Good news from Sipsey Street

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

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

'Mayors Against Illegal Guns' scrambles for relevance

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

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

Anti-gun RINO for U.S. Senate!

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

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

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

That's not all:

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

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

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

Praying for peace, but prepared for violence

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

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

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

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

Goldilocks 'gun control,' revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badger guns, and 'crime guns,' Part II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those demands are considerable:

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

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

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

Says Chief Flynn:

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

Or else . . . ?

That's what I thought.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Badger guns, and 'crime guns'

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

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

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

[ . . . ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come . . .

Montana's stand for 2nd and 10th Amendments

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

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

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

More about incorporation

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

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

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

Supreme Court to decide 2nd Amendment incorporation issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are opponents of Amtrak gun bill supporting terrorism?

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

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

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

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

'Look like' an 'assault weapon'?

Oleg Volk photo

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

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

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

[ . . . ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun rights are for everyone

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

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

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

Illinois Nazis.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

A runaway Amtrak of anti-gun hysteria

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

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

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

Gun sales up; crime down

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

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

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

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

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

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

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