Ooh--Mayor Alvin Parks isn't going to like that

Saturday, I wrote about the violent crime in East St. Louis, IL, and the fact that Mayor Alvin Parks doesn't want citizens getting uppity, and thinking that the Constitution protects their right to, well . . . defend their lives (my emphasis added).

Parks gave a reminder that Illinois does not allow concealed carrying of guns.

"You have the right to bear arms, but you have the right to bear them within your home, not on the streets, not in your cars, not inside stores," Parks said.

Today, we find that someone was apparently not listening:

Illinois State Police are investigating an attempted robbery that ended when an employee shot and killed one of the robbers.

The shooting happened around 4 a.m. Thursday at the Quality Food Mart store at 1032 Bond Ave. in East St. Louis. According to police, several armed men entered the store and attempted to rob it, but the store clerk pulled a gun and shot one of the men in the chest. He died at the scene.

It gets a bit confusing, because the article is titled "East St. Louis store owner kills robber," but then the body of the article says the chlorine was added to the gene pool by the actions of an employee.

Granted, either way, even Illinois law would permit the owner to have a gun in the store, and/or to allow employees to do so (assuming the owner/employee had a valid FOID card, and complied with all the other Illinois bureaucratic hoops), and Mayor Parks may well have meant to deny the right to bear arms "inside stores" only to customers, rather than owners/employees.

Still, are customers' lives somehow less valuable? Something to think about before doing business in Illinois.

Update: We get a little more info here:

Illinois State Police Lt. James Morrisey told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch the shooting victim, whose identity was not released, was one of four suspected robbers who broke into a secure convenience store.

Someone apparently defines "victim" differently from how I do so--I'd call him the dead (and unmourned) would-be robber. We apparently also have different ideas about what constitutes "secure"--the meaning here, apparently, is that after 11 pm, the door is locked, and transactions are conducted through a small window--but that "security" didn't last long, because the thugs simply broke in. The only real security was provided (possibly illegally?) by the armed clerk.

Morrisey said the 21-year-old store clerk, whose identity was not released, reacted to the attempted robbery by producing a pistol he carries for protection.

Hmm . . . if that's not simply sloppy wording, then the clerk could be in trouble, because carrying a pistol for protection is illegal in Illinois (can't go around letting people protect themselves, can we?), and that's exactly the kind of thing Mayor Alvin says we can't do.

The Brady Campaign to be like Mike

For readers who need some more reason not to surrender that privacy, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) has assembled some information pointing alarmingly to the conclusion that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is correlating all the trace data into a de facto (and illegal) gun registry.

When we allow the government to know where all the guns are, we have voluntarily chained ourselves. We're better than that. [More]

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

Maersk Alabama attacked again--pirates sent running

Even with our society's notoriously short attention span, one would hope that not many have forgotten the hijacking, by Somali pirates, of the Maersk Alabama last April. In that hijacking, you will remember, Captain Richard Phillips was taken hostage, and held for several days--until a SEAL team rescued him, killing all but one of the pirates in the process. A happy ending, certainly, but one reached only after a great deal of danger and discomfort. It certainly would have been nice if there had just been some way to stop the attack right from the beginning.

Sure, that would be great, but what would that idea be?

Well, the Maersk Alabama was recently attacked again, and as it turns out, someone has apparently thought of a good way to stop a pirate attack in its tracks--because that's what happened this time.

The MV Maersk Alabama has thwarted another attack by Somali pirates, according to European Union and U.S. Navy officials.
American-crewed container ship Maersk Alabama is hijacked by Somali pirates

"Pirates fired automatic weapons on MV Maersk Alabama who responded with fire," said an EU Naval Command Statement, "The crew managed to repel the attack and no casualties were reported."

Oh . . . so that's what worked--having armed good guys on board, to shoot back. Now why didn't I think of that?

Granted, the citizen disarmament advocates will doubtless seize on the fact that the armed good guys were dedicated security types, rather than "just" sailors with guns. And we know of course, that effective armed security can only be provided by the "Only Ones" professional enough (like Lee Paige) to carry weapons.

The thing is, sometimes the "Only Ones" aren't all that much more professional than everyone else (and sometimes notably less so), and paying a full time security team (and feeding them, and housing them, etc.), who will spend the vast majority of their time battling their greatest enemy--boredom--is an expense I doubt many shipping companies will take on.

An armed crew would not have to be trained to SEAL standards (or anywhere near them)--they would need only be good enough with a rifle to make attacking ships too dangerous to be an attractive career choice for the young worthies of Somalia.

The message behind increased gun sales

You want the short version of the message, Josh?

Step away from oppressive gun laws; acknowledge that when the government ignores the Constitution, that government abandons any claim to the citizens' loyalty, and resistance to said government can no longer be characterized as treason; know that we will not disarm.

That's the message, Josh, and if you're a good deal wiser than I think you are, you will help disseminate it, because if that message is ignored . . . [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, and it's not very "pragmatic."

That was kinda the idea, for those who might have been wondering.

The Brady Campaign to hide the truth is failing

Anyone who has been following Armed and Safe for any length of time is probably aware that one of my favorite projects is exposing the Brady Campaign's lies. One of the best examples of those lies comes in a video segment they shot of Dennis Henigan, their Vice President for Law and Policy.

This was right after Shelly Parker won her case in the D.C. Court of Appeals (in the case that eventually went on to become the District of Columbia v. Heller case). At that time, the Brady Campaign was still desperately clinging to their now badly discredited "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. So desperate were they, in fact, that when reciting the Second Amendment in the video clip, Henigan simply omitted the "of the people" part--realizing, apparently, that they can't claim a right of the people is not really . . . of the people.

The Brady Campaign must have thought no one would notice, because they proudly displayed the video on their website, and posted it to YouTube. Eventually, though, gun rights advocates noticed it--and we made some noise (I'd like to think I made a difference with my efforts on that front).

That's when the Brady Campaign realized they'd messed up, and decided to try to sweep this embarrassment under the rug. They pulled that page from their website (Gone!), and they pulled it off YouTube (Vanished!).

When I started posting it, they bullied the video hosting services with threats of copyright infringement action. That happened on YouTube, Photobucket (which also does video hosting), Metacafe, here on Blogspot, etc., despite the fact that this use would pretty clearly fall under "Fair Use" guidelines.

Last month, I tried posting just 15 seconds of audio, and even that was supposedly a violation of their "intellectual property."

Last week, I had another idea, and using Thirdpower's screen capture (I had one of my own, but stupidly saved it at a low resolution) of the Brady Campaign's now-removed webpage with the transcript of Henigan's little video, was still able to point out the breathtaking lack of integrity.

Still, nothing really hits home like the video, and I really wanted to be able to post that. Luckily, Shaun, at ICarry, had gotten hold of the video file, is always spoiling for a fight with groups like the Brady Bunch, likes keeping his lawyer busy, and has the ability to host his own videos.

So . . . voilà! Video hosted by ICarry.org

Just in case even Shaun gets pushed into taking it down, I suggest downloading the video while you can. Let's take this thing viral.

Update: Look who stopped by for a look! See anything interesting, Brady Bunch?
(Click to enlarge)

The right to keep and bear arms is not based on 'sporting purposes'

The fatal flaw, of course, with using the "sporting purpose" test to determine a gun's suitability for private ownership by the people, is that the Founding Fathers did not devote 10% of the Bill of Rights to the protection of sport. The forcible citizen disarmament lobby demonizes whatever is the "evil" gun du jour as being an "weapon of war," while utterly disregarding the fact that the Second Amendment is intended specifically to protect the citizenry's right to possess such arms.

I'll end with a line that I first saw attributed to the late Lt. Colonel Jeff Cooper, but have been unable to establish that it was actually he who said it. Regardless, it's a line worthy of him: [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, and yeah--I deliberately left ya' hanging, so you'd have to go to the GRE page to read the (maybe) Jeff Cooper quote. Sneaky, eh?

Illinois gun owners: be careful about whom you talk to

From the Illinois State Rifle Association:

WARNING TO ALL MEMBERS REGARDING
HOSPITALIZATION AND DOMESTIC DISPUTES

Recent Illinois Law (PA 95-0564) provides that health care professionals report patients to the state police anyone that they believe might pose a danger to themselves or others. ISRA has learned of situations where a party has been admitted to a hospital for stress, alcohol treatment, or other scenarios where part of the admission procedure included a short interview with a psychologist on staff. Questions asked, include gun ownership, and/or the Possession of a FOID card. Within a few weeks that individual receives a notice from the Illinois State Police revoking his or her FOID.

Obviously, when being interviewed by somebody in a hospital setting, ask if he or she is a psychiatrist or a psychologist, who you don’t have to communicate with. And, be sure what information you are willing to disclose to any interviewer. Of course, you should not lie, but a simple refusal to disclose gun ownership may be enough to avoid the problem.

If you think you may be in a situation where the justice system may become involved with restricting your ownership of firearms, such as when facing hospitalization, or in a domestic dispute, unless caught up in an emergency situation, be sure to have your firearms removed from the home as quickly as possible, in the care of a friend or family member who possesses a FOID, and who lives a good distance from your residence. Also, advise your spouse or other party who shares the home with you that you have done so. Most importantly, in any court setting, you will then be able to assure the Judge, that although you possess a FOID, you have removed all firearms from within the home.

These tips can save your firearms from being confiscated and/or your FOID being revoked. ISRA is working to solve these problems, both legislatively, and through litigation.

Looking over the relevant code, my impression is that FOID card denial/revocation is only supposed to happen if the determination is made that the patient is at risk of harming himself/herself and/or others.

(2) "Patient" shall include only: (i) a person who is
an in-patient or resident of any public or private hospital
or mental health facility or (ii) a person who is an
out-patient or provided services by a public or private
hospital or mental health facility whose mental condition
is of such a nature that it is manifested by violent,
suicidal, threatening, or assaultive behavior or reported
behavior, for which there is a reasonable belief by a
physician, clinical psychologist, or qualified examiner
that the condition poses a clear and present or imminent
danger to the patient, any other person or the community
meaning the patient's condition poses a clear and present
danger in accordance with subsection (f) of Section 8 of
the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. The terms
physician, clinical psychologist, and qualified examiner
are defined in Sections 1-120, 1-103, and 1-122 of the
Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code.

This is Illinois, though, where the state police (FOID card issuing authority) unilaterally pick an arbitrary minimum age for card issuance, despite no legislative authority to do so, where a veteran who seeks counseling for PTSD is denied the right to possess firearms, where voluntarily turning one's guns into the police for what was supposed to be temporary safekeeping gets them destroyed--so it can hardly be surprising that an egregiously overzealous and abusive interpretation of the law (a law that lends itself very handily to abuse) holds sway here.

The lesson here is that if you value your firearms, and your ability to legally possess them, do not seek mental health care in Illinois (isn't that a healthy consequence of Illinois law?), and if you do, refuse to answer any questions about guns.

The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

"Gun zealots," presumably, is Mr. Pennington's term for gun rights advocates. Fair enough--coming from a forcible citizen disarmament pusher, Pennington's opinion would not seem to be worth getting oneself worked up over. I do take exception to the last part, though. What hurts most is that many of the deaths at Ft. Hood were very likely preventable, by simply not stripping the troops of the tools of a soldier's trade. But to an idealogue like Pennington, his side's imagined "victory" is evidently more important than human life.

Pennington goes on to make a few more snide--and irrelevant--observations, such as the fact that Hasan had been issued a Virginia concealed carry permit in 1996, as if A) a '96 permit would still be valid, B) the permit would make any difference on an Army post (given the Clinton-era soldier disarmament edict), and C) a mass murderer would care whether or not carrying a firearm was permitted. [More]

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

Gitmo detainees coming to Illinois?

A couple weeks ago (on Halloween, actually), I wrote about plans in Illinois to release prison inmates early.

Now, there's apparently a proposal to bring Gitmo prisoners to an Illinois prison.

CHICAGO -- A White House official says the Obama administration is considering buying a northwestern Illinois prison to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, along with federal inmates.

The official says the federal Bureau of Prisons evaluated several state and federal facilities and the maximum-security Thomson Correctional Facility emerged as a leading option to house Guantanamo detainees.

The official spoke to The Associated Press Saturday on condition of anonymity because a decision has not been made.

The 1,600-cell Thomson facility, about 150 miles west of Chicago, was built by the state in 2001. Budget problems prevented it from ever fully opening, and it now houses about 200 minimum-security inmates.

I don't bring this up out of any particular concern--just found it interesting.

East St. Louis, IL mayor tells residents what their rights are

I live not far from East St. Louis, IL, and still would know nothing about finding my way around the place, because it's a place you just don't go if you have any choice (and I tend to make sure I have that choice). The reputation for violent crime got a recent "boost" (if that's the appropriate term for something like this) recently, when a man shot and killed three women in their car last Saturday, with their children in the back seat (the children were not physically harmed).

East St. Louis violent crime, in fact, has officials scrambling for solutions.

Several initiatives were discussed, including increased public housing security, the introduction of a gang-suppression unit and increased police sweeps to prevent other violent acts.

East St. Louis police are pulling resources from the federal government as well as the local level, including the Illinois State Police, the St. Clair County Sheriff's Department and the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. They also will implement the Community Oriented Policing program to address public safety issues.

The assistant police chief had some bellicose words for violent criminals.

With the initiatives that are being taken, Keller said the criminals are the ones who will not be safe in the community, instead of the community fearing the criminals.

Interesting he should say that, since Illinois is the only state in the union that utterly outlaws carrying defensive firearms (Wisconsin prohibits concealed carry, but not open carry) in incorporated areas--meaning, it would seem, that the criminals are safer than those who choose to obey the law. In fact, one of the "solutions" is to crack down on those carrying firearms.

Assistant Chief Aubrey Keller added that there will be increased patrols throughout the city to target individuals carrying weapons and those perpetrating crime.

And that brings us to Mayor Alvin Parks:

Parks gave a reminder that Illinois does not allow concealed carrying of guns.

"You have the right to bear arms, but you have the right to bear them within your home, not on the streets, not in your cars, not inside stores," Parks said.

Which is just fine, I suppose--unless you happen to be attacked while on the streets, in your car, or inside a store.

Even so, Assistant Chief Keller has the audacity to exhort citizens to help with the crime-fighting efforts.

Officials are also asking for community involvement.

"This is not just a police matter, this is a community issue," Keller said. "This is a community effort, it's a community problem and we need all participation to bring resolution."

Hear that, East St. Louis residents? If you notice any nefarious activity, you just go up to the miscreants, unarmed (of course), and set 'em straight.

Good luck!

Jim Darnell's 'pragmatic' article about AR-15s found

Earlier today, I lamented the fact that outdoor writer Jim Darnell seemed to have figured out the danger to his career posed by his ill-advised screed against sporting AR-15s, in time to pull it off the internet before it rose up to bite him.

Luckily, someone at AR15.com was too quick for him:

Production of the AR-15 sporting rifles a big mistake

Choose your battles carefully.

That’s good advice to parents with teenagers. It’s good advice for politicians. Some issues are too emotionally charged and not worth the fight. I would give the same advice to the American gun manufacturers and the National Rifle Association.

I’m a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles.

Ever since Colt introduced the first AR-15 into the hunting world more than 30 years ago they have been very popular. It’s now being produced in several heavier calibers by all major gun manufacturers and is the all-time No. 1 selling rifle.

The AR-15 looks very similar to the M16 service rifle first used in combat in Vietnam. It’s similar in looks to the military rifle used by our vets in the first Gulf War. It also has similar features to an AK-47.

Therein lies the problem. These modern sporting rifles are inflammatory in looks — they don’t look like modern hunting rifles. They are military in looks. They look like they were produced to kill men, not deer.

The AK-47 is the most widely distributed assault rifle in the world and almost always associated with wild terrorists. And most Americans can’t tell the difference in the looks of an AK-47 and a modern AR-15 hunting rifle.

Granted, the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

Unlike the AK-47 it is not fully automatic (pull the trigger and fire the whole clip). It shoots one bullet at a time like my semi-automatic 30-06 that I hunt deer with.

Granted, the new AR-15’s are compact, light, rugged and accurate. They make excellent hunting rifles. The problem is their inflammatory looks.

The press immediately jumped on the letters AR to mean “assault rifle.” That’s not what AR means. AR abbreviates Armalite. But the anti-gun press conveniently overlooks the facts.

The firearms manufacturers defend their production of the AR-15 modern hunting rifles with an argument from history. World War I soldiers used the 1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle in combat. When they returned to America they wanted a hunting rifle in the same 30-06 cartridge with the smooth bolt action cycling that they experienced with the Springfield. Thus, the production of millions of great bolt action sporting rifles like the Model 70 Winchester, the Ruger 77, and the 700 Remington. The bolt action rifle is still the most accurate and popular rifle among the world’s big game hunters.

Then came WW II and the introduction of the first semi-automatic service rifle, the M-1 30-06, popularly known as the Garand (named after the inventor).

When these brave service men returned home a wide range of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns gained widespread popularity among both hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts.

The manufacturers ask, “Shouldn’t Vietnam and Gulf War vets have a hunting rifle like their service rifles?”

I don’t think the argument is valid. After WW II, crazy terrorists weren’t running through the streets firing 1903 bolt action Springfields into the air.

No Arab terrorists were on the daily newscasts blasting people with the semi-automatic Garand after WW II.

It’s the AK-47 and its long history with revolution, riots and terrorism that’s the problem.

The average person in America says why do you need a terrorist’s assault rifle to hunt? Again, the AR-15 is not a terrorist’s weapon. It is not fully automatic. It is not an assault rifle. It just looks like one.

So why endanger our Second Amendment rights by manufacturing and defending a modern hunting rifle that has such an inflammatory design? It plays right into the hands of the anti-gun movement. They love the looks of the AR-15. It’s easy to enrage the average American against such an “assault rifle.”

Let’s get wise. We have a difficult enough task defending our right to own firearms without this foolish battle.


Jim Darnell is an ordained minister and host/producer of the syndicated television show “God’s Great Outdoors.” His column appears every Thursday in the Daily Record.

Again, it's not quite as bad as what Zumbo said--he didn't call AR-15s "terrorist rifles"--he just said that since they look like "terrorist rifles" to the public, we should meekly bow to their tender sensibilities, and, to borrow a phrase, "not scare the white people."

If they're that easily frightened, I'm going to put the fear into 'em, and enjoy it.

Change in plans--but still battling a bonehead

My plan today was to pick on Jim Darnell, an outdoor columnist with the San Marcos (TX) Daily Record, who, as Keep and Bear Arms noticed, apparently had something of a Jim Zumbo moment:

The Pragmatists among us: Production of the AR-15 sporting rifles a big mistake

"Choose your battles carefully."

"That's good advice to parents with teenagers. It's good advice for politicians. Some issues are too emotionally charged and not worth the fight. I would give the same advice to the American gun manufacturers and the [NRA]."

"I'm a strong Second Amendment rights person. I stand against fire arms registration and government control and confiscation of our guns. But I strongly feel that the firearm manufacturers of our country are making a big mistake in producing the AR-15 sporting rifles." ...

Unfortunately, although the link to the article worked last night and early this morning, it no longer does now--and I think I know why:

Statement on Darnell column

A column which appeared in the Thursday edition of the San Marcos Daily Record has caused some confusion, according to author Jim Darnell.

Darnell released the following statement Friday.

“Regarding the views expressed in the San Marcos Daily Record outdoors column of Nov. 12, 2009 and the opinion of outdoor journalist Jim Darnell, who is the president of God's Great Outdoors TV: God's Great Outdoors TV is totally unrelated to God's Great Outdoors Radio and host Gerry Caillouet and all of God's Great Outdoors radio sponsors. Please do not contact God's Great Outdoors radio or Gerry Caillouet in relation to the outdoors column of Jim Darnell.”

Apparently, his Jim Zumbo moment was threatening to carry Jim Zumbo-type consequences to his career, but he spotted it coming in time to beat a hasty retreat.

Anyway, if I never again find the entire text of the article [Update: FOUND!], it was indeed a "pragmatic" argument--an acknowledgment that although those who object to AR-15s and the like being used for sporting purposes are being irrational, it's best not to offend their delicate sensibilities.

In other words, we're simply supposed to retreat from whatever makes a big enough swath of the public uncomfortable.

However, since I can't get access to that article now, I'll talk about some other idiot.

Last evening, I wrote a short piece about a quadriplegic man in New Jersey who was denied a gun permit by the police (in NJ, each gun legal gun purchase can only proceed with the police chief's permission). The man went to court, and a judge grudgingly ruled in his favor.

Then, in a comment, gun rights blogger Strandediniowa turned my attention to this idiotic a-hole, and his apparent attempt at humor, "Gun-Toting Paraplegics, America's New Biggest Threat"--by the way, dumbass, the man is a quadriplegic.

The 2nd amendment. The one about guns. Some people think it should go untouched and should never be restricted. Others believe that guns should not be allowed in to the hands of certain shady or just untrustworthy individuals. Either way you look at it, we should all be able to come to some kind of agreement where we all, well, agree that people in breathing tube operated wheelchairs really shouldn’t have guns. It’s just one of those ideas in life that just seems wrong right from the start.

Except for people in New Jersey. Goddamn New Jersey.

Some 30 years ago, James Cap became paralyzed after breaking his neck during a high school football game. After finding out that he would be bound to a wheelchair for the rest of his life, a deep sadness set within James’ heart as he knew that he would never again be able to take part in his most favorite hobby, hunting. While all of James’ childhood friends were out having a merry old time blowing the heads of deer, James could do nothing but sit by his window watching everyone have fun.

There's more, but I'm going to have to take a shower after quoting just that much.

Granted, Luis Prada probably thinks he has written an amusing bit of satire, but he should know that I'm 100% serious when I say this: "Try to disarm this 'gun-toting paraplegic,' Luis, and you'll find out just how big a 'threat' I can be."

Exploiting Ft. Hood: Now it's the 'terror gap loophole'

The article goes on in that vein, but by now, it's pretty obvious what the bottom line is: to those lamenting that the purchase data was not shared with the terrorism investigators, a gun purchase is itself an indication of terrorist inclinations.

If the government has already conceived a suspicion of "terrorism," by virtue of such indicators as expressing opposition to more restrictive gun laws, opposition to abortion, displaying of the Gadsden flag, even following Norse mythology, then the purchase of a firearm would "seal the deal," and be seen as additional "evidence" of terrorist leanings. Remember, the FBI had already dropped the terrorism investigation into Hasan, so clearly, the idea here is that a gun purchase, by even a "suspect" who is considered pretty low on the threat list, is to be treated as a red flag. [More]

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

A bit of sanity even in New Jersey

As both a gun rights advocate and a paraplegic, this story warms my heart.

SOMERVILLE, N.J. — A quadriplegic in New Jersey has the right to bear arms even though he can’t hold a gun or pull a trigger.

A judge ruled Tuesday that James Cap is eligible for a firearms ID, which is required to buy a gun.

Manville’s police chief had rejected the 46-year-old’s application last year.

Cap says he was an avid hunter as a teenager before he was paralyzed after breaking his neck in a high school football game 30 years ago.

Cap says he’ll put the gun in a special wheelchair mount and operate it with a special breathing tube so he can hunt again.

The judge ruled Cap can have the permit only if his guns are stored in a safe and qualified people assist him with the weapons.

Granted, he's not going to be resisting tyranny, or even fending off criminals with more modest predatory goals, so this has little to do with the purpose of the Second Amendment. Still, to deny him the exercise of a fundamental human right, because of his disability, is pure evil, and the petty tyrant of a police chief should be sued into penury for it.

The judge, with his conditions imposed on the firearms permit, is only slightly better.

The final lesson of this is that a requirement for a permit to exercise one's fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is a guarantee of abuse of government power.

The Brady Campaign against their own words

Alas, though--the Brady Campaign is claiming that even that infringes on their copyright, despite the fact that this would seem to pretty clearly fall under "Fair Use" protection. Again, though, in the interest of not embroiling Examiner in a copyright infringement battle, I'll--for now, at least--forego trying to post video, or even audio, of Henigan's little editing job.

There is something, though, that I can do. At the same time the Brady Campaign put that video segment on YouTube and on their own website, they also posted the transcript, which faithfully quotes Henigan reciting the Second Amendment--minus "of the people." They took the transcript down, of course, at the same time they took the video down--but one Illinois gun blogger I read daily anticipated such behavior, and took a screen capture. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, examining the Brady Campaign's efforts to sweep their own words under the rug. Days of Our Trailers has more. Thirdpower also provided the screen capture that made today's column possible.

Hysteria about the IL Supreme Court guns in center console ruling

Just over a month ago, I wrote that the Illinois Supreme Court had ruled that a car's center console constitutes a "case" for the purpose of Illinois gun law--meaning that even under the draconian laws of this state, an unloaded handgun, along with loaded magazines, may be carried in the console. A far cry from legal defensive carry of firearms, but better than no ready access (to even an unloaded firearm) at all. Chicago Gun Rights Examiner Don Gwinn covered it here and here, as does Thirdpower, here.

I figured there would be some wringing of hands about it, but until I saw this, I hadn't realized how bad it would be (I guess I'd forgotten this is Illinois).

Here's something to think about the next time you get in your car: the driver next to you may be packing heat. And, now they can, legally.

Left unsaid, of course, is that "the driver next to you" could all along have been doing so illegally--was that any better?

CBS 2 Political Editor Mike Flannery reports that an Illinois Supreme Court ruling last month shocked even seasoned police officers.

Apparently, even these "seasoned" Illinois "Only Ones" would be really shocked in just about every other state.

A sudden gunshot is part of Oak Lawn Police Officer Mike Acke's worst nightmare.

As opposed to a slow, gradual gunshot?

"If there's a gun there and he's in there reaching ... I've got to react," Acke said. "It could be dangerous for me, because there's a gun right there in their reach."

Well, heck, Officer Acke, we wouldn't want a situation that "could be dangerous for" you, and never mind that being unarmed could be dangerous for us.

Next, we hear from Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez (I've discussed her before):

Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez said she was flabbergasted. She said she wants the General Assembly to rewrite the law to require that, if guns and bullets are in a vehicle, they're far away from the driver, who might be tempted in the event of road rage.

Ah--the infamous "means of self-defense within reach loophole."

"I think we've seen that already. If the weapon is readily available, I think you're more apt to use that," Alvarez said.

Well, yes, Anita--a tool that can be reached is more likely to be used than one that is not--it's your critical thinking skills that got you into your powerful position, isn't it?

The 3 minute video is below--worth a laugh.

Violence Policy Center worries that Supreme Court will heed the Constitution

In other words, Ms. Rand is upset about the possibility of the Supreme Court using the Constitution--rather than a radical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament--as its guide.

From this, I draw two conclusions. First, the VPC is effectively acknowledging that Chicago's handgun ban is unconstitutional. Second, the VPC believes its agenda should trump the Constitution. [More]

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

Chicago gun bans still working swimmingly

Chicago, as part of Cook County, bans so-called "assault weapons" (and the Cook County definition of "assault weapon" is extremely expansive), and yet "assault weapons" are becoming more prevalent.

The trends are alarming.

Chicago numbers show the number of assault weapons are up 17 percent this year on city streets, and the ages of criminals using guns is getting much younger with a growing number of weapons being used at the hands teenagers.

Check out the accompanying video (included below), which sets the tone with an AK firing in fully-automatic--as if that has something to do with the expiration of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. In fact, throughout the entire video, in which there was a great deal of AK gunfire, I think all of it was fully automatic.



I especially like BATFE spokesthug Andrew Traver, describing AKs as being "heavy caliber, military type weapons," as if the 7.62x39mm round isn't somewhat marginal for deer. Keeping with the "let's conflate fully-automatic firearms with so-called 'assault weapons' strategy," he says that it will empty the entire magazine in about 3 seconds, and then demonstrates the truth of the statement, by emptying the mag in full-auto.

He also gives us the obligatory "the problem with a weapon like this is that it will defeat virtually all body armor"--as if any centerfire rifle caliber would not do the same.

This part was good, too:

. . . they're so difficult to control, their bullets often get sprayed beyond the intended targets, striking innocent victims even when they’re in their own homes.

To prove this, the "news"caster, Kim Vatis, was shown firing an AK (in full-auto, of course), without any control whatsoever. Gee--I wonder how much training she had (she wasn't even aiming). The funny thing about that is that the clip shows the BATFE ninjas firing full-auto bursts with quite adequate control.

How many distortions can be fit in one short "news" story?

Update: David Codrea has much more.

The FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol: Gun control's new whipping boy

I would also point out that the good guys don't have a monopoly on body armor (and no--I'm not advocating additional restrictions on civilian ownership of body armor). If brave citizen Mark Allen Wilson had been armed with a firearm capable of defeating body armor, perhaps he would have survived, and David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. would have been stopped earlier.

Finally, the Second Amendment exists to protect the people's means to resist would-be tyrants by force of arms. That's not limited to unarmored would-be tyrants. [More]

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

Snuffy Pfleger's 'plan'

Perhaps my fellow Illinois gun rights advocates have already seen Snuffy's idea, and commented, but I've only just noticed this:

GUNS ARE TOO EASY TO ACCESS!

Gun violence has risen to epidemic level across America, from Oakland, CA. to Newark, NJ [Ed. note: interesting that the two cities named are in the nos. 1 and 2 Brady-ranked states for most draconian gun laws]. The United States leads the world in firearm possession. As a result, firearms are used in 15,000 homicides, another 15,000 suicides, and 1,500 accidental deaths each year. Currently, there are a number of places where there are virtually no limits on gun ownership. Easy access to guns has caused the murder rate to rise in exceeding numbers, taking the lives of countless children. It is up to us to eliminate the easy access to guns, in order to prevent the senseless killing in our community.

Solution: Require that guns be registered and licensed the way cars are.

Rationale: Both guns and cars can be deadly. Ownership of a car requires registration. If guns are registered like cars, it would prevent unlawful citizens from easily acquiring a gun, thereby diminishing the number of gun-related deaths.
It is often said, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” That mindset must be changed. People with guns kill people. It is also often said that criminals will always get guns. Not true! This is why we want to title guns just like we do cars, right from the manufacturer. The owner of every car can be traced for the lifetime of the vehicle. In fact, if a person does not transfer the title and does not report it stolen, s/he is held responsible for any accident it may be involved in. If we title guns like cars, law-abiding citizens can obtain a gun but they will also be responsible for every gun they purchase.

How would it work: The titling of guns does not interfere with a person’s second amendment rights, rather, it would stop the unlawful easy access to guns! Just as everyone must have a license to drive a car, everyone would be required to have a license to own a gun. The licensing exam would test gun safety knowledge to help reduce accidents, which are extremely common. The licensing process would also help officials weed out those who should not be allowed to purchase guns, such as felons and the mentally unstable. Like a driver’s licenses, gun licenses would have to be renewed every few years, and could be suspended for violations.

If the gun manufacturers, N.R.A. and gun control activists, all share a common desire to save lives and keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people, we should all agree that it’s time to save our children, stop the violence, stop the easy access and title guns like cars.

The problems with this idea are too numerous to catalog, and for regular readers, won't be necessary. Basically, you don't license fundamental human rights, and a gun registry is simply a gun confiscation directory for the government.

It amuses me, though, to speculate about what Snuffy's scheme would actually mean to his side. Luckily for me, it's already been summed up nicely--here are a couple examples.

On the flip side, consider the reverse situation: car ownership being subjected to the same draconian restrictions to which gun ownership is now.

I certainly hope Snuffy is a better shepherd of his congregation's immortal souls than he is a public policy advocate. Otherwise, Hell might need to expand.

The Brady Campaign against veterans

As it turns out, the gun law pushers see not one, but two avenues to the forced plundering of Americans' gun safes: A) block efforts to defend veterans' Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms; and B) demonize the FN Herstal Five-seveN pistol, which was the model used by the killer.

Let's look at the first one today.

Not the sort to let the deaths of Americans go unexploited, the Brady Campaign's Paul Helmke wasted little time after the heinous, cowardly evil of the Ft. Hood massacre to try to twist it into an excuse to block efforts to protect veterans' Second Amendment rights. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Today's column, along with tomorrow's, will basically be an expanded look at what we discussed here Friday. Please give it a look.

Ha!

This does my heart good.

ABC News: Ft. Hood Gunman Nidal Hasan Paralyzed....

Not exactly the 72 Virgins Dating Service fun you had in mind, is it, punk?

There's not much I'd want to share with that scum, but I'm happy to welcome him to life in a wheelchair. Now to get started on some square wheels for him . . .

The number of lives saved by Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley Friday may continue to grow

By now, Sgt. Kimberly Munley's selfless courage, superb skill at arms, and iron will* are well known, so I'm not going to go into detail about the battle she fought and won at Ft. Hood Thursday.

Nope--this is just a quick note (as quick as one of my notes gets, anyway) about a news report I saw today, that mentions how her lifesaving efforts may pay dividends well beyond the lives she saved during Thursday's chaos.

In the hours after the shootings, two Facebook groups sprung up dedicated to Munley and her heroic actions.

"At that tragic moment you were able to use your training and abilities to bring an end to a day that will haunt the lives of many for years to come," one member posted in the group "God Bless SGT Kimberly Munley." "Thank you for being a true hero."

And in the group "Sgt. Kimberly Munley: A Real American Hero!," one woman stationed in Japan with her military husband said that Munley had inspired her to learn how to shoot once she returned to the U.S.

Sgt. Munley has provided the inspiration to at least one woman to take responsibility for her own defense. My guess is that there are others, about whom we have not heard. Some day, that inspiration might lead them to save their own lives, and/or the lives of their children. Sgt. Munley is helping spread the message that guns are good news for women (some of you know who I'm talking to here ;-)). I note also that the inspired military wife in Japan will have to wait until she returns stateside. This, of course, is because of Japan's extremely draconian gun laws--which provide no guarantee against violent crime committed with guns.


*I am, with effort, refraining from calling Sgt. Munley a hero, because the same article I cited above implies that she would not be comfortable with such a characterization:

Munley's grandmother, Monirie Metz, told ABC News that the former South Carolina surfer girl would probably object to being called a hero.

"Kim doesn't want be called a hero. She's worried about everyone else right now and is very concerned about her colleagues with whom she is very close," Metz said.

I can't stop myself from pointing out that such an attitude is pretty much what I'd expect from a hero.

The BATFE's answer (such as it is)

Almost a month ago, I pointed out that Mayor Bloomberg's gun show "sting" operation may itself have broken federal gun trafficking laws.

[ . . .]

At the time, I urged readers to contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) to inquire as to whether or not Mayor Bloomberg's "investigation" was itself being investigated for possible criminal activity, and to request that such an investigation be initiated. Here is my own email to that effect. [More]

A rare Saturday St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column. It was intended to be just a quick note, but now I remember that I'm not really capable of "quick notes"--conciseness is something I admire, but utterly lack. Anyway, I hope you find it worth a read.

Here it comes . . .

I wondered today what the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's angle would be, in exploiting yesterday's atrocity:

Their difficulty will lie in the fact that even the most extreme of the anti-gun extremists tend to know better than advocating the disarmament of the military and police (who, after all, would enforce the disarmament laws, if the government had no means of backing them up with force?).

[ . . . ]

Sometimes, a mass shooting will offer the blood dancers an opportunity to justify their calls for bans on so-called "assault weapons," but no such firearms were apparently used for the Ft. Hood rampage. There's no word yet on where the killer acquired his firearms--I can't rule out the possibility that he obtained one or both at a gun show, but since there was nothing in his records that would disqualify him from purchasing and owning guns (if you can be a major in the Army, you can presumably pass a Brady background check), no "gun show loophole" would have been necessary for him to acquire firearms.

So far, it looks as if they're working two different angles. The first is the "veterans are dangerous" angle. I present the Brady Bunch's Paul Helmke:

When I heard of the tragedy yesterday, we were in the midst of planning a response to the latest dangerous legislative proposal from the gun lobby in the United States Senate - language to automatically restore access to guns to veterans designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Justice Department as ‘mentally incapacitated’ or ‘mentally incompetent.’ In light of what happened yesterday - a violent attack by an emotionally unstable soldier - it is even clearer that the proposal being pushed by Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina should be rejected.

Helmke is referring to S. 669 and H.R. 2547, both called the "Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act." Let's take a look at the summary:

Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act - Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

In other words, if a veteran is determined to be a danger, his Second Amendment rights can be trampled to Helmke's little heart's content--the only difference is that now the veteran will have his day in court first. Can't have that, obviously. Keep in mind, that's without even getting into the fact that the murdering scum was not a combat veteran, and a growing body of evidence points to his motivation having been Islamic militancy.

The other angle, that both the Brady Bunch and the VPC are working, is the news that the handgun used was the FN Five-seveN.

It was a handgun that was designed to fire bullets through body armor. A U.S. Senator and a U.S. Congressman urged a legal ban on civilian possession of the firearm, which began being referred to as the "cop killer gun." The gun, manufactured by FN Herstal of Belgium, is lightweight and easily concealable, and was designed as a military sidearm to complement military rifles made by the same company. One law enforcement expert referred to the Five-Seven as "an assault rifle that fits in your pocket."

While no police officer has reportedly been killed by a suspect armed with a Five-Seven, it may now have taken the lives of U.S. soldiers. Today, several news sources are reporting that it was the Five-Seven that Nidal M. Hasan used in his shooting attack at Fort Hood in Texas Thursday

Never mind that commercially available ammo for the Five-seveN has no unusual armor piercing ability (and that few, if any, of the victims yesterday were likely to have been wearing body armor, anyway).

The blood dancing begins.

Update: Someone is working early--on a Saturday, no less.
(Click to enlarge)

Ft. Hood: When our defenders are defenseless

Among those massacred at Ft. Hood yesterday were many who were about to be deployed to Afghanistan, where they will be required to keep their firearms within reach at all times, because the risk of potential attack will be constant. The lesson is that such risks apply everywhere, and always. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a read, and keep the fallen and their loved ones in your thoughts.

Update Courtesy of Tom:

For the First Responders, primarily Department of the Army Civilian Police, and Sgt. Munley, who although wounded, put 4 shots in this monster donations are currently being accepted at the Chapels but there will be a press confrence regarding such things, as below:

Press Conference at 1:30CST and they will likely have info as to a general fund and specific funds later in the day. AS IS. Ft. Hood Chapels are accepting donations for all of them.

Bell County
301 Preist Rd., Killeen TX
(254) 634-0768

Coryell County
201 S. 2nd Street, Copperas Cove, TX 76522
(254) 547-6517

Why is an ugly dog trying to hump my leg . . . ?

It seems I have a new admirer, Laci the Dog, whose crush on me was apparently prompted by my "Not a bright dog, but somewhat amusing" post a few weeks ago. The subject of that post apparently noticed it yesterday, and is positively bursting with affection and esteem, as can be seen in her comments--which I'll reproduce here, with her . . . passionate language moderated for reasons of family friendliness. First, there's:

It's called attribution, cretin. That takes it from being plagiarism.

But you are too stupid to know that.

If you think that you can fight a well armed foe with a rifle, then you are far more of a moron than I am.

You are a complete a**hole.

Unfotunately [sic], people like you are breeding.

Then, she heaped still more praise on me--I'm starting to blush!

By the way, f**k of a lot of good Melanie's [sic] gun did her!

It's a s**t weapon for self-defence if it can be used against you.

Since then, I've learned, through Weer'd Beard, that she's waxing romantic about me on her own blog.

Unfortunately, because of my insistence on keeping this a place for family-friendly advocacy of gun rights, I can't really quote much of it, because she is quite explicit in the steamy ardency of her expressions of desire for me--here's something from the end, though (with minimal editing):

P.S., I stand by what I said about Melanie [sic] Hain. I just hope someone uses your gun against you as well. Or shoots your sorry ass like they did Melanie [sic].

What makes you think you could prevent someone from grabbing your gun and using it against you, 45limpd**k?

Make the world a better place, a**hole, do it yourself before someone beats you to it.

It just breaks my heart to have to tell her that she's just not my type of b***h dog--although perhaps it would work out better with Mikeb--he seems quite taken with her.

Update: Weer'd Beard notes that I've made such an impression on Dear Laci that the poor, lovelorn pup wrote another love note about me. Sadly, she seems to be running out of material, and pretty much just repeats what she said in the first one.

Bless her little canine heart. I fear that she's now so distracted that efforts to finally housebreak her are doomed.

The war on gun owners' privacy

Even without such a licensing scheme, there is much to object to in physicians' growing nosiness about guns in the home. With the accelerating trend to push all medical care providers to compile all their patients' health records in an electronic database, to which the government has access, this, too becomes a de facto gun registry.

The bottom line is that one's ownership of firearms is no one else's business, and an attack on gun owners' privacy is an attack on private gun ownership, anathema to anyone who cherishes the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--the right that shall not be infringed. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Hope ya' like.

Canadian long gun registry to be scrapped?

I don't often write about Canada, and even if this happens, it won't be enough to change the fact that our northern neighbors have insanely restrictive gun laws, but this is encouraging news.

Conservative MPs, with the support of a few Liberals and New Democrats, have voted in principle to kill the contentious federal long gun registry.

The House erupted in cheers from the Tories as the private member's bill passed by a vote of 164 to 137. The Tories got help from 12 NDP MPs, eight Liberals and one Independent.

Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner's bill will now go to a Commons committee for further study and a possible amendment.

I had kinda given up hope that Canada would ever correct the ridiculous folly of the long gun registry, but this sounds to me (with the readily admitted caveat that I don't really follow Canadian politics--even their gun politics) as if it's about as close as they've ever gotten.

The "Only Ones," of course, aren't happy:

However, proponents such as police chiefs, notably from big cities like Montreal and Toronto, have said the registry is useful tool and has lead to more responsible gun ownership and has reduced suicides and crimes of passion using guns.

[ . . . ]

Montreal's police chief, Yvan Delorme, also pleaded with politicians to keep the registry alive, noting that all the money spent to create it will be wasted if it's eliminated.

"Its existence is essential, primarily for security reasons, but also because the investments already made would be entirely wasted," Delorme said in a rare political statement issued from his office.

That is, I believe, what we call "throwing good money after bad."

The Ministry of Public Safety is actually among those in favor of scrapping the registry.

"Canadians don't need another report to know that the long gun registry is very efficient at harassing law-abiding farmers and outdoors enthusiasts, while wasting billions of taxpayer dollars," [Public Safety Minister Peter] Van Loan's office said in a release Wednesday.

Van Loan has me wondering if I might have to revise my opinion about public officials.

Anti-gun Mayor Bloomberg's billions: Can't buy him love?

Bloomberg also formed the anti-gun group Mayors Against Illegal Guns (or, as I like to call them, Illegal Mayors Against Guns--although some have not--yet--come under criminal investigation).  That group cost Bloomberg almost $3 million (small change for him, I suppose), and also got $350,000 from the anti-gun Joyce Foundation.

And even with all that money, Bloomberg's group of mayors seems to have trouble holding onto members. [More]

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

Mindless in Milwaukee III

One day in June, over two years ago, I wrote a pair of blog posts about op-ed pieces written by Milwaukee columnists whose "thoughts" about guns could have been summed up on the back of a postage stamp, but who nevertheless decided to devote full columns to them. Since then, numerous opportunities to add to the series have come up (I have, in fact, recently mentioned Eugene Kane, the author of one of the columns).

It took Peggy Shulz's column: "Public safety must be the top priority" to spur me to actually write the third installment in my "Mindless" series.

Dec. 15 will mark the 218th anniversary of the enactment of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The National Rifle Association and others who want to give Wisconsinites the right to carry concealed weapons often cite the Second Amendment as their justification.

No one, Peggy, wants to "give" Wisconsinites the right to keep and bear arms--that right predates the NRA, and indeed the Constitution itself--it is a fundamental, human right, a right that belongs to each of us by virtue of our humanity.

Is it possible to know what motivated the framers of the Constitution?

Um--yeah, Peggy, it is.

Could the founders of arguably the greatest democracy on Earth really have foreseen that their decision would be used more than 200 years later to justify the proliferation of handguns in American society? I doubt it.

Well if you doubt it, Peggy, then who are we to disagree? Who can argue with such impressive credentials as: "Peggy Schulz of Milwaukee is a freelance writer and a single, bus-riding renter"?

We live in a fairly well-ordered society, but that order is achieved through a delicate balance of individual rights and the well-being of society as a whole.

WRONG, Peggy--the well-being of society isn't in some kind of zero-sum competition with individual rights--our rights form the very basis of our well-being.

Is it a good idea, for example, to add concealed weapons to the already problematic issue of road rage? When a driver snaps and loses his or her cool, how easy would it be for the driver to pull out a concealed handgun and escalate things further?

It was one thing for that argument to be brought up during debates about legalized concealed carry in the first few states to implement such laws, but now that dozens of states have done so, without any sign of an epidemic of road-rage induced shootings, is it not well past time to put that fantasy to rest?

And let's think about domestic violence situations, which threaten the very core of our society: the family unit. Is it wise to make it lawful for domestic partners who are at or near the boiling point to arm themselves while out in public, so that when they do boil over, the gun can be used with possibly deadly results?

If it's domestic violence, the perpetrator will have plenty of opportunity to shoot his/her domestic partner at home--concealed carry doesn't enter into it.

Because, let's face it, handguns are intended for one thing and one thing only: to wound and kill people.

Mine must be defective, then--they haven't wounded or killed anyone--instead, they have only helped secure my safety.

Milwaukee's police chief and county district attorney have suggested we, in effect, dangle a concealed-carry law for Wisconsin over the heads of the NRA in order to get it to support a law requiring criminal background checks for all gun purchases, not just those at federally licensed gun stores.

The background check law is a no-brainer. And we shouldn't have to lower our standards on concealed carry to get the too-powerful NRA to support closing a loophole that never should have been left open in the first place.

Finally! A couple points of agreement. A law banning private sales would indeed be a "no-brainer"--an idea readily dismissed by those in possession of functioning brains. And I also agree that compromising on that which shall not be infringed is unacceptable.

Perhaps, Peggy, you should change your description of yourself to " . . . a freelance writer and a single, short-bus-riding renter."

The Brady Campaign against state sovereignty

The Brady Campaign's Dennis Henigan is apparently as unimpressed with the 10th Amendment as he is with the 2nd. This can be seen by his reaction to passage in Tennessee and Montana (and consideration elsewhere) of bills that would exempt firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories made and sold within the state, from federal gun laws.

That reaction is one of fussy disapproval. [More]

That's today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Please give it a look, and spread the word.

As if Bloomberg's billions were not enough--Joyce Foundation funds Illegal Mayors Against Guns

I've written plenty about NYC Mayor (emperor?) Michael Bloomberg. David Codrea informs us that Bloomberg, after having the law changed to allow him to continue his reign over New York, is on a pace to spend over $100 million of his own money on his re-election campaign. That's $35,000 per hour--which he can afford to do, I suppose, with an estimated net worth of over $17.5 billion.

I've also written plenty about Bloomberg's pet project, Mayors Against Illegal Guns--or, as I like to call them, Illegal Mayors Against Guns (although in fairness, I should acknowledge that there are still some in the group who have not been charged with any crimes--yet).

Finally, I've also written about the Joyce Foundation, and the millions they spend on furtherance of the forcible citizen disarmament agenda.

Basically, I knew that the Joyce Foundation and Bloomberg shared the same subversive ideology, but it hadn't occurred to me that Joyce would find grants to Bloomberg's Illegal Mayors Against Guns group an efficient use of their money, given his willingness to spend vast sums of his own.

Shows what I know: $175,000 in each of the years 2006 and 2007.

The forcible citizen disarmament lobby--the best "grass roots" millions of dollars can buy.

They have billions of dollars and the naked force of the government behind them. We have our numbers, our iron will, our willingness to work and sacrifice, and our moral courage--along with the moral high ground that courage has bought us. Oh--and we also have millions of firearms, and billions of rounds of ammo.

Bring it on, anti-gunners.

Update: Wow--that didn't take long:
(Click to enlarge)

Strange 'allies' in the international fight for gun rights

So what's the problem with a U.N. arms treaty--wouldn't it be a good thing for the international community to be able to outlaw arms sales to terrorists, and other unsavory types? Sure, as far as that goes--but consider the fact that one nation's "terrorist" is another nation's freedom fighter. If there had been a U.N. in 1776, George Washington would very likely have been considered a "terrorist" in international circles. [More]

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

Illinois releasing criminals early; law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves still not supported

With Illinois in dire financial states (double digit billion dollar dire), I certainly won't complain about the state looking for ways to cut expenses. Still . . .

By releasing those inmates from prison in the next few weeks, Gov. Pat Quinn's administration hopes to save millions of dollars and usher in other alternatives to incarceration. But the cost-cutting early releases are opposed by police, prosecutors and some crime victims.

The idea is that about a thousand inmates will be released, up to a year early, in order to save money.

State officials contend they will release only nonviolent drug and property crime offenders with no previous parole violations and no outstanding warrants or orders of protection taken out against them.

That's somewhat reassuring--I certainly would be more upset if the plan was for early release on violent crime convictions. Also, as an opponent of the "War on (Some) Drugs," I don't believe there should be "drug crimes" (aside from things like drugging people without their knowledge and consent).

On the other hand, because of this long "war," much of the drug culture is intertwined with the gang culture, and the probability that some of these "nonviolent" drug offenders actually have some violent crime in their past has to be, in my estimation, a fair amount above zero. Additionally, the way I read the above, the claim isn't that the convicts have no record of violent crime--only that this incarceration is not for a violent crime. Finally, the Illinois "justice" system is infamously of the revolving-door, "catch-and-release" type, whereby even when there is not an early release, the time spent in prison is rather brief.

I'm not the only one (no--not that kind of "Only One") with concerns:

It is a politically charged issue. Even supporters recognize the potential pitfalls, pointing to the occasional high-profile cases of convicts committing heinous crimes while on electronic monitoring.

Julius Anderson, a sex offender released from prison, was suspected in two brutal rapes last summer while on electronic monitoring. The attorney general's office says Anderson disappeared Aug. 7, but a special agent was not assigned by corrections to find him until Aug. 19.

"They've done their best to eliminate violent offenders, but someone is bound to commit murder, armed robbery or rape," said David Olson, a professor of criminal justice at Loyola University Chicago, who serves on an advisory board to the state Department of Corrections. "It won't do the victim any good to say this was bound to happen even if the person got out one year later."

What especially caught my eye was this:

Most of the inmates will return to Cook County.

And, I'd wager most of those are returning to Chicago, which along with Oak Park (also in Cook County), still bans handguns. Cook County also bans so-called "assault weapons" (not that such a ban make any difference to murderous thugs like Carail Weeks.

Finally, nowhere in Illinois is the right to carry a loaded defensive handgun available to the law-abiding citizen.

In other words, more thugs will be on the streets, unleashed on citizens whose ability to defend themselves from them remains evilly hamstrung. That's Illinois.

NRA 'pragmatism' takes a hit in New York

The NRA enthusiastically endorsed Republican Dede Scozzafava for the vacant Congressional seat in New York's 23rd Congressional district (excerpt).

Please the read the letter sent to Dede by NRA Chairman Chris Cox:

Dear Assemblywoman Scozzafava: On behalf of our four million members, the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse your candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.

During your tenure in the New York Assembly, you have been a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment. You are the only candidate in this special congressional election with a solid pro-gun legislative record.

As David Codrea points out, that enthusiasm seems a bit misplaced.

This set off no small amount of criticism from gun owners who view Scozzafava as a "liberal" on a host of other issues. And that has been used by her Conservative Party opponent, Doug Hoffman, who makes sure we know he's an NRA member in his campaign ads (which begin with the Gadsden flag held high).

Now, like David, I have some reservations about Hoffman, as well, based on his refusal to answer the questionnaire, despite GOA's enthusiastic endorsement--although GOA does provide a nice summary of gun rights advocates' reasons to be weary of Scozzafava:

Mr. Hoffman’s other opponent, Dede Scozzafava, voted in 1999 for the kind of “study” of gun “safety” [ed. note--sound familiar?]that is so often used by the gun prohibitionists as a backdoor to greater and more intrusive regulation. Attacking gun owners’ rights under the cover of “safety” is a favorite tactic of the anti-Second Amendment crowd and she voted for it.

She also voted in 1999 to stick gun owners with a burdensome reporting requirement when a gun is stolen. Under that law, the victim of a gun theft can be criminally prosecuted if the theft is not reported quickly enough to suit the authorities. This type of law turns the victim into a criminal.

These are not the votes of a 100% defender of the Second Amendment.

In addition, this candidate has close ties to the radical anti-gun group ACORN. The current leader of ACORN, Bertha Lewis, also co-founded New York’s Working Families Party — a party that supported Scozzafava in past elections.

Well now, Scozzafava is out, after polls showed here in third place, in our (basically) two party system.

Republican state Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava has suspended her campaign for upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District seat, giving a possible boost to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman against Democrat Bill Owens, Fox News has confirmed.

The move comes on the heels of a new poll that showed Scozzafava had fallen behind her two competitors in a close race.

Has "pragmatism" workin' for ya', Republican Party and NRA?

Update: David has more.

Sonora, Mexico governor demands we drop some of our laws, pass others (care to guess?)

An article in the Arizona Republic is mostly about Gov. Guillermo Padrés Elías, governor of the state of Sonora, Mexico, and his contention that would-be tourists need not fear rumors of violence in Sonora.

Media coverage has sensationalized the drug violence that has gripped parts of Mexico, new Sonora Gov. Guillermo Padrés Elías said Monday as he pledged that his state remains safe to tourists.

Sonora is home to Puerto Peñasco, commonly known as Rocky Point. Tourism at the popular, beachside resort town has slipped as many Arizonans have stayed away amid accounts of warring drug cartels south of the border. Cartel-related violence resulted in more than 6,000 deaths in Mexico last year alone, according to the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

But Padres said the bulk of the violence has occurred elsewhere in Mexico, and called Sonora his country's safest border state.

"We have a lot safer state than a lot of the cities here in the United States," Padres insisted during a meeting with The Arizona Republic. "Nobody that visits us is in harm's way."

Fair enough--I haven't done any research on that topic, and am not in a position to refute those assertions. Since I'm not planning any trips to the area anytime soon, I'm willing to, in theory at least, take his word for it.

It's later in the article that I run into some problems with his positions.

Thorny issues remain, however. Padrés suggested that some immigration-related laws passed in Arizona "are hard for my people." When pressed, he pointed to the state's 2007 employer-sanctions law, which allows law enforcement to target employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants.

"That hit a lot of people," said Padrés, who served as a lawmaker at both a state and federal level in Mexico prior to becoming governor. "I'm not going to be in agreement with bills that are going to hurt the people that are living here (in Arizona) from Mexico."

In other words, he is unhappy that U.S. businesses that illegally, knowingly facilitate the violation of our national borders can be punished by our government for doing so. As for whether he is "in agreement" with such laws, or not--I'm having some trouble coming up anything that concerns me less than that.

And now for new laws he thinks we should pass--I don't think anyone is going to be surprised.

Padrés and Brewer also appear to be at odds regarding the supply of assault weapons in the United States, some of which have found their way into the fight between drug cartels and the Mexican government. U.S. officials say roughly 90 percent of the guns traced in Mexico originated in the U.S, but the figure is widely disputed because most guns confiscated in Mexico cannot be traced.

"We don't make them," Padrés said. "We don't have them. It's weapons that are coming from the United States."

"Coming from the United States," eh? Well, that's debatable (and a debate we'd win). More importantly, wherever the guns are coming from, legal "assault weapons" aren't causing carnage in the U.S., so if they're being used to do so in Mexico, that's not because of their availability here.

Arizona's Governor Brewer, by the way, sounds like quite an improvement over her predecessor, Janet Napolitano (now Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security).

But in May, Brewer told attendees at a National Rifle Association conference in Phoenix that she opposed additional federal regulations on the sale of guns, including the return of a U.S. ban on semiautomatic, military-style rifles. That ban, which expired in 2004,has been advocated by Mexican President Felipe Calderón.

"New gun laws are not the answer to increasing gun violence in Mexico," Brewer told NRA members this spring. "The answer is to secure the border and leave the freedoms of the United States citizen alone. Don't mess with the Second Amendment."

That's not the first time I've made that observation about Governor Brewer, as compared to Napolitano.

Citizen disarmament lobby wants to expand 'prohibited persons' list

In other words, it would seem that Dr. Webster advocates adding a whole laundry list of misdemeanors to the already long list of crimes--littering in a cave is a felony in Texas; so is selling marital aids (presumably, even when not in a cave)--that can render a person disarmed for life.

Then, of course, there are the efforts to disarm "suspected terrorists"--without a conviction, without an indictment, without an arrest, without even the accusation being made known to the "suspect"--all that would be needed is a determination by the United States Attorney General (Eric Holder--doesn't that reasssure you?) that you're too "dangerous" to buy a gun. [More]

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