Care to explain this, AHSA?

I thought Third Power and I were friends, and thus didn't expect him to force me to start my day with this news:

Beyond the already well established nominations of anti-gun fanatics to Obama's cabinet, we have another for the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. One Cass Sunstein.

What do we know about Sunstein? Well, that he's a raving loon, for starters.

He's an "Animal Rights Advocate" in the same vein as PETA to the point that he stated in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions . . .

I won't spoil the suspense--follow the first link and (here it is again) and read what Sunstein proposes--it's utterly bizarre.

There's more--Thirdpower also shows us that Sunstein wants to ban hunting. Still feeling good about your Obama vote, "Sportsmen for Obama"?

As it turns out, I've talked about Sunstein before, and his advocacy of a kind of "Fairness Doctrine" for the internet, to counter what he considers the threat of the internet fostering extremism.

He also says people who set up websites should be encouraged as a matter of course to set up links to sites with differing views and adds that government regulation of such a system is worth considering.

In fact, the example he uses to illustrate his "point" is the gun rights debate.

He also looked at the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"A group whose members lean against gun control will, in discussion, provide a wide range of arguments against gun control, and the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker. The group's members, to the extent that they shift, will shift toward a more extreme position against gun control,” says the professor.

It is in this vein that Sunstein sees the advent of the personalisation of information via the Internet as such a threat.

As I pointed out in my earlier post:

The problem with that thinking, Cass, is that wherever one goes, "the arguments made for gun control will be both fewer and weaker"--that's simply the nature of a position that lacks grounding in facts and logic.

Nicki, by the way, beautifully eviscerates yet another Sunstein article, in which he laments the rise of the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, and suggests that even if one accepts that, it should pose no barrier to restrictive gun laws (this was before Heller--I have to admit that he pretty well perfectly described what Heller would do).

Is everyone enjoying their HopeandChange™ yet?

Gun 'buy backs': misnamed and misguided

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is "Gun 'buy backs': misnamed and misguided." Please give it a look and encourage others to do so, as well.

David's National Gun Rights Examiner column today, "Dreams of Obama," is a follow-up to yesterday's "Hail to the Chief?"--read 'em both.

Chicago homeowner shoots robber

Not much information to go on yet, but I wonder how this will be handled?

A man was shot by a resident of a home he was allegedly invading on the West Side late Sunday.

About 10 p.m., a man in his 20s was allegedly committing a home invasion and a resident inside the home at 4453 W. Cortez St. shot him, according to a Harrison District police lieutenant.

Charges were pending Monday morning against the man shot, who was transported to Mount Sinai Hospital in an unidentified condition.

Police have not ruled out the possibility that the shooter would face charges also.

This being Chicago, there's a very good chance that the legal hoops through which the homeowner would have to have jumped in order to legally own the firearm with which he defended his life and home were more than he was able and willing to deal with. If that's the case, that "possibility that the shooter would face charges" is a rather good one.

Working in his favor is legislation passed in 2004 that provides a defense against charges for violations of municipal gun laws, when the gun in question was used in defense of one's home.

Our president (in a couple hours), by the way, voted against that legislation, but the Brady Campaign says that's OK, because people should just break the law and pay the fine.

Will post updates as they become available.

Note: I may have made an incorrect assumption in calling the intended victim of the robbery a "homeowner," as the article refers to him as a "resident." Still, I don't see that his right to self-defense is predicated on him owning the property.

Asking the wrong questions

I'll be the first to admit that I am no statistician, and that the endless back-and-forth squabbling seems only to prove that one can use statistics to prove anything one wants to prove. Personally, my belief is that such debates might serve well to show off one's statistical chops, but miss the real point.

"The real point," as I see it, is that those private citizens who choose to carry a defensive firearm do not do so with the objective of "fighting crime," but instead have the much more limited aim of defending themselves and their loved ones. [More]

Please head on over and give it a look.

This morning, St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner (briefly) cracked the Top 5 Political Examiners nationwide. That's a first for me (the others do it pretty routinely). Gotta like that.

Speaking of the others, please give them a look, too.
National Gun Rights Examiner
LA Gun Rights Examiner
Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner

Just call me Mr. Popular

Not bad, considering I just started late last week, and just put up my third column today.

I'm not at all trying to present myself as a potential Pulitzer winner, or even that I'll ever become more than a small voice for the gun rights movement--just trying to hammer home the point that there is indeed a ready audience outside the gun blogosphere for a discussion about gun rights that isn't dominated by people who want to trample them.

We would be crazy not to engage that audience to the best of our abilities.

Gun Rights Examiner columns gaining momentum

This is pretty cool:

With millions of Americans now buying guns like never before, one interesting news analysis organization is matching numbers, it seems, for what the armed citizen is really all about, and how he or she plays a powerful role in all our freedoms.

"Examiner.com’s regular columns to balance anti-gun programs are reaching growing audiences," National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea said today.

My own St. Louis GRE column (which today looks at anti-gun St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay) is the newest and smallest of the bunch, but even it is doing very well in the St. Louis edition of Examiner.com, after only half a week. David's National Gun Rights Examiner (which today talks some more about Eric Holder, and the seeming unwillingness to fight his confirmation on the part of people who should know better) is really kicking butt, as are John Longenecker's LA Gun Rights Examiner and Daniel White's Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner.

These columns can go a long way toward bringing the gun rights discussion mainstream. Imagine if the Brady Bunch didn't monopolize Big Media's ear.

On second thought, let's stop imagining that. Tell a friend.

A potential 'terrorist' in the eyes of the TSA

Horror stories about small minded, bureaucratic fascism on the part of Transportation Security Administration (TSA) abound--War on Guns alone has documented a bunch. This one, however, strikes me as particularly outrageous:

Mom just called. Dad is being unlawfully detained by Homeyland Security/TSA at Austin Bergstrom airport because we played with .45s this morning before they left to go back to IL and the ion sniffer machine was suspicious of him because he smelled remotely like smokeless powder on a "washed my hands and changed clothes before I drove to the airport" level.

Welcome to the Police State.

Ain't America Beautiful? Fookin Beautiful place to be! ...especially for shooting enthusiasts that fly commercial.

FWIW: He's a LtCol (USAFR). I thought that Military personnel were allowed to smell like gun powder. I guess he should have worn his uniform instead of dressed casual.

God, it's times like these that make me just want to kick holes in the walls. Him getting fingerf*cked over shooting guns before he even gets to IL today. Jayzus effiin Kee-Riste!

The (very justifiably) angry man who wrote that is "Tom," who likes to build and shoot handguns chambered for elephant rifle calibers (and I thought I was nuts).

So let's take a look at what we have here--an Air Force Reserve Lieutenant Colonel visiting his son gets some quality time at the range with the following:



Afterward, he washes up and changes clothes before going to the airport, but the tiny quantities of smokeless powder residue that remain are still enough to get him flagged as a potential terrorist (can't have our military men firing nasty guns now, can we?).

Tom emailed me after hearing that his father's ordeal had finally ended--after almost two hours (and after missing his flight, naturally).

Gee, I feel safer already.

Quick 'thank you' note

I'm pretty much out of the habit of Sunday posting, but I just want to thank Chris S. for the new banner graphic now adorning the top of Armed and Safe. I'm hopeless with any kind of graphical, artistic endeavor, and so had pretty much just gone with the plainest, most boring appearance a blog could have.

Chris, though, after I "met" him over at Missouri Carry, just volunteered out of nowhere to design a banner, and I think it really dresses this place up.

Chris is involved with Midwest Hunting Source (check 'em out), and has kindly added a link to my St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column on the MHS "Friends" page (Chris also did the graphic work on the St. Louis GRE banner links).

Thanks, Chris.

Be sure to read David Codrea's National Gun Rights Examiner page today, debunking the myth of "easy access" to firearms as a factor driving youth violence.

Not that I'm surprised

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

Dear Mr. Hofmann:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin

United States Senator

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

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

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

'One of her proudest achievements'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brady Campaign looks on the bright side of Stockton schoolyard massacre

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the solution is more guns

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

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

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

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

Thanks--to all of you.

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

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

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

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

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

Are your gun rights worth one day?

Soiling their bloomers over 'Big Boomers'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner

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

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

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

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

David Codrea on the Gill Report

Important stuff:

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

Be there.

Specter to make a real go at blocking Holder confirmation?

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

GOP setting up roadblocks for Holder

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

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

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

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

Now that's audacity

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

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

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

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

Find another sucker, guys.

Time running out

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

Surrendering the Constitutional high ground

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another example.

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

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

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

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

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