What does he mean by 'what works in Chicago'?

Over at the National Gun Rights Examiner, David Codrea has been taking a good, long look at "The Lightworker's" assertion, in reference to gun laws, that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne." David quite correctly points out, though, the fallacy of this position.

And we saw one other major disconnect: Despite his assurances that "what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne," made no doubt to convince detached and dull-witted gun owners that he posed no threat, every one of his policy proposals would apply nationwide, across the board.

All the proposed new gun laws presented in the Obama administration's "urban policy" would be federal gun laws--applicable, in other words, in both Cheyenne and Chicago, and everywhere else in the country, as well.

It's a good, important point, and David makes it well. It occurs to me, though, that there's something else about the "what works in Chicago . . . " idea that's worthy of a look--what does he mean by "what works in Chicago . . . "?

"Works" to accomplish what? Produce the "murder capital of the U.S."? Is this what Obama means by gun laws "working" in Chicago?

Or this?

Or this?

Or this?

Or . . . you get the idea.

Not only does Obama, contrary to his campaign promises, advocate forcing upon Cheyenne residents the same approach to violent crime as he apparently supports for Chicago, it's an approach that is demonstrably an utter failure, even in Chicago.

If that's what "works" in your estimation, Mr. President, you can keep the "change."

A deeper look at the 'government monopoly on force'

This will be a continuation of yesterday's "Welcoming the Obama administration, waiting for the 'government monopoly on force.'" I closed yesterday with Josh Horwitz, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), decrying what he calls the "insurrectionist idea" of the Second Amendment, because it would "infringe" on "the government's monopoly on force." This should start alarm bells ringing furiously among those who love liberty, because what shall not be infringed is, of course, the exact opposite of a government monopoly on force--the right of the people to keep and bear arms can be looked at as the Constitution's very own "monopoly buster," as Tench Coxe explains. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is up, expanding on yesterday's "Welcoming the Obama administration, waiting for the 'government monopoly on force,' Part I."

Please give it a look, and encourage others to do so, as well.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: What the Brady Campaign means by 'home rule'
  
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Nationwide concealed carry, Part I: It's what you don't see that counts.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Anti-gun movement gathering steam
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Rev. Whitley's 'bullet' bill is not just for Durham

I hope this Meek inherits some grammar instruction

On Sunday, Thirdpower wrote about yet another term that is apparently supposed to be even scarier than "assault weapons" (itself a made-up term designed to scare and mislead the public)--now, they're "weapons of war."

That, apparently, is going to be the next buzz-term in the push to ban semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles.

Speaking of the Miami "AK-47" (probably not a real, fully-automatic capable, AK-47, or it would fall under federal laws much more restrictive than the expired AWB) shootings, Congressman (and Senate candidate) Kendrick Meek has added his voice to those who want to use this crime as an excuse to ban more guns.

U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek said today that last week’s shooting in Miami that left seven injured and two dead shows the need for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons.

“We I [sic] think we should go back to the assault weapons ban, just for the very reason to prevent what happened the day before yesterday,” he said this morning in a brief interview.

Just like the old AWB prevented Columbine, Congressman? Oh--never mind--it didn't prevent Columbine, or any of the other shootings involving the firearms in question that occurred during the ban.

“I’ve talked with some community groups about the fact that we cannot allow this kind of violence to continue.

“Definitely when you have these AK-47s in the hands of individuals that are undesirables are [sic] something that should not be tolerated. Of course it needs to be dealt with more sooner [sic] than later because it goes to show you with those high-powered rifles in the wrong hands, it can definitely bring about the loss of life that we just experienced.”

For someone so intent on banning so-called "assault weapons," Representative Meek sure commits a great many unprovoked assaults on the English language.

Welcoming the Obama administration, waiting for the 'government monopoly on force,' Part I

But for now, instead of talking more about the Obama administration and its citizen disarmament agenda, let's talk about the CSGV, and what they stand for.

Josh Horwitz, the group's executive director, explains that in no uncertain terms, in a piece he calls "The Game of Monopoly." [More]

Please read and spread the word.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: Arrested development in Georgia gun case
  Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Take me shooting, Part II: Personal Dignity in self-rule.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Gun safety Training should be a mandatory part of school curriculum
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun Trafficking' bill for NC? Part 3: Traced guns are not 'crime guns'

Call to action: Hold Holder

David notes that U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) has vowed to vote against Eric Holder's confirmation as AG, because of his toxic stance with regard to the Second Amendment. David also notes, however, that we'll need more from Sen. Barrasso.

Good for you, Senator Barrasso.

But here's the thing. That in and of itself won't cut it.

We need for you to go the next step and put a hold on the confirmation process. Filibuster. Obstruct. Delay. Loudly call on each senator who received an NRA endorsement--including democrats--to join you.

Lord knows Fairfax won't.

That's really the only way Holder's going to be stopped, and you know it.

So anything short of doing what it actually takes becomes pretty meaningless. A cynical person might even deem it risk-free and opportunistic.

You've assumed point on this, which makes you "It."

Please show real leadership.

Hold Holder. [More]

Go to the title link, and join in the call to persuade Senator Barrasso to be make more than a symbolic effort to defeat Holder.

No more mandated defenselessness in New Mexico restaurants?

I have to take exception to this title, "Guns and Alcohol Could Soon Mix in New Mexico." The implication, clearly, is that there is some move afoot to legalize the practice of pub crawling with a Glock on one's hip--a practice few would endorse. In reality, the bill, introduced by New Mexico State Representative John Heaton, does nothing of the sort.

New Mexico State Representative John Heaton recently introduced House Bill 105, a piece of legislation that would permit those with concealed carry permits to bring their firearms into establishments that serve alcohol.

Nothing there, you might notice, about permitting the "mixing" of guns and alcohol. In fact, the bill would not even allow the carrying of firearms into bars in which the majority of the business is the sale of alcohol.

The NRA is a strong supporter of the bill and today released the following statement:

"State Representative John Heaton (D-Carlsbad) has introduced House Bill 105, a measure that would permit Concealed Handgun Licensees to protect themselves in establishments that are licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises IF the establishment derives more than 60% of their annual gross receipts from the sale of food."

This bill would change the New Mexico law, in other words, that currently mandates defenselessness while in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

It seems to me that the goal of this bill is rather modest--it does nothing to change the prohibition against carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol. Contrast that to driving laws--which permit driving with a blood alcohol under .08%. Now, consider the fact that a 230 grain .45 ACP bullet, traveling at 800 feet per second, has a kinetic energy of about 327 foot-pounds. A 2500 pound car, traveling at 50 miles per hour, on the other hand, has a kinetic energy of about 2,089,330 foot-pounds. I am not trying to endorse alcohol consumption while carrying a firearm--just making a point about what potentially dangerous implement people are permitted to have with them (and to even operate) after drinking.

The Brady Campaign, predictably, is apoplectic.

Gun control organizations, both in the New Mexico and across the nation, have argued that the bill would make the state's bars and restaurants unsafe for workers and patrons. In an Associated Press interview, Brady Campaign senior counsel Brian Seibel called laws that would allow guns to be brought into businesses that serve alcohol "insane."

You know what strikes me as "insane," Brian? Prohibiting peaceable people from protecting their lives, and the lives of their families, while in a restaurant, simply because other people might be drinking there.

Oh--by the way . . .

What the gun prohibitionists won't tell you about magazine capacity limits

Yesterday, I discussed the growing effort for a renewed ban of so-called "assault weapons." Such bans invariably incorporate a limit on the magazine capacity--the now expired federal ban stipulated ten rounds as the acceptable limit. The supposed rationale is that without "high capacity" (translation: normal capacity) magazines, a deranged killer will not be able to inflict as much carnage as he would if he had to reload more often. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up, taking a look at magazine capacity limit laws. Please give it a look, and spread the word.

By the way, I don't know what happened yesterday, but St. Louis GRE had a very big day--I wish I knew whom to thank for that. Since I don't, I'll just assume it's my loyal readers (both of you must have been extremely busy)--thanks, guys!

• National Gun Rights Examiner: 'Assault weapons' ban jewel in Obama crown
  Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Take me shooting, Part II: Personal Dignity in self-rule.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Overreacting to gun deaths
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun Trafficking' bill for NC? Part 3: Traced guns are not 'crime guns'

Housekeeping

Have some announcements to make. First, I'm pleased to announce that frequent correspondent, "3per," and crazed builder and shooter of handguns chambered in elephant rifle calibers, "Tom," has started a blog of his own--don't go there if you're the easily frightened sort. That's a guy who is going to liven things up around the gun blogosphere.

Another new gun blogger is Second Amendment and historian scholar David E. Young. There aren't many of us who don't stand to learn something from him.

Finally, this isn't an announcement of anything new--it's grateful acknowledgment of D. Martyn Lloyd-Morgan's Liberty Sphere blog. Specifically, the "Second Amendment News Roundup" service he provides on weekdays is a great resource as "one stop shopping" for gun rights politics information. I imagine he puts quite a lot of work into just that part of his blog, and it has been a great benefit to me. Thanks, Doc!

National park carry? Maybe not for long

Anyone pleased about the change in rules, made late in the Bush administration, allowing the carrying of a defensive firearm in national parks, might want to hurry up and enjoy it while they can, because the rule change might be short-lived.

Democrats are hoping to roll back a series of regulations issued late in the Bush administration that weaken environmental protections and other restrictions.

Potential targets include regulations allowing concealed weapons in some national parks . . .

At the time the change was made, I had trouble getting very excited about it, for this very reason--the rule change was of an administrative nature, rather than legislative, and this is a new administration. In fact, the more cynical part of my nature wondered if this was any more than a bit of political theatre--a bone tossed to gun rights advocates to show us that "See? The GOP does look out for you guys--we can't help it if those bad old Democrats change the rules back again when they take over."

The NY Times article discusses several methods the new administration and Congress could use to undo the Bush administration changes (including the national parks carry rule). My "favorite" is Representative Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) H.R. 34, the Midnight Rule Act.

To avoid such problems, Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, has introduced a bill, the Midnight Rule Act, that would give incoming cabinet secretaries — starting with the Obama administration — greater power to rewrite regulations issued during the final three months of the previous presidency.

“Congress needs to pass the Midnight Rule Act,” Mr. Nadler said in a statement, “to give President-elect Barack Obama the ability to quickly reverse these policies and undo these last, right-wing gasps of the Bush administration.”

Let me make sure I have this right: the Bush administration made a rule, which undoes a rule change made by the Reagan administration, but the current administration doesn't like the new change, so they want to pass a federal law in order to make it easier to undo the Bush administration change, thus restoring the rule put in place by the Reagan administration.

Yep--sounds like "the land of the free" to me.

The new push to ban so-called 'assault weapons'

One type of proposed federal law that incessantly comes up for discussion is a new federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The last such ban, of course, expired in 2004, after which, suddenly . . . such firearms continued to be used in only a tiny percentage of violent crimes. That little detail hasn't deterred the gun prohibitionists, though, who constantly comb the news waiting for the next killing in which such firearms are used, in order to have something to point to in order to make their case.

This time, it's Miami that has provided fodder for the citizen disarmament advocates, with a shooting involving an "AK-47" (I suspect that it was a semi-automatic copy of an AK-47, rather than a real, fully automatic one--real AK-47s have been, and continue to be, regulated under laws much more restrictive than the AWB). [More]

My latest St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Until now, I've focused exclusively on local St. Louis area gun rights issues. Starting today, though, I'm broadening the focus a bit. Please give it a look and spread the word.

Also, there's a new Gun Rights Examiner--Paul Valone, the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner.

Paul Valone is a Second Amendment veteran who directs Grass Roots North Carolina (www.GRNC.org) and who regularly impacts local, state and federal gun laws. He will advise gun rights supporters of impending threats.

Please give him a warm welcome.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: For the children (part two)


• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Three little words, Part I: take me shooting.
  


• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: More ccw training equals more priveleges?


• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Gun trafficking' bill for NC? How 'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' lies to you

Eric Holder, (gun) Grabber

David's National Gun Rights Examiner column today is important (as they tend to be). Today, he talks more about Obama's wish to have gun prohibitionist extraordinaire Eric Holder confirmed as Attorney General, as well as the efforts (such as they are) to derail that confirmation.

Go. Read. Spread the word.

Illinois State Police breaking the law. Again.

From ISRA, via Days of Our Trailers:

Over the past several weeks, the ISRA has received several dozen phone calls from irate firearm owners who have been waiting a month or more to have their applications for Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) cards processed by the Illinois State Police.

After making inquiries into the backlog, ISRA representatives were told by ISP officials that inadequate staffing and funding were to blame for the slowdown in application processing. Those same officials were unable to say when, if ever, the situation would improve.

Since state law requires FOID card issuance to qualified applicants within 30 days of applying, their excuses are not acceptable. Try owning a gun in Illinois without a FOID, and when charged for that "crime," stating that you didn't apply for a FOID because you were too busy and didn't have the money--how well do you suppose that would work?

The Days of our Trailers post has more detail, so be sure to check it out, because I'm going to talk about something else.

That "something else" is the fact that this isn't the first time (with more here) that the Illinois State Police have simply ignored the laws dealing with FOID card issuance when it suited them (and just don't even get me started about the twisted, unconstitutional evil of the FOID card requirement in the first place). Back in 2007, they, with absolutely no authority to do so, decided they would stop issuing FOIDs to minors under 10 years of age. Keep in mind that even with a FOID, 10-year-olds (or 17-year-olds, for that matter) are prohibited by federal law from buying guns or ammunition, so it's a mystery what the ISP hoped to accomplish with this new restriction.

If those sworn to uphold the law refuse even to be bound by laws, what reason have we to comply with their dictates?

Update: Click here for a recording (MP3 file) of the ISP's recorded message to callers.

Close the military base loophole

Maybe someone can explain to me how "stronger gun laws" would have stopped this guy from arming himself rather impressively.

In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.

Enough to make my gun safe seem a little skimpy. But where did he get it all?

ATF Special Agent Heidi Wallace said much of the recovered ordnance was almost certainly stolen from the military because there is no other place to get it.

Really? I figured he just got the stuff from those damned American gun shows. Guess there's only one thing to do: disarm the military.

About Olofson

The renewed discussion about the massive injustice against David Olofson brought to my mind a point that I don't often see addressed.

David's GUNS Magazine article brought it up, but I haven't seen much mention of it elsewhere.

What mattered was the government’s position that none of the above was relevant because “[T]here’s no indication it makes any difference under the statute. If you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun.”

No matter what the cause.

Think about if your semiauto ever malfunctions. Because that’s how close you could be to becoming a convicted “gun felon.”

See what I'm getting at? Most commentators who believe in Olofson's innocence (as I wholeheartedly do) focus on the BATFE's and prosecution's lies and dirty tricks--and that is certainly a rich vein.

Still, there's something else going on here; something that might be even more chilling.

Even if Olofson is "guilty" (of exercising his unalienable right--the one that shall not be infringed); even if the BATFE is trying something new, and telling the truth for once--that doesn't change the fact that according to the government, you can still be sent to prison for having a malfunctioning semi-auto, because "[i]f you pull the trigger once and it fires more than one round, no matter what the cause it’s a machine gun." In other words, a malfunction is no excuse, according to the government.

"Land of the free," my ass.

P.S. By the way, that relief fund for Mr. Olofson's family is still up for donations.

Children dead in Belgian nursery knife attack

Two children and one adult were killed Friday in a stabbing attack at a nursery school in Belgium, officials said.

Ten children and two adults were being treated in the hospital after the attack, the Interior Ministry said. It was unclear whether all of them suffered stab wounds. [More]

Violence in Belgium? That's strange--they have such "strong gun laws."

Mayor Slay, guns, and 'microstamping'

In today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner, we look at St. Louis Mayor Slay (one of Bloomberg's faithful minions), and his enthusiastic endorsement of "microstamping."

Please give it a look, and spread it around.

Also catch David's 'For the children...'--about the Obama plan to require "childproofing" guns.

Olofson attorney on Lou Dobbs tonight

I've just received word from Historic Arms LLC President Len Savage, who is an expert witness in the case of David Olofson, convicted of transferring a machine gun after his semiautomatic firearm that he had loaned malfunctioned at the range.

One of Olofson's attorney's, Herb Titus, will be interviewed live tonight on Lou Dobbs. The program airs at 7:00 pm EST on CNN, so check your local listings in your time zone. I'm told significant information will be disclosed, and hope to have an update to this story soon to include documents just made public.

Go and read the rest, and try to watch tonight.

More effective at what?

The title of an article in Reason Magazine, "Speak Softly and Carry a Concealed Handgun: Would a nicer NRA be more effective?" caught me off guard. I've made little secret of my numerous bones of contention with the NRA, but none of them have anything to do with the NRA being insufficiently "nice."

How much "nicer," after all, could the NRA be than declining to grade senators on how they vote on the confirmation of radically anti-gun Eric Holder for Attorney General? "Well, we'd prefer that you vote against a citizen disarming aspiring tyrant, but if you don't, we won't hold it against you," is pretty darned nice. Contemptible and cowardly, perhaps, but nice.

The Reason article is mostly a discussion of disagreements between Richard Feldman (a former lobbyist for the NRA, with whom he eventually had a messy divorce--complete with book deal). Feldman is the sort who does actually think the NRA needs to be "nicer"--this guy makes Neville Chamberlain look like King Leonidas I.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I quite understand why he and the NRA can't get along. Maybe it's time for those crazy kids to get back together.

More Missourians taking up arms

Looks as if Obama's election has spurred not only a huge spike in firearms sales, but is also prompting more people to carry firearms in public. It seems that not everyone expects "The Lightworker" to cure all our social ills, after all.


Please read. Also, read what David has to say about Obama and the "Bill of Rights loophole."

Holder held (for now)

A few of the GOP's Senate Judiciary Committee members have either grown a bit more backbone than I had expected, or are at least going to try to put up a convincing show of resistance to Holder's confirmation.

David has more.