guns with the drum & nipple breach. Do not use this unit on the left side of a barrel; the vent will not be in alignment with the bore. For some this is a Do-it-yourself project. Others may wish to use the services of a competent gunsmith. A gun with the bolster type breach can be used, but requires machine shop work to mill off the side of the bolster and drill and tap for the blanklock device. The thread size is 10 X 1.25 MM. The drum & nipple type guns are a lot easier to convert to blank operation. Among the brands of available guns that will work include CVA, Traditions, and Jukar all of which use the 10X 1.25 MM thread size.

For the time being the use of the blanklock system is with the blank as the sole propellant that is without any added gunpowder. The pressure ratings of barrels by different manufacturers will vary according to metallurgy, production methods, barrel dimensions and caliber. Pressure and strain tests need to be done before the use of black powder or appropriate substitute will be deemed safe. If the gun is to be used anyway with black powder or black powder substitute then use only level one power loads. Those who must experiment should use good sense and go easy.

Pretty clever. Click on the above link for the full description, with pics, and ordering information.

Actually, there are gun rights implications for this. By federal law, and in many states, black powder muzzleloaders can be bought and sold without any legal hoops to jump through, as can the blanks and bullets (with a bullet mold, a casting furnace, and some lead wheel weights, you could make also make your own bullets). Something for us "right-wing extremists" to keep in mind, especially if petty tyrants like Rep. Peter King ("R"-NY) get their way.

Not an ideal arm for defending liberty, but beats the hell out of a pointy stick.

Record numbers of Missourians preparing for armed self-defense

It's a jungle out there, and likely to become yet more savage before it gets better. Armed citizens, though, have an exemption to the survival of the fittest rule that generally reigns supreme in nature. Armed, trained, and determined citizens can prevail against predators who are larger, younger, stronger, and more merciless than they are.

They can, and they must. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope to see you there.

If the Brady Bunch supports Sotomayor, America should not

I saw today, without surprise, that the Brady Campaign is happy about the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination.

The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court appears to be a positive one for those committed to reducing gun violence in this country. Judge Sotomayor’s legal opinions have shown a strong respect for precedent in upholding federal and state gun laws, while her background and experience promise to bring a real world, personal understanding of the effects of gun violence that will be welcome on our nation’s highest Court.

Hmm--"a real world, personal understanding of the effects of gun violence"--I guess that's the kind of "empathy" that now apparently trumps adherence to the Constitution.

Respect for precedent and understanding the importance of strong gun laws in the real world will be especially
important . . .

In two consecutive sentences, Helmke praises Sotomayor's "respect for precedent." No mention of the merest possibility that the "precedent" might be wrong--if a draconian gun law has been upheld in the past, it should always be upheld. Hey--speaking of precedent, there seems to be vastly more precedent for tossing lawsuits against gun manufacturers out of court, for lack of merit, than there is for allowing such suits to proceed. Don't you just love precedent, Paul?

He must, because he brings it up again, to start the next paragraph.

As a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor has shown a respect for precedent that has narrowly interpreted the Second Amendment . . .

Ah yes--"respect for [the] precedent" of counting 10% of the Bill of Rights as largely meaningless.

. . . a far contrast to the activist majority in the Heller case, which sidestepped seventy year old precedent in finding a new individual right to have handguns in the home.

Now wait a second, Paul--I thought you liked the Heller decision.

Now that the Court has struck down the District's ban on handguns, while making it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to dangerous weapons, this 'slippery slope' argument is gone.

And . . .

The "slippery slope," however, is now gone. The U.S. Supreme Court took it off the table Thursday in their D.C. v. Heller opinion. Government is now barred from "taking away" the guns of law-abiding Americans.

Because of this Court decision, proposals such as Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, restricting access to military-style assault weapons, and strengthening the power of law enforcement to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without them being seen as a "first step on the road to gun confiscation."

While the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District's ban on handguns, they also made it clear that the Constitution allows for reasonable restrictions on access to firearms. As Justice Scalia said, "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." When the dust settles, most Americans -- and I believe even most in the gun violence prevention movement -- will come to see that there are some positives in this decision.

Elected officials will no longer be able to use a mistaken, absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment as an excuse to do nothing about gun violence in our country. Politicians can't hide behind the Second Amendment anymore.

And . . .

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, it's been my hope that it might be easier to find some common ground on steps to help reduce gun violence in this country now that the extremes of the gun control debate (gun confiscation on the one hand and the absolutist "any person, any place, any gun" on the other hand) have been rejected by the Court.

Make up your mind, Paul.

Defense Secretary Gates proposes getting 'tough' if diplomacy fails--gun owners way ahead of him

Granted, much of "The Great American Rearming," undoubtedly, is simply preemptive--a response to concerns that these items may soon become difficult, if not impossible, to acquire, and to have a supply on hand in preparation for that eventuality.

Some of it, though, is a manifestation of people preparing for the possibility of having to use that lifesaving, liberty-preserving firepower--of having to use the Second Amendment for its real purpose. In other words, American gun owners have been "getting tough," as Defense Secretary Gates would put it, for over six months, and the reason for doing so is pretty much the same as in Korea--it's the prudent response to a serious threat. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope you like it.

I've decided to discontinue my old practice of providing links to all my fellow GREs here. Doing so saves some time and effort, and I still provide the links over at my GRE page--which is where I'm trying to get y'all to go, anyway.