The Cardassian Rifle Association?

Never let it be said that I am unwilling to acknowledge the fact that I was wrong, when that fact becomes apparent. Thus, I must admit that my prediction on Tuesday, that the Gun Guys would simply ignore Zumbo, now that he seems to have figured out what the Second Amendment is about, is wrong. This is what I predicted two days ago about their reaction.

It will be amusing to see how they react when he starts extolling the virtues of homeland defense firearms, and of tactical shooting in general.

As they generally do when facts become inconvenient for them (as they inevitably do), they'll probably just ignore his conversion to freedom advocacy.

As it turns out, I was wrong. The Gun Guys aren't ignoring his conversion--they're attributing it to . . . the Cardassians. If that confuses you, don't feel bad--it just means you're not a Trekkie (actually, since the Gun Guys were referring to Star Trek: The Next Generation, I guess it means you're not a neo-Trekkie)--I think you can be forgiven.

Anyway, not being a fan of the show myself, apparently the protagonist was a prisoner of an alien race (the Cardassians), who attempted to brainwash him with a combination of torture and drugs. This, of course, is very similar to what angry, betrayed gun rights activists did to Zumbo (except for the lack of torture, and of drugs). Hmm--OK, so it wasn't similar--since all we did was inform Zumbo's sponsors that we would not give our patronage to businesses who financed the dissemination of ridiculous prejudices against certain firearms, based on aesthetics. If Zumbo has ever been the victim of brainwashing with regards to so-called "assault weapons," it was gun rights activists who cured him of it.

At least the Gun Guys' story was entertaining. Maybe, instead of writing commentary intended to guide public policy, their obviously impressive science fiction TV watching credentials could be better employed in writing synopses of science fiction TV series.

We who have dedicated ourselves to protecting Americans from forcible disarmament are certainly drawing a lot of interesting comparisons these days. From Bill Schneider's "black rifle Gestapo" and "attack dogs" (an improvement, I suppose), to the Gun Guys' even more creative comparison to hyper-advanced aliens--the sky is the limit for us, I guess.

More about Illinois SB 0016

I know I just talked about this yesterday, but there have been new, ominous developments--and besides, this hits awfully close to home for me. Yesterday, SB 0016 passed its hearing in the Senate Public Health Committee, and is now headed for a floor vote.

The Illinois State Rifle Association reports that the way in which it passed through the committee was particularly egregious, and provides a chilling reminder of just how far the rights suppression lobby is willing to go to disarm the law-abiding citizens of Illinois.

4. In a tactic as bad as the Soviet Union, Committee Chairman Susan Garrett denied gun owners the opportunity to testify against SB16 in senate hearings on the bill today. In effect, YOUR VOICE WAS SILENCED by Sen. Garrett. Of course, Daley’s Gun Grabbers were allowed to testify. So, it is important that you call Sen. Garrett’s office at (217) 782-3650, and remind the person who answers the phone that this is still the United States of America and that you are angry that Sen. Garrett denied your fellow citizens the right to be heard. Also, call Garrett’s district office at (847) 433-2002 and tell the person there the same thing.

That is what the Illinois political machine thinks of the Bill of Rights--so desperate are they to throw out the Second Amendment, that they have no compunction about crushing the First Amendment rights of those who would speak against their civilian disarmament agenda.

By the way, in the wake of the Zumbo debacle, the enemies of private firearm ownership are busily trying to exploit the perceived gulf between hunters and those of us who believe in firearms as a bulwark against tyranny. Whether such a schism actually exists or not, hunters (and other sport shooters) have no less of a stake than gun rights activists in defeating this legislative abomination. The bill's definition of "assault shotguns" includes the following provisions:

(D) a semi-automatic shotgun that has any of the
following:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5
rounds; or
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable
magazine.

The section in bold type effectively outlaws all semi-automatic shotguns, because any magazine that can hold 4 or more 2.75" shells (as all that I know of can, when the plug is removed) can hold more than 5 of the 1.75" Aguila "Minishells." The bill says nothing about whether or not the gun can cycle the ammo, only the number of shells the magazine can hold. Want to introduce your son or daughter to waterfowl or turkey hunting with a semi-auto's soft recoil--too bad--those will be illegal.

This bill would overnight create literally tens of thousands--maybe hundreds of thousands--of new "gun criminals," out of law-abiding Illinois citizens. Perhaps that is the plan. Perhaps the vast surge in "gun crime" will be used to justify even more, yet more draconian gun laws. Pretty clever, really.

The agenda to disarm Illinois is well underway. If we let it happen, we'll deserve what we get. Don't forget IGOLD
.

I would like to express my thanks to David Codrea, at War on Guns, for posting information about this.

Welcome back, Zumbo

I had been one of the holdouts in forgiving Zumbo for his astonishingly foolish remarks equating homeland defense rifles with "terrorism," but it is now, I think, time to embrace a scarred comrade in arms (even if his wounds were largely self-inflicted), rather than throw away what he can do to advance the cause of gun rights in America.

His initial apologies fell rather short, but this letter to CCRKBA's Alan Gottlieb indicates to me that he will be better as an ally than as an enemy.

I was wrong when I recently suggested that wildlife agencies should ban semiautomatic firearms I erroneously called “assault rifles” for hunting. I insulted legions of my fellow gun owners in the process by calling them “terrorist rifles.” I can never apologize enough for having worn blinders when I should have been wearing bifocals.

But unlike those who would destroy the Second Amendment right to own a firearm – any firearm – I have learned from my embarrassing mistake. My error should not be used, as it has been in recent days by our common enemies, in an effort to dangerously erode our right to keep and bear arms.

This comes none too soon, as today, Paul Helmke himself made his pitch to try to exploit what he perceives to be a fault line in the gun owning fraternity. Helmke even quotes Bill Schneider referring to gun rights activists as the "black rifle Gestapo." Godwin's Law lives on.

The Gun Guys have, oddly enough (I would imagine that he's the first hunting writer to get that kind of treatment from them), elevated Zumbo to some kind of saintly status, for arguing against so-called "assault weapons" (they even dishonestly portrayed his stance as advocating restrictions on ownership of these firearms, when he actually only argued against their use for hunting--and now he acknowledges that he was way off base with that). It will be amusing to see how they react when he starts extolling the virtues of homeland defense firearms, and of tactical shooting in general.

As they generally do when facts become inconvenient for them (as they inevitably do), they'll probably just ignore his conversion to freedom advocacy.

Illinois mounts its own assault on freedom (another one)

I've talked (here and here) about Maryland's proposed ban on homeland defense firearms, and I've talked a bit the proposed new federal AWB, H.R. 1022, but until now, didn't have much to say about this year's version of the Illinois plan to disarm the law-abiding. The reason for that is that until now, there wasn't enough to Illinois S.B. 0016 to comment on.

SYNOPSIS AS INTRODUCED:

New Act

Creates the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007. Contains only a short title provision.


A BILL FOR


SB0016

1 AN ACT concerning criminal law.

2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:

4 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
5 Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2007.

That's how it stood from Jan. 31 until yesterday, when they finally decided to get around to telling us peons what they had in store for us (it's too long to post here--after all, they have a vast number of firearms they want to ban--but there's the link).

It would ban almost all semi-automatic firearms, .50 caliber rifles (which still don't seem to have caused any deaths in America yet), and magazines that can hold eleven or more rounds.

This isn't about saving lives--this is, as the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer said about the now-defunct federal AWB, about desensitizing the public to the idea of an all out ban on all firearms. That is always the agenda that drives every piece of restrictive gun legislation introduced.

I guess that's the kind of legislation (and those are the kinds of legislators) that $1.8 million of Joyce Foundation money given to the ICHV buys.

Don't forget about IGOLD a week from tomorrow. Our legislators need an education more than ever, and they need it in a hurry.

Don't they (the BATFE) have anything better to do?

I will soon be taking possession of a Kel-Tec PLR-16 "pistol." The idea behind purchasing something of such admittedly limited utility is that I've been bitten by the bug to have a firearm in the general class that offended Jim Zumbo so much, but being paraplegic and confined to a wheelchair, a full size rifle (or even a carbine) seemed a bit awkward and impractical.

There are, of course, several AR "pistol" variants out there, but with the big ol' buffer tube sticking out the back, they're little more compact than a carbine. The Kel-Tec doesn't have that--and it's considerably cheaper.

What does this have to do with our favorite band of merry stormtroopers? Well, I also ordered the forend piece, which includes an under-barrel picatinny rail. Not only does the attachment make the entire ensemble look much cooler, it would also make attaching a vertical foregrip (which I suspect would be especially useful for me, because of my limited lower trunk strength, and thus compromised balance and stability) a trivial exercise. Trivial, that is, from a mechanical standpoint. Legally, it's anything but, as the BATFE helpfully advises us.

ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.

So, to keep America safer, a modification to a gun that makes it more easily used by a paraplegic carries with it a ten year prison sentence, unless it's done in conjunction with jumping through a ridiculous series of legal and bureaucratic hoops. Thank you, BATFE--that should certainly help to reduce violence.

If I decide to bother with all this, I have a choice of which particular hoops I subject myself to. Here's option number one:

To lawfully add a vertical fore grip to a handgun, a person must make an appropriate application on ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm.” The applicant must submit the completed form, along with a fingerprint card bearing the applicant’s fingerprints; a photograph; and $200.00. The application will be reviewed by the NFA Branch. If the applicant is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Federal, State, or local law, and possession of an “AOW” is not prohibited in the applicant’s State of residence, the form will be approved. Only then may the person add a vertical fore grip to the designated handgun.

So, to install a foregrip ($12 from MidwayUSA, with my dealer discount that I get by virtue of having my C&R license on file with them), I have to pay the feds $200--not to mention sending them a photograph and fingerprints (what--no DNA sample?). Obviously, I'm not much interested in that option.

Onto option number two:

A person may also send the handgun to a person licensed to manufacture NFA weapons. The manufacturer will install the fore grip on the firearm and register the firearm on an ATF Form 2. The manufacturer can then transfer the firearm back to the individual on an ATF Form 4, which results in a $5.00 transfer tax. If the manufacturer is out of State, the NFA Branch will need a clarification letter submitted with the ATF Form 4 so that the NFA Branch Examiner will know the circumstances of the transfer. Questions can be directed to the NFA Branch or the Firearms Technology Branch.

OK, instead of a $200 tax, I pay a $5 one--I can live with that. But, I have to pay a licensed NFA firearms manufacturer to perform the "installation" (which even a mechanically challenged doofus like myself could do in seconds), plus shipping back and forth. I don't know if I can even find someone with the license who would agree to this kind of trivial deal--especially in Illinois (doing it out of state would necessitate even more paperwork). Finally, I would have to get the chief of my local police department to sign the ATF Form 4 application--something he is under no legal obligation to do (I have no idea whether he would be willing to do so, or not).

We keep hearing the Brady Bunch wail and complain that the BATFE is overwhelmed, understaffed, and underfunded. Maybe if they got out of the business of regulating the most insanely trivial aspects of firearm ownership, sale, and manufacture, they wouldn't be in such a position.

"A force for destruction"

I wasn't going to bother with this tripe (actually, I might owe tripe an apology), but I just can't seem to help myself. According to Dan K. Thomasson, the "NRA is a force for destruction." In Thomasson's view, apparently, a lobbying group that advocates a position with which he disagrees is akin to an American Hezbollah.

The nation's police chiefs have a serious problem. Their troops are being out-gunned, and to correct the situation taxpayers must increase law-enforcement budgets substantially or find some way to ban the circulation of weapons and ammunition meant for the battlefield - mainly, semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets.

That argument that police are now being forced to purchase more firepower, because they face more of it in the hands of the felons they're trying to stop, has been floating around lately (I discussed it a bit here), and frankly, it doesn't pass the smell test. Can anyone tell me of an incident since the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout just over 10 years ago, in which the problem was that the police had inadequate firepower on hand? As a side note about that incident, keep in mind that part of the solution for the police was to borrow weapons and ammunition from a nearby gun shop--if those items had not been legal for civilians, there would not likely have been such a convenient source of them for the police, and the outcome could have been tragic. Keep in mind also that this robbery was in 1997--when the federal ban on "assault weapons" had been in effect for 3 years--I guess that shows how well bans work at preventing criminals from arming themselves.

I do agree that police budgets are often somewhat lacking--the Lapeer County (MI) Sheriff's Office, for example, is so strapped for cash that it is trying to make a sale--of the department's fully-automatic M-16. Not exactly the asset one would expect the department would be willing to part with amid concerns of being "outgunned."

As to the "semiautomatic assault rifles and armor-piercing bullets," there are no semi-automatic assault rifles--assault rifles, by definition, have a fully-automatic capability. Granted, the VPC and Brady Bunch types have invented the term "assault weapons" in reference to semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles, but the definition constantly changes, depending on who is doing the defining, and how ambitious he or she is about how many firearms can be banned at the time. If by "armor-piercing bullets," Thomasson means bullets that can penetrate the soft body armor normally worn by patrol officers under their shirts, then virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition, from the 19th century on, qualifies. "Meant for the battlefield" does not enter the picture here.

And where citizens are unwilling to spend the money to equip their guardians with weapons and armor now readily available to criminals, the threat to themselves and those they hire to protect them is likely to increase proportionately. It's just that simple.

This passage displays one of the fundamental philosophical differences between those who favor draconian gun restrictions, and those of us who are appalled at the idea of a government monopoly on the use of force--Thomasson thinks of police as our "guardians," hired to "protect" us (despite court ruling after court ruling stating that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens), while we demand that we not be stripped of our ability to protect ourselves. It's just that simple, Dan.

The Maryland legislature currently is considering a bill to ban the semiautomatic rifles, and the opposition has been loud and persistent.

By now, Thomasson has at least gotten honest enough to drop the "assault" pretense--if it's semi-automatic, he wants it banned. If he and his ideological allies win that battle, then it will be time to argue that bolt-actions, pump-actions, lever-actions, etc. are not much slower to operate than semi-autos, and need to be banned as well.

This is a land where the right to traffic in firearms, no matter how dangerous to law and order, is protected by constitutional language designed for a militia carrying muskets and enforced by a self-appointed virulent lobby called the National Rifle Association.

Interesting--he acknowledges the Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. He then dismisses it, apparently on the grounds that the Founding Fathers lacked the wit to realize that firearm technology would evolve. Obviously, they would also not have predicted the vast advancements in communications technology--looks as if the First Amendment is dangerously outmoded, as well. Or just maybe, they believed that just as freedom of speech shouldn't depend on there being no efficient means to communicate on a large scale, the right of the people to arm themselves as well as government soldiers shouldn't depend on firearms being clumsy, inefficient means of defense.

Now, poor, confused, old Jim Zumbo gets dragged back into it.

Would it be out of place here to suggest that this swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA on one of its own proves conclusively that Zumbo was right in suggesting that terrorism is not unknown to the gun lobby?

Well Dan, since you ask--yes it would be out of place. Not just because there was no "swift and unrelenting attack by the NRA" (but rather a delayed, subdued one, after a firestorm of outrage from individual gun owners whom he had equated with terrorists), but mostly because terrorism involves killing, on a large scale. Zumbo had his career wrecked and his feelings hurt--he wasn't machine gunned, blown up, or gassed to death, along with dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of other people. That's terrorism. What the "gun lobby" (if that's what you insist on calling thousands of individual gun owners) did was retort to an unfair, inaccurate, and hurtful charge of terrorism.

That is why the increasingly frantic efforts of law enforcers to win some sort of reasonable control over the kinds of weapons they face on the street are pretty much futile. Politicians want to be re-elected.

Ahh, tragic--politicians forced to bend to the will of their constituents in order to get re-elected. If only we had a political system in which the government wasn't held to any kind of accountability--eh, Dan?

Dan K. Thomasson is a tool (if not a particularly effective one, thankfully) of tyranny.

Bill Boyne defends defenselessness

Bill Boyne believes in the forcible disarmament of all American civilians who are not law enforcement officers. Gun rights activists (of whom I like to flatter myself as being a member) tend to be seen as paranoid when they accuse someone of advocating the complete abolition of private ownership of firearms, but there's no risk of that here--this guy comes right out and says it (in the title of his op-ed piece).

Bill Boyne: Guns should be restricted to soldiers, police officers

He certainly cannot be accused of ambiguity, or of beating around the bush.

A recent report by the U.S. Justice department indicates that Americans were victimized by gun violence in 2005 at a greater rate than in the previous year, after a long decline.

And the obvious solution to a brief interruption of what Boyne himself refers to as "a long decline" of violence committed with guns is to use the Bill of Rights as a Charmin substitute.

Mr. Boyne does, I trust, remember that there is an amendment between the First and Third. Actually, throwing away the Second Amendment would not be nearly enough to disarm America. With between 250 and 300 million (estimates vary) privately owned firearms in the country, you're not going to be able to avoid missing millions of them (whose owners have suddenly been rendered criminals, by decree) without, at the bare minimum throwing out the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, too.

At the same time, the New York Times published an article that should be considered in the light of the report on gun violence. It lists the volume of small arms produced throughout the world and -- to no one's surprise -- the United States is by far the largest producer.

According to the Times, the U.S. exports $533 million worth of small arms every year.

I would have thought that Boyne would be happy about guns leaving the country--he clearly doesn't want them here.

The newspaper also reports that 1,000 people are killed every day worldwide by small arms fire -- 365,000 people per year. Of those killed, 56 percent are victims of homicides, 25 percent die in war, 14 percent are suicides and 5 percent die in firearms accidents. In addition, three people are wounded for every person killed. That would indicate a total of 1,460,000 people killed and wounded annually with small weapons throughout the world.

Here, Boyne includes the 25% killed and wounded in wars (which would, by his numbers, be 365,000). But remember, he doesn't advocate disarming soldiers (they would be among what David Codrea refers to as the "Only Ones")--so Boyne's Final Solution to the "epidemic of gun violence" wouldn't have any effect on that number. Anyway, I guess he just forgot to mention how disarming Americans will reduce the death toll in Sudan, or the Gaza strip.

However, the National Rifle Association and other gun enthusiasts maintain a constant pressure on political leaders to make gun usage more prevalent.

I would certainly be interested in seeing the text of any legislation backed by the NRA, or any other gun rights organization, that would require someone to use a gun. Those of us who defend gun rights are certainly more than willing to respect everyone's right to not use a gun--anyone who wants to abdicate all responsibility for his/her personal security is certainly entitled to do so. I firmly believe in the right to be contemptible.

The state of Florida has passed "shoot first" legislation -- laws that give a gun wielder the right to shoot first in various circumstances.

Actually, the legislation referred to here is more accurately described as "stand your ground," or "castle doctrine" legislation, and it has passed in more states than just Florida. I suppose it could be said that it recognizes a law-abiding citizen's right to shoot first--but is Mr. Boyne suggesting that the correct approach is to let the criminal shoot first? Maybe I'm just not as tough as Mr. Boyne, but I don't intend to take a bullet I could otherwise avoid, just to be "sporting" in defense of my life against a thug.

Under the Florida law, if you believe you are threatened with death or great bodily harm, you can pull your gun and pull the trigger. This could be in your home, in your car, at public meetings or at any place you might be.

The arrogant audacity of those people--thinking they have the right to defend their lives--wherever they are! If you're not willing to die at the grocery store, you shouldn't be shopping--right, Bill?

Under this law, the person holding the gun is judge and jury.

No, actually that person is the survivor, and I'm at a loss as to why that's a bad thing for a law-abiding citizen to be.

Laws of this kind can only increase the inordinate number of people killed and wounded by gunfire.

Evidently, Boyne would prefer that they be killed or wounded by knives, clubs, and bare hands. Keep in mind that all one has to do in order to avoid being shot under such laws is to not cause someone to believe that you plan to kill or badly injure him/her. That would seem rather easily accomplished.

It is time to cut down on crime and restrict guns to soldiers and police officers.

Let's see if I have this right--it's time to cut down on crime . . . by rendering the vast majority of people helpless to resist it. That's brilliant, and it has inspired me--let's cut down on obesity, by permitting only a select, elite few to have food.

In Boyne's version of Utopia, there would be two kinds of people--police and military on the one hand, and helpless, cowering sheep on the other. The good news for him is that such places can be found in the world. The bad news is that there are quite a few people who, like me, will fight to the death before we see the United States become such a place. Molon labe, Bill.

Assaulting liberty

Legislation intended to ban so-called "assault weapons" (which I much prefer to call homeland defense rifles) seems to have gotten popular again. We have a concerted effort in Maryland (I've talked about it here and here). My own pantywaist state of Illinois (where there's always a strong--almost frantic--effort to strip the law-abiding of gun rights--speaking of which, all you readers in Illinois are planning to go to IGOLD on Wednesday, Mar. 14th, aren't you?) is once again aggressively pursuing such a ban. Several other states, of course, are also exploring their own assaults on liberty--Maryland and Illinois are simply the ones I've read the most about. On the federal level, we have perennial freedom hater, Carolyn McCarthy, and her H.R. 1022, which would classify tens of millions of guns as "assault weapons" (I've also discussed that bill before)

Never mind that these politically incorrect firearms are used in a smaller percentage of murders than are knives and clubs--the Second Amendment suppression lobby has identified them as a target of opportunity, and a good first step toward the eventual goal of complete civilian disarmament. In a rare moment of honesty, gun ban advocate Charles Krauthammer, of the Washington Post, said as much, back in 1996.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Charles Krauthammer, columnist, Washington Post, April 5, 1996

McCarthy's idea of classifying nearly every semi-automatic pistol, rifle, and shotgun as an "assault weapon" is actually quite clever. Not only does this mean that passage of the bill would bring the gun ban extremists that much closer to their goal of total civilian disarmament, but the more guns it would ban, the more likely it is to pass!

That last statement is counterintuitive, so it probably needs some explaining. After all, at first glance, one would naturally think that the more sweeping a proposed ban is, the more resistance it would meet, and thus the harder it would be to pass. What one needs to consider is that one of the biggest obstacles to getting people behind a ban of so-called "assault weapons" is the fact that they're used in such a miniscule fraction of violent crime in this country. When defenders of freedom point that out, backed up by unambiguous data compiled by the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control, only the most virulently anti-freedom legislators can stomach the idea of voting for such a ban. The ban advocates' problem, then, is to find a way to get "assault weapons" involved in more violent crime.

As it turns out, that's easy--since there is no real definition of the term "assault weapon," it can be redefined as convenient, at the whim of any lawmaker. So, all you have to do is expand the definition of "assault weapons" to the point that nearly every firearm is one! That, of course, means that nearly every gunshot death is an "assault weapon" death, thus helping to fuel any drive to ban them. It's brilliant, really. I've mentioned before that knives and clubs are used to wreak more violence than so-called "assault weapons" (as they're usually defined). Perhaps the next step is to start classifying non-firearms as "assault weapons," as well. That way, all the knife and club murders will be "assault weapon" murders, too.

Today, it's "assault weapons." If that works, tomorrow it will be bolt-action, scoped "sniper rifles." After that, all handguns, because "only criminals" need concealed guns. After that, there will be too few gun owners left to fight off the total gun ban that is the anti-freedom lobby's "Final Solution."

Maybe they're running out of ideas . . .

Living in Illinois, I have gotten quite accustomed to ridiculous gun legislation.

Still, this proposed bill suprised me.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Provides that it is unlawful to repaint or recoat a firearm with a color other than the original manufactured color of the firearm. Provides that a violation of this provision is a Class A misdemeanor.

What the bloody hell does it matter what COLOR a gun is?!!!

The only possible explanation I can think of for this bad joke is that it has the same intent as Mayor Bloomberg's NYC law, banning gun paint kits, which he claimed were intended to make real guns look like toys (by painting them bright, flourescent colors). In theory, police officers might see a brightly colored gun, and incorrectly conclude it was a toy, and thus get shot. Not that it's ever happened, of course. Bloomberg's specialty is "solving" problems that don't exist.

The Illinois bill would go even farther, as it would prohibit any change in the finish color. Want to parkerize or hard chrome your blued gun, to enhance the gun's corrosion resistance? Too bad--that would be against the law, even though there wouldn't even be Bloomberg's lame justification for banning such a change.

Making this even more inexplicable is the fact that the bill's sponsor, Jim Sacia, has for the most part been one of this state's legislature's few bright spots for gun owners. Hopefully, we'll find out soon what he was thinking when he introduced this bill.

It seems he may need an intervention.

Just a quick expansion on yesterday's topic

Yesterday, I looked at some of the staggering sums of money dumped into the laps of the self-defense suppression lobby. Afterward, something else occurred to me. The civilian disarmament advocates like to claim that the gun rights movement "isn't a grassroots effort," but is instead an industry lobby that would be nothing if not for the money of the NRA--money that they claim comes mostly from the gun industry (the Gun Guys rarely make it through a day without making these claims).

This is so clearly false as to be laughable. The NRA's 4 million members, the GOA's million or so (I think--can't find that information at the moment) [Correction: GOA's membership seems to be closer to 300,000 or so--sorry for the inflated estimate, although in my defense, I did take pains to point out that I was unsure of that number], and all the members of the smaller gun rights organizations are clearly not all (or even mostly) affiliated with the gun industry, except as customers. Basically, we didn't join because we want to sell guns, but because we want to preserve our right to buy them. The recent firestorm of outrage over Zumbo's ill-advised blog post was not orchestrated by any commercial interest--it was the work of thousands of angry gun owners who reacted to a stab in the back from someone who had been considered one of our own. The "gun industry's money and power" had nothing to do with what happened--this was all about angry gun owners making their voices heard (and heard loudly). That's pretty much the definition of grassroots.

In contrast, we see the enormous quantities of cash thrown around by the other side. Are there any unpaid bloggers who focus exclusively on advocacy of gun rights denial? I suppose there must be some, but I don't know of them. I know of literally hundreds of bloggers (like myself, but better at it) who devote time and effort into gun rights advocacy, with absolutely no monetary compensation, and no expectation of it.

Still, the other side claims to be a grassroots movement, and claims we are not one. Anyone dumb enough to buy that wouldn't know grassroots if they lived in a sod hut.

Follow the money--a look at the Gun Guys' sugar daddies

Anyone who reads this blog semi-regularly has probably noticed that I really enjoy picking on the Gun Guys website. There's just something about the hysterical dissemination of outright lies (such as "where there is a firearm, there will be firearms violence."--the kind of thing they say all the time, and about as honest as saying "where there are children and parents, there will be child abuse.") that bothers me. Today, though, instead of making fun of the Gun Guys directly (which was kind of fun for awhile, but way too easy), I thought it would be interesting to take a look at their funding. Comments from 1957 Human provided much of the inspiration for this little project--thanks '57.

The Gun Guys are part of the cynically named "Freedom States Alliance" (that name might be the biggest lie of all), which also boasts such paragons of internet wisdom as 50 Caliber Terror--about the "horrific threat" of .50 caliber rifles (tell me, guys, have you uncovered a single case of someone in the U.S. being killed with one of those yet--get back to me when you do), License to Murder--which is their catchy name (they do like lurid sensationalism, don't they?) for laws that explicitly state that the burden of proof that a self-defense shooting was not self-defense lies with the prosecution (apparently, the whole concept of the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt offends them), and (I'm not kidding here) Newspaper Loophole (apparently, the mythical "gunshow loophole" isn't quite silly enough for these geniuses, so now they're trying to make it impossible for people to place classified ads to sell their used guns).

Of all the Freedom States Alliance websites, the Gun Guys would seem to be the flagship--at least it gets updated regularly--the rest seem to be pretty static. The Freedom States Alliance, in turn, is apparently part of, or managed by Mark Karlin and Associates, a Chicago based public relations firm. The funding, or at least a vast chunk of it, comes from the Joyce Foundation. According to this, in 2006, the Joyce Foundation gave $650,000 to the Mark Karlin group, for the Freedom States Alliance (they also gave $185,000 to the same PR firm in 2003, "to help raise the media presence and capacity of Midwest gun violence prevention groups," although this may have been before the Freedom States Alliance was formed). Actually, a look on the Joyce Foundation's list of grants for public policy dealing with "gun violence" is something of a who's who of anti-gun groups--and the money involved is huge: $500,000 to the Violence Policy Center, a staggering $1,795,000, since July, 2004, to the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence (here, here, here, and here)--and that's just a sampling--in all, there's over six and a quarter million dollars devoted just to pushing more restrictive gun laws (according to this)--and that doesn't count all the money for firearms "research."

Something I found interesting is that over half a million dollars (here and here) of that money has gone to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, just in the last year. That certainly sounds impressive, (or would--if one believes that an international group should have a say in U.S. public policy). The Gun Guys, by the way, quote the IACP all the time--apparently, half a million dollars in one year buys quite a lot of support for one's position to strip Americans of their Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

In fairness, attacking the Second Amendment isn't the Joyce Foundation's only passion--they also seem to have it in for the First Amendment, as seen here by their monetary support for the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002

Joyce helped fund several of the groups that provided critical research and advocacy on behalf of state and federal campaign finance reforms. After Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) in 2002, Joyce provided funding to the Brennan Center at New York University, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and the Public Citizen Litigation Group to help defend the act against lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. The Supreme Court upheld BCRA in 2003.

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that they would use money to support legislation ostensibly aimed at "keeping money out of politics"?

So it seems that the Gun Guys and their pals are well funded. You'd think with all that money, they could afford a word processing program with a spell check feature, or am I just not clever enough to have encountered the word, "renowed" before? Update: I guess they dropped in, learned of their spelling problem, and fixed it--hey Gun Guys, how about sending some of that Joyce Foundation money this way, if you're going to use my proofreading service?

EDITED TO ADD: Living as I do (unfortunately) in the self-defense denied state of Illinois, I kind of left out the Joyce Foundation's contributions to self-defense suppression in other states--to give an idea, since 2003, they've given $1,270,000 to WAVE Educational Fund, $112,000 to Citizens for a Safer Minnesota Education Fund, $350,000 to Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, and $250,000 to Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence. Basically, if you're a gun rights deprivation advocacy group in the Midwest, the Joyce Foundation has a big stack of blank checks for you.

UPDATE: When I was looking into the Joyce Foundation's list of grants to human rights suppression groups, I ignored the "firearms research" category, and looked only at "improving public policy." That was a mistake on my part, because in addition to the $500,000 I already mentioned coming from the Foundation to the VPC for "improving public policy," it has donated another $1,650,000 to them (here, here, and here) for "research."

An assault on logic

The debate in Maryland over the proposed ban there, on so-called "assault weapons" (I've mentioned that ban proposal before) is heating up, as the bill approaches a vote.

Never mind that more people are murdered with knives and clubs than with all long guns (not just "assault weapons"--all shotguns and rifles), never mind that "assault weapons" are functionally identical to many firearms that are not classified as "assault weapons," and never mind that they fire the same ammunition--with no more power, and no more ability to penetrate body armor than other rifles. Still, we are supposed to believe that these firearms represent a huge threat to society.

The Maryland bill's sponsor, Senator Mike Lenett, makes some particularly odd arguments.

Sen. Mike Lenett, D-Montgomery, described the weapons as ones "built to be fired from the hip rather than aimed from the shoulder, allowing the user to spray a large quantity of ammunition from high capacity magazines over a wide area at close range as quickly as possible."

"These weapons are particularly ill-suited to hunting or target-shooting, but remarkably well-suited to killing a lot of people in a hurry," said Lenett, who is the bill's chief sponsor and mentioned the sniper slayings in 2002 that left seven Maryland residents dead as one reason why such a law is needed.

So, let me get this straight--"assault weapons" aren't good for target shooting, because they're designed for fast firing, and are thus not suitable for accurate shooting--and they were used in sniper shootings in 2002.

Wait a second--isn't sniping, by definition, precision shooting, usually from a distance? This genius screams that they're "bad" because they're not accurate enough, and then, almost in the same breath, "strengthens" that argument by saying that they're "bad" because they're accurate enough to be used by snipers.

Does anyone still think that there are any guns this mentally incompetent despot thinks are suitable for possession by the lowly masses?

Say what you want about Pat Wray and his writing--he at least does alliteration well

"Vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals"--that's what Wray calls owners of homeland security rifles (or so-called "assault weapons," to the media). Come to think of it, he could have made the alliteration even better if he had called us "vicious, vengeful, vitriolic vipers," but who am I to complain?

Once again, Wray attributes the impressive power of the outraged reaction over Zumbo's gaffe to "paranoia" cultivated by the NRA. He has apparently found a theme he likes, and is sticking to it--its inaccuracy notwithstanding.

But we need to look beyond the Internet, into the genesis of the anger and fear that fueled the Internet attacks. If we look closely, we will find the National Rifle Association, or NRA. For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense. Nowhere has that message taken root as strongly as within the owners of the military style rifles, and it was they who came after Zumbo in their thousands.

What Wray has chosen to ignore is that powerful forces are out to take our guns (such as a powerful United States Senator saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done it.") To deny that private ownership of firearms is under attack is either grossly wishful thinking, or a deliberate attempt to lull gun owners into potentially disastrous complacency. Either way, it serves the forces of civilian disarmament, and their goal of a government monopoly on the use of force.

I have pointed out before that another aspect Wray is utterly clueless about (as are others) is that the NRA brought up the rear in the campaign against Zumbo (forgive the shouting, but some folks seem to be having trouble getting that point). They publicly cut ties with him several days after the most intense part of the storm of anger. Even that was a rather tame couple paragraphs--certainly not the extremist ranting that Wray would have us believe was involved. The widespread rage was due, not to the NRA, but to the fact that what Zumbo did was outrageous--namely, helping to accomplish the gun ban lobby's sacred mission of driving a wedge between different categories of law-abiding gun owners.

If Wray's shooting is no more accurate than his writing, I imagine the chukars he hunts are pretty safe. By the way, is calling us "terrorists" in a clumsy, foolish use of words much worse than calling us "vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals," deliberately?

The Gun Guys--confused as ever

I keep promising myself that I'm going to drop the Zumbo debacle (I actually believe that it's time to move on from bashing him), but new developments keep coming up, and I think they need to be addressed. This time, it's a blog post by my old nemesis, the Gun Guys.

Predictably, just like Martha Rosenberg, just like Pat Wray (as reported by the Washington Post), they present a version of events in which the NRA was supposedly the driving force behind the massive grassroots campaign of indignation directed at Zumbo and his sponsors.

As the Washington Post reports, the NRA and their minions are more like a pack of rabid dogs than even we knew– at the first hint of reasonable gun legislation, even coming from one of their own, they go for the throat.

As I (and others) have mentioned before, the NRA was slow to cut ties with Zumbo, and did so only after it became obvious that gun rights activists were demanding it.

The Gun Guys want to hear more from Zumbo (oddly, they didn't mention a word about the fact that he has said more since the fatal blog--and the gist of it is that he was dead wrong, and that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting).

What we’d like to see is another column from Jim Zumbo, on what he thinks about all this. As we said, he was an ardent supporter of what the NRA is supposed to stand for– hunting and shooting sports– for years and years. And because of one comment (a suggestion already agreed upon by the majority of American citizens), they have eviscerated his career and his life. We’re guessing Zumbo probably won’t be renewing his NRA membership the next time it comes around.

The good news for the Gun Guys is that I believe they'll get their wish of more writing from Zumbo--the bad news (for them and their freedom-hating ilk) is that I strongly suspect that it will be extolling the virtues of rifles like the AR-15, and of tactical shooting in general.

Zumbo's fall from grace has nothing to do with the NRA, and everything to do with the tens of thousands of law-abiding, responsible owners of "scary" looking rifles who, oddly enough, took umbrage at being called terrorists. To acknowledge that, though, is to acknowledge that gun rights advocacy is more mainstream than they are willing to believe--and that we're tired of being pushed around.

That scares the civilian disarmament lobby--as well it should.

Gun rights advocates unite!

Today, I was made aware of an initiative over at the Guns Newtork Forum (I'm not clear on whether it actually started there, or somewhere else) to unite all gun forums (AR15.com, The High Road, The Firing Line, 1911 Forum, Glock Talk--and many others) and blogs into one cohesive, massively powerful grassroots force.

The recent groundswell of righteous indignation over Zumbo's forcible insertion of both of his boots in his mouth, and the immediate effect it had on the outdoor sporting industry provides just a glimpse of what kind of economic power gun owners can bring to bear. The reaction to Zumbo was improvised and spontaneous, but still had a great deal of power. How much greater, then, would be that power, if it was carefully cultivated, focused and directed?

The civilian disarmament lobby likes to portray those who oppose them as a faceless, evil, behemoth "gun lobby," which they invariably equate with the NRA. This is patently false, but it's taken as a matter of faith by the media, and thus hardly questioned among the public. A deafening roar from a unified, grassroots legion of motivated, patriotic gun owners would shatter that illusion.

The idea here isn't to replace the gun rights advocacy lobbying groups, like the GOA, SAF, CCRKBA, NRA, JPFO, etc.--their vital importance will be undiminished--the thinking is to open up a brand new front in the war against the war on guns (hope you don't mind me borrowing, David). The lobbying groups will continue to work on the legislative level, while the new effort would focus on the economic level, by organizing phone, fax, email, and letter blitzes, and if necessary, boycotts.

I'm still trying to get a handle on the idea, so instead of trying to explain it myself, I'll refer you (again, for those who missed it above) to the explanation here. I will post a very brief overview here (quoted from the link above) of the very first steps necessary:

1. authoring a mission statement: clear and to the point. (volunteers?)
2. Formally asking the moderators of other sites if they would like to be on-board with it, agreeing with the mission statement. (volunteers?)
3. Having a group of moderators, perhaps one from each involved forum, be the arbiters of the final action.
4. Keeping it professional
5. selecting out targets for maximum impact

and

6. Set up a blog to act as the blogger's alert center. I volunteer to bring back Headsbunker for this purpose, but if there is a well known gunblogger out there who would host this that would be more efficient.

Targeting Zumbo, an outdoor writer, whose sponsors were all necessarily sensitive to the pressures we could bring to bear, was easy. The challenges in our future will undoubtedly be more formidable. This idea might be just the ticket for meeting that challenge.

Bigger fish to fry

After a full week of the Great Zumbo Debacle, I think it's time to shift targets (metaphorically speaking). Further attacks on him would be "bombing the rubble," so to speak--there's simply nothing left to gain by continuing to lambaste him.

Besides, apparently somewhere on Ted Nugent's web board (I'm not going to wade through almost 50 pages looking for exactly where), Zumbo showed evidence of finally having gotten a clue:

JimZumbo
Junior Member posted 02-23-2007 03:30 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all for letting me speak. Yes, I know the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and hunting guns, and yes, I promise you I am now dedicated to educate all shooters that we must all stick together regardless of our gun choices, and also tolerate the firearms others may choose to use if they are dissimilar to ours. I will do everything I can, within my power as a journalist and public speaker, to protect the 2nd Amendment and America's gun owners.

Finally, instead of saying that "'Assault weapons' are OK, because they can be appropriate for hunting," he is acknowledging that suitability for hunting has nothing to do with "legitimacy" or the Second Amendment. It took him bloody long enough to get there, but now that he has, I can no longer fault him.

In fact, I believe that there are some nuggets of good to be salvaged from this whole sordid mess. I've mentioned before that this incident really put the spotlight on the power of the gun owning community, when some outrage is sufficient to fully mobilize us. That power may well be needed in coming days, as bills like H.R. 1022 raise their hideous heads.

In this Washington Post article, another outdoor writer, Pat Wray, "blamed" the NRA for driving the fury against Zumbo.

"This shows the zealousness of gun owners to the point of actual foolishness," said Pat Wray, a freelance outdoors writer in Corvallis, Ore., and author of "A Chukar Hunter's Companion."

Wray said that what happened to Zumbo is a case study in how the NRA has trained members to attack their perceived enemies without mercy.

In truth, the NRA was rather slow in addressing the situation, and would very likely never have done so but for the tsunami of grassroots indignation of thousands of individual gun owners. The enemies of civilian gun ownership like to portray a behemoth "gun lobby," which they invariably equate with the NRA, while ignoring the millions of gun owners and freedom lovers from whom the NRA (and every other gun rights organization) gets its power.

Speaking of Wray, he has had long-standing issues with the NRA, and is something of a cheerleader for the American Hunters and Shooters Association--a group whose president, John E. Rosenthal, is the founder of the Massachusetts anti-gun group, Stop Handgun Violence. The AHSA's primary mission seems to be to forestall the gun ban lobby by doing much of their work for them, and thus perhaps appeasing them enough that their double barreled shotguns will be left alone. A laudable endeavor--if you happen to believe that the Second Amendment protects the right to hunt, as long as you do it without scaring the soccer moms.

Exposing Wray for what he is would seem to be one of the beneficial side effects of the Zumbo imbroglio. Another who has gotten a pass for far too long is David Petzal, of Field and Stream. Anyone who has not read Unix_Jedi's breakdown of Petzal's position, as well as some interesting history, should do so.

Zumbo was a symptom--people like Petzal, and organizations like AHSA are the disease.

As is so often the case, much of what I discussed here I found on War on Guns

Raising the next generation of placid herbivores

This Washington Post op-ed piece, by Jonathan Turley, discusses the culture of cowardice a growing number of parents want their children (and everyone else's children, as well) raised in. He became aware of this phenomenon when other parents reacted in shock and horror upon discovering that his sons were permitted to play with toy guns (which were obviously toys).

Turley is not himself a firearms enthusiast, and although the piece does not come out and say so, I get the strong impression that there are not, and never have been, real firearms in his house. Still, he is struck by the ridiculousness of "protecting" children from toy guns, as if they were loaded heroin syringes. His piece lists some examples of the bizarre extremes to which the "zero tolerance" policies are sometimes taken.

· In New Jersey, an 8-year-old boy used an L-shaped piece of paper in a game of cops and robbers during recess. School officials called the police, saying the child had threatened "to kill other students" by saying "pow pow" on the playground. He was held for five hours and forced to make two court appearances before charges were dropped. Two 8-year-old boys were charged with making "terrorist threats" after they were found pointing paper guns at classmates. Charges were later dropped.

· In Texas, a 13-year-old girl was suspended and transferred to a school for problem kids after she brought a butter knife to school with her lunch. Her parents had packed the dull knife so that she could cut her apple to make it easier to eat because she wore braces.

· In Arkansas, an 8-year-old boy was punished for pointing a cooked chicken strip at another student and saying "pow, pow, pow."

· In Georgia, a 5-year-old student was suspended after he brought a plastic gun the size of a quarter to his kindergarten class.

How far we have fallen--a few short generations ago, our men braved murderous fire to storm the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima--now, an 8-year-old saying "pow, pow" is enough to terrorize us.

There is hope, though--even in my own herbivore-ruled state of Illinois, a bill has been introduced in the legislature that would require the school system to offer weapon safety education to children.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the School Code. Requires the State Board of Education, in cooperation with the Department of State Police, to develop a weapons safety program designed to protect children from the risk of gun-related death and injury. Provides that the program must be designed to teach children to follow an effective safety procedure when they are exposed to a gun and shall specifically warn children that contact with guns can result in serious injury or death. Provides that a school district may incorporate the weapons safety program into its curriculum. Requires the State Board of Education to submit a report to the Governor and the General Assembly as to the status of the program no later than January 1, 2009.

That's the kind of thing that will probably put the "zero tolerance" folks off their feed--sales of tofu burgers with kiwi slices are going to suffer.

Doh!

Trying to fix one problem with the layout here, it seems that I have created new problems (which I've just discovered). I'm referring to the links I've lost--including the Free Wayne Webring. Also, there are some other blogs to which I had included links--links which have spontaneously disappeared. This is in no way intended as a slight--just a side effect of my incompetence with HTML code. Working on it now.

UPDATE: Many thanks to JR, at A Keyboard and a 45, for rescuing me from my own incompetence, and giving me the Free Wayne Webring code. Now if he'd just teach me how to work on my 1911s ;-) .

More strange "logic" from the gun ban advocates

According to this article, police departments are outfitting patrol officers with more firepower. This is coming in the form of semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles--commonly referred to as "assault weapons," (more on that in a minute)--or simply moving rifles and shotguns from the trunks of squad cars, up to the front, where they're more easily available (but I thought quickly available firepower only made bloodbaths more likely--I guess the "Only Ones", as defined at War on Guns--are too good for that).

The writers of the article would clearly like us to believe that the reason for this is that the expiration of the ban on so-called "assault weapons" means that more of them are showing up in the hands of criminals, requiring police to need more firepower to avoid being "outgunned."

Scott Knight, chairman of the Firearms Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said an informal survey of about 20 departments revealed that since 2004 all of the agencies have either added weapons to officers' patrol units or have replaced existing weaponry with military-style arms.

Knight, police chief in Chaska, Minn., said the upgrades have occurred since a national ban on certain assault weapons expired in September 2004. The ban, passed in 1994, in part prohibited domestic gunmakers from producing semi-automatic weapons and ammunition dispensers holding more than 10 rounds.

"This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," Knight said. He said his own department of about 20 officers is in the midst of determining whether to upgrade its weapons.

Hmm--an "informal" survey of "about 20 departments"--hardly ironclad proof of a widespread national trend to more police firepower. Keep in mind that this "ban" wasn't a ban--at least not in the traditional sense. People who owned the banned firearms were not compelled to give them up, and could sell them to others without any more restrictions than were imposed on other firearm sales. True--banned firearms manufactured during the 10 year life of the ban were off limits to most of the public, but as the civilian disarmament extremists never got tired of complaining, firearms manufacturers were able to market, absolutely legally, many guns that differed from the banned models only by the most trivial of details. Even Tom Diaz (Violence Policy Center) himself said that

if the existing assault weapons ban expires, I personally do not believe it will make one whit of difference one way or another . . . reducing death and injury.

The simple truth is that the militarization of our nation's police forces is a well established (and somewhat alarming) trend, and has nothing to do with the sunset of the AWB. Finally, since the AWB included absolutely no language restricting the calibers available to the public, his statement that "This (weapons upgrade) is being done with an eye to the absolute knowledge that more higher-caliber weapons are on the street since the expiration of the ban," is clearly pure nonsense.

A few paragraphs ago, I promised to expand on the civilian disarmament extremist lobby's sensationalist, pejorative term of "assault weapons," for semi-automatic, detachable magazine fed rifles. As gun owners, our use of their loaded terminology plays right into their hands. A member of a gun forum I frequent, 1911 forum, suggested a new term that is both much more accurate, and less "frightening" sounding: homeland security rifles.

I think it's as good a term as any (and better than any I'd heard until now).

Zumbo's sponsors retreating at top speed

It seems that Zumbo's fall from grace is just about complete. Remington, with commendable alacrity, was the first to stand on principle, and sever ties with him. Hi Mountain Seasonings was not far behind. Outdoor Life, after some initial beating around the bush, has followed suit, as has Gerber (of the multi-tools and knives--not the baby food). Cabela's is also apparently getting with the program.

My biggest concern, though, was the NRA, with whom he has had some ties, as a writer for Shooting Illustrated, and as part of the Great American Hunters Tour. The NRA was slow to address the situation, but have finally acknowledged that they cannot claim to be protectors of the Second Amendment, while at the same time maintaining ties with someone who has so recently and publicly attacked it.

Ending the corporate sponsorship was important, but it was my belief that the most important element was the dissolution of the NRA's ties to a man who had very publicly undermined a fundamental part of the NRA's stated mission. I applaud the NRA for (eventually) taking that step.

Zumbo, with Ted Nugent's support, is trying to repair the damage he's caused. I'm a bit skeptical about how well that will work, but if he helps bridge the long-standing rift between people whose only interest in firearms is sport, and those who, like St. George Tucker, consider the keeping of arms to be the "palladium of liberty," this entire sordid mess could end with gun owners being stronger than before. Even absent that, one positive outcome that does seem to have happened is that the "black rifle" enthusiasts have spoken, and folks are finding out that they have a pretty loud, powerful voice.

Then again, I'm something of a cockeyed optimist.