Americans losing their taste for so-called "gun control"?

A recent poll released by the Pew Research Center shows that support for the NRA is growing, with a corresponding decline in support for the implementation of yet more restrictive gun legislation. 52% of those surveyed view the NRA in a favorable light--the first time since 1994 that the approval rating was over 50%. Only 32% view the NRA unfavorably--the lowest figure in the fourteen years the poll has been conducted.

Keep in mind that this growth in support for the NRA comes despite a (growing?) subset within the gun rights activist community that thinks the NRA needs to be (much) more aggressive in fighting for gun rights, much less willing to play both sides of the issue, and much less concerned with its own money and power. I count myself among those with serious doubts about the NRA's apparent support of H.R. 297, the NICS "Improvement" Act (discussed here and here), and their apparent willingness to sabotage Parker v. DC, with their support for H.R. 1399/S. 1001, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act. The NRA's support of the political aspirations of anti-rights candidates like Sheriff Bill Brown (thanks for doing the legwork, War on Guns), their support of "Project Exile" (thanks again, War on Guns), their support of "Gun Free School Zones," their support for "enforcing existing gun laws," etc., are yet more reasons that this poll may under-represent support for gun rights, because many who truly believe that "shall not be infringed" is irreconcilable with "enforcing existing gun laws" are none too keen on the NRA.

The Pew survey does show a marked decline in support for civilian disarmament laws.

As attitudes toward the NRA have warmed, attitudes toward more restrictive gun control have cooled. In September 1990, 78% of respondents in a national survey told Gallup they felt that laws governing the sale of firearms should be stricter. The figure declined throughout the 1990s and reached its lowest point (51%) in October 2002. Since then support for stricter controls on guns has hovered in the mid-50s, reaching a peak of 60% in 2004.

It would be interesting to see what the VPC or the Brady Bunch have to say about the apparent decline in public support for their policies, but I suspect that to get an acknowledgment of this development from them, I would have to pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

Happy Easter, everyone.

Of killers, "justice," and victim disarmament zones

The murders of Rebecca Griego, at University of Washington, and Clara Riddles, in the CNN building, share some points of commonality. Predictably, the Brady Bunch and their ideological allies like to don their Captain Obvious capes, and point out that both of the shootings were committed with . . . well, guns. On some other similarities, they apparently have little to say.

Rebecca Griego's killer, Jonathan Rowan, should not have been in this country. Although an illegal immigrant, when he was stopped for drunk driving last June, Seattle law prevented the police from checking on his immigration status. Without this bizarre protection of his "right" to freedom from law enforcement . . . enforcing the law that was broken by his presence here, Ms. Griego would still be alive today.

The history of Arthur Mann (the murderer of Clara Riddles) paints a picture of a person who had absolutely zero business running loose in society.

Mann didn't talk about his past -- the eight years he spent in prison in Florida where he is a registered sex offender.

Court records in Florida tell this story: In July 1992, he was convicted of third-degree murder and two counts of robbery with a gun and was sentenced to 10 years, according to Robby Cunningham, a Florida Department of Corrections spokesman.

Mann served five years of that sentence, violated his probation at least twice, was put back in prison and when he got out was charged and convicted in March 1999 of having sex with a minor 16 to 17 years old. For that conviction, he was sentenced and served three years, Cunningham confirmed.

After his probation ended in March 2004, Mann later moved to Georgia, and in October 2006, he was convicted of failing to register as a sex offender in the state.

Records show he registered eight days later, but Georgia did not verify that registration until about two weeks ago, on March 22 of this year, which is about the same time neighbors say he and Riddles broke up.

Let's see--already a convicted murderer, a convicted sex offender, a multiple violator of the terms of his probation (with that history, how was he getting probation in the first place?) who subsequently failed to register as a sex offender. This sack of garbage had earned a lifetime behind bars before he ever met Clara Riddles.

Neither one of these worms should have had access to their victims--Rowan should have been out of the country, and Mann should have been in prison. That they weren't is clearly an abject and utter failure of our "justice" system and laws.

Another similarity in the two killings is that both occurred in victim disarmament zones. Would the outcomes have been different, had private citizens not been barred from having lifesaving firepower on hand? We will never know. What we do know is that both rampages were stopped when the killers were stopped--with guns (granted, Rowan's shooting was self-inflicted--but that's the one shot for which I will not fault him). Oddly enough, there are people advancing the puzzling argument that the CNN shooting constitutes justification to continue to allow businesses to expose their employees to the same lethal disarmament that helped kill Rebecca Griego and Clara Riddles.

Then again, I suppose the Illinois State Police would argue that these unfortunate women were permitted to be more than adequately armed--I'm sure they were permitted to have nail files and teasing brushes. Sometimes, the best way to stop a killer is a bullet in his face. Hard to deliver that bullet with a teasing brush.

My name is Kurt Hofmann, and I'm a Constitution worshipper

Boy was I confused--so ignorant, so backward, that I thought reverence for the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in particular, was to be commended. How fortunate I am to have Michael McGough, of the Los Angeles Times, to set me straight.

It turns out that it's attitudes like mine that get in the way of treating the Constitution like the "living, breathing document" we are now told that it is, so that we can have our rights legislated away (which, apparently, is what we want--or should want, if we weren't so stubbornly stuck on this silly obsession with "rights"). I need to find out if there's some kind of support group for people like me--a kind of Constitution Worshippers Anonymous, so I can get on board with the progressive idea of chopping up the Bill of Rights.

The reason this is necessary is that until Americans cease to be so touchy about the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, and now that a growing body of legal scholarship acknowldges that the Second Amendment actually means what it says, the vision of an American gun-free Utopia is threatened. Obviously, we can't have that.

It's that pesky Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms, getting in the way again. There's not much we can do to change the fact that it's a fundamental human right--those are, by nature, unchangeable. What we can do--if we can only force Americans to realize how immoral they are to love their country, and the principles on which it was founded--is to get rid of the "Constitutionally guaranteed" part. Once the guarantee goes, the fact that it's a fundamental human right can simply be ignored, and we're well on our way to complete disarmament. A lovely vision, is it not?

So, where can I get my reverence for the Bill of Rights indoctrinated out of my psyche? Where can I go to learn to actively participate in my own subjugation? Where can I learn to long for abject servitude?

On second thought, I think I'll just hold what I've got. I'm Kurt Hofmann, and I'm a Constitution worshipper, instead of a subversive traitor. Got a problem with that?

I'd like to thank We Are The Militia for the link and the kind words. By the way, I've finally enabled backlinks, which as far as I can tell, work like trackbacks, but so far, they don't seem to be working very often, except for links withing Armed and Safe, from one blog post to another--still working on that.

Help Red's Trading Post, help the 2nd Amendment, help America

As usual, I feel a bit goofy, posting something that David Codrea already has, since anyone who reads this probably reads him anyway (anyone who doesn't, should), but as a gun rights blogger, I think I have certain minimum responsibilities. Drawing what attention I can, to the BATFE's jihad against Red's Trading Post (and just about any other gun dealer they can railroad out of business, apparently), definitely qualifies as one of those responsibilities.

Please take a minute (at most) to sign this online petition in protest against the campaign to wipe out firearms commerce in the U.S.

Illinois State Police promote rapists' safety

Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

My friends at Illinois Carry have found something on the Illinois State Police website that has to be seen to be believed. I had already known that this is a state in which defenselessness is the law, so perhaps I should have expected this insanity--but sticking a finger down your throat to cause yourself to vomit, in order to discourage a rapist? Can they be serious?

Fighting for your safety may be necessary. However, if you start out fighting you cancel any other options that might be open to you. Since many attacks on women are not sexually motivated, and are designed to degrade and humiliate, talking your way out of it may be easier.

* There is documentation of assailants that left a would-be-victim alone after she told him that she was pregnant and it would kill her baby. (Some case were women that were too old to even have a baby.)
* Telling an attacker that you have VD or AIDS can discourage him.
* It may sound disgusting, but putting your fingers into you throat and making yourself vomit usually gets results. (This method is not often used except as a last resort.)
* Use your imagination and you can think of others.

The above methods are particularly important if your assailant has a gun or knife, or there is more than one attacker. (Fighting would probably be futile.)

If you must fight

Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.

* Guns stolen from residences are a primary way of getting guns into the hands of criminals.
* Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc.

I'd love to see the source of that last statistic.

OK--so the ISP says firearms are out (and we're not permitted to carry them--you know, like free people--here in Illinois, anyway). So what weapons are recommended?

Articles common to your handbag that make useful defense weapons.

* nail file
* rat tail comb
* teasing brush
* pens and pencils
* keys
* anything rigid

For dealing with particularly nasty individuals, it would probably be best to carry an assault teasing brush.

It's the very last sentence that truly sums up the Illinois attitude when it comes to self-defense:

Remember that screaming may be just as important to your defense as any weapon.

Screaming as a weapon, eh? Well, the civilian disarmament advocates certainly have enough practice at that--I'll call it the Sugarmann defense.

UPDATE: The ISP has apparently noticed the uproar over their ridiculous "advice" (I'm realistic enough to know that they don't care what I say, but David Hardy has to be taken more seriously (which is as it should be). The ISP website hasn't been changed nearly enough, but it now omits the "Use of a firearm to protect yourself or your property is not recommended," and the "statistic" claiming that "Half of all the women that fire a gun trying to protect themselves shoot someone they do not want to, i.e. friend, neighbors, relatives, etc." In case anyone thinks I made those parts up, click on the following image of what the site did say.

Even Texas isn't entirely free of the anti-defense attitude

Last week, when Texas Governor Rick Perry signed the Castle Doctrine bill into law, I didn't bother writing about it. For one thing, passage of that bill in Texas was about as close to a sure thing as one is likely to find in politics, so it wasn't exactly earth-shaking news. For another, anyone who bothers reading a gun blog as insignificant as this one presumably follows the gun rights debate closely enough to have known about this already.

Yesterday, however, the editorial board of the Southern Methodist University ran an opinion piece to which I can't quite restrain myself from responding. You have perhaps guessed that our young editors do not approve of this development, and you would be correct.

Wow.

That's all Ed Board can think to say about Rick Perry's latest bonehead move.

That's how their little tantrum opens, and pretty well sets the tone for the rest of the piece. Keep in mind that "blaming" this on Governor Perry ignores the fact that the bill passed with overwhelming, veto proof majorities in both chambers of the legislature (unanimously in the Senate--30-0, and 133-13, with one abstention, in the House), so if the SMU editorial board members want to stomp their little sheeple hooves, they should probably re-direct their outrage to the 163 out of 177 legislators, and the vast majority of the citizens who voted for them, rather than Governor Perry, who simply bowed to the obvious will of the people. But wait! There's more.

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to give your average Joe license to shoot first and think later?

Ahh--now we're getting somewhere. It seems that the angst is not so much over the recognition of the individual's absolute right to self-defense, so much as it is over the recognition of that right even for "the average Joe." How dare the Texas legislature ignore the intellectual and moral superiority of the SMU editorial board, by treating "the average Joe" as a full human, with all the rights of (for example), an SMU editorial board member.

Texas law already provides for self-defense shootings. At best, a state law would lend uniformity to any discrepancies among local jurisdictions. At worst, the provision that frees "justified" shooters from paying any civil penalties for injuries to innocent bystanders is worrisome.

There's no need to change something in an already functioning system. It's not as if people are being convicted left and right of killing people in the name of self-defense.

Apparently, we are not to address the problem of people being imprisoned for defending their lives, until it starts happening "left and right." I'm sure people who are in prison for that are very comforted that they are among such a small number. Though not in Texas, the story of Harold Fish (here and here) is a sobering reminder of the very real risk of prison time for people who defend their lives with a firearm in a state that does not have the kind of legislation the Governor Perry signed into law. By the way, a Castle Doctrine law was later (after Mr. Fish's conviction) passed in Arizona, but a ruling was made that it could not be applied retroactively. This year, the legislature passed a bill that would change that, but unfortunately, Governor Naplolitano vetoed it, apparently on the grounds that reexamining every instance of people being convicted for defending themselves would simply be too much work.

It looks as if our young editors are at least willing to acknowledge that the litigation people often face after turning the tables on an attacker is a real problem--they just apparently don't want that problem actually addressed.

We agree that people shouldn't have to get worried about being sued when they're trying to protect themselves.

How generous of them. Since this bill specifically addresses that worry, why the screaming fit?

It would certainly be amusing to see these moral and intellectual paragons take a field trip to Sam Houston State University, and drop into Professor Dowling's Criminal Justice class when he says:

By God, the reasonable Texan never retreats.

I am happy for Texas, and commend the Texas legislature and governor for passing this much needed legislation. As for the SMU editors, perhaps they would be happier going to school in Chicago--self-defense is effectively illegal there, which seems to be what they want.

P.S. By the way, I almost forgot to include the gem with which they wound up their little shriek-fest.

This debate isn't about curbing your (supposed) right to bear arms. It's about interpreting that right reasonably.

I tell you what--this suggestion isn't about curbing your (supposed) right to free speech: why don't you interpret "STFU" reasonably?

Did Emerald City have home rule?

If Emerald City had home rule, I think I've figured out why Dorothy was in such a hurry to get back to Kansas--it looks as if Kansas state law is going to preempt municipalities from imposing more onerous firearms laws. This means, of course, that a person travelling through the state need not worry about additional, arbitrary restrictions on one's ability to defend oneself--restrictions imposed by cities and towns, in obvious defiance of the intent of the concealed carry legislation passed last year.

The new law is clearly needed, as illustrated by the advent of laws in such places as Roeland Park, Mission, Olathe, and Leawood, banning the carrying of firearms in city parks and/or certain public buildings. Perhaps residents of those cities should ask their elected officials why they would want the only firearms in such places to be in the hands of criminals.

The preemption bill is not necessarily home free--Governor Sebelius may veto it, as she vetoed the original concealed carry legislation last year. Perhaps she has learned from that experience, and will not try to use the power of the governor's office to ride roughshod over the will of the people and their elected representatives (according to the article linked to above, she has not given any public indications on what she intends to do about the bill). If she has not learned that yet, I still like the bill's chances. In Kansas,a 2/3 supermajority is required in both legislative chambers to override a veto--that means that 87 House Reps. and 27 Senators would need to vote for the override.

The bill received 106 votes in the House, so the 87 votes required for an override should be a simple matter. The Senate is closer--of the bill's 29 Senate supporters in the original vote, 27 of those would be needed to stick to their principles, for an override to succeed. It is not unheard of for 3 or more of a bill's initial supporters to defect, when it comes to an override vote--particularly for legislators in the governor's party. At the moment, I don't know of a way to determine which Senators voted for H 2528, so I don't know how many of the bill's initial supporters in the Senate would be vulnerable to Democratic partisan pressure from Sebelius. Of course, she may sign the bill into law (or simply do nothing with it), thus obviating the need to override a veto.

Hopefully, Dorothy will soon be able to carry protection from wicked witches and flying monkeys, even in a Leawood city park.

Someone forgot to tell this sheriff that he's an Only One

Sheriff Barry J. Jozwiak, of Berks County, Pennsylvania, apparently didn't get the memo about law enforcement officers being the Only Ones professional enough to keep and bear arms. His testimony to a panel of PA lawmakers would seem to indicate that he is under the nutty impression that the Bill of Rights protects that right for everyone (the horror!).

There would seem to be plenty of people who would like to set him straight about that, though.

Jozwiak’s testimony before the state House Judiciary Committee in City Council chambers put him at odds with Reading Mayor Tom McMahon, Philadelphia lawmakers and others calling for tougher handgun laws in response to a rash of shootings and murders in Pennsylvania cities.

He just doesn't seem to get it.

"Gun control does not reduce crime," Jozwiak said. "In fact, criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed."

Criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed?! Could that be? But wait a second--Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke want us unarmed, also, and so does Josh Sugarmann (VPC). That would mean that these groups want the same thing the criminals do. That is certainly an interesting alliance.

Jozwiak even criticized a proposal that would require gun owners to notify police if their handguns were lost or stolen.

He "even" criticized legislation that could turn crime victims into criminals! Is he deranged?!

Good thing Pennsylvania has some legislators who aren't so caught up in this "Constitutional rights" nonsense.

State Rep. Jewell Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat, said he was frustrated by the influence the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates exert in blocking efforts to get guns off the streets.

"People are dying in Pennsylvania," Williams said. "Your kids ... are being shot, robbed and murdered with illegal guns. It’s almost like people don’t care anymore. It’s like special-interest groups are controlling people’s lives."

I'm surprised Jewell doesn't see the obvious solution--if gun rights advocates are too effective in their protection of the Second Amendment, we need to shut them down--go after the First Amendment, so we can pass any civilian disarmament laws we like, without pesky talk of "rights."

Unfortunately, it seems that the Sheriff is not alone in his bizarre insistence on protecting "rights."

State Rep. Jim Cox, a Spring Township Republican, said he would not support the one-handgun-per-month legislation because it chips away at gun owners’ rights and could lead to more drastic restrictions.

"I want people to have the sheer, unadulterated ability to defend themselves," Cox said. "If they want to go out and buy 20 weapons to protect themselves because there has been a crime wave in their neighborhood, I don’t want to restrict them."

With people like Sheriff Jozwiak and Representative Cox, Pennsylvania may never have a massive firearms registration bureaucracy, with fingerprinting, annual criminal background checks, mandatory "safe storage," $10 annual registration fee per gun, etc.

With people like Jozwiak and Cox in office, Pennsylania may never free itself from the curse of human rights.

Many thanks to David Codrea, at War on Guns, for the link and the kind words--very much appreciated.

So what, exactly, is the problem here?

One of the daily "features" of the Gun Guys website is their "America's Shooting Gallery"--links to articles about shootings around the country. This is apparently supposed to be an indictment of private firearm possession. Setting aside for a moment the fact that criminal or negligent misuse of firearms by evil or irresponsible people does nothing to compromise the right of peaceable citizens to be armed, sometimes the stories linked to don't even seem to describe misuse of a firearm.

Friday's "America's Shooting Gallery" contains a link to one such story. The second link ("WA: Young man killed during home invasion is identified as high school student") is to an article about the shooting death of a high school kid with a fairly extensive criminal history, apparently after breaking into an apartment building, pistol whipping someone there, and firing several shots. The man who was attacked apparently managed to wrest the pistol away from his attacker, and then shot and killed him.

Is this an occasion for sorrow? Are we to mourn the death of someone who, at 18 years old, had already committed numerous crimes against his fellow man? Someone who (according to this, more detailed article) kicked in the front door, assaulted an unarmed man, and shot up an apartment building? Certainly his family is suffering pain I would not wish on anyone, and the kid apparently was well-liked at his school, but forgive me if I have no tears to spare for him.

Hunter, the deceased attacker (described in both articles, by the way, as the "victim" of the shooting) made a series of choices. It should not require the benefit of hindsight to realize that these choices were not good ones. If they had not led to his death, they would certainly have deepened his problems with the law. If we are to call him a victim, so be it--he is the victim of his own poor choices. Effective arguments could very probably be made that he was incapable of making better choices because society had failed him, but those arguments would have nothing to do with gun laws.

So I suppose that I have come to agree that this is a tragic story--but it's still not an effective argument for civilian disarmament.

'Let's repeal the damn thing'

And so, perhaps it's time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the Second Amendment actually means something in contemporary society. For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let's repeal the damn thing.

That's what Benjamin Wittes says in his charmingly titled essay ("Do the Gun Nuts Have a Point? Second Thoughts"), in The New Republic (registration required to read the entire article).

I count this as a victory. Not, of course, out of a desire on my part to see the Second Amendment repealed, but because it seems to indicate that civilian disarmament advocates are finally finding themselves forced to acknowledge that the Bill of Rights, as originally written (and as it still stands to this day) expressly forbids laws that would disarm the populace. It amazes me that it took this long for it to become too exhausting to sustain the intellectual gymnastics and rhetorical gyrations that are inherent to the perpetuation of the "collective right" myth, but I have a tendency to underestimate how desperately the authority junkies cling to their arguments, no matter how badly flawed.

At the moment, I have no idea what the final legacy of the Parker v. DC ruling is going to be, but if it does no more than force the other side to acknowledge that the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is indeed enshrined in the Bill of Rights, I'll take it.

Jonah Goldberg gives the subject a more thorough treatment
than I am equipped to. In addition to a reference to the same Benjamin Wittes piece I mentioned above, he points to something said by liberal journalist Michael Kinsley, quoting a colleague:

If liberals interpreted the Second Amendment the way they interpret the rest of the Bill of Rights, there would be law professors arguing that gun ownership is mandatory.

He also quotes liberal scholar Laurence Tribe:

(T)he amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.

Going back to Wittes' article, he illustrates that the years of judicial evisceration inflicted on the Second Amendment pose a danger to all of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

But, critically, judges shouldn't be in charge of stripping obsolete rights from the Constitution. If the courts can simply make gun rights disappear, what happens when the First Amendment becomes embarrassing or inconvenient? It corrodes the very idea of a written Constitution when the document means, in practice, the opposite of what its text says.

All of this serves to illustrate that an individual rights interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not a "conservative" phenomenon, and is far from antithetical to liberal philosophy (an idea which seems as if it should be fairly obvious to me, but perhaps that's just me).

By the way, I should point out that I am not quite ready to endorse every statement in Goldberg's column.

It's not an absolute right, of course. But no right is.

I have to wonder in whom he would suggest we entrust the power of determining the limits of our ostensibly inalienable right. If the individual right vs. "collective right" battle has indeed been won, I suspect that the next front will be about the "absoluteness" of the right (or lack thereof), with a second front opening up on to what degree the Second Amendment applies to states, as opposed to the federal government (it seems to me that an inalienable right isn't very inalienable, if any unit of government, at any level, can go ahead and "alien" it--and there seems to be a growing body of scholarship arguing that the incorporation of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the entire Bill of Rights).

It could be that Wittes will get his wish, and that the Second Amendment will be repealed--the "wussification" of America will not have to proceed much further for that to become distinctly possible, but at least those who wish to disarm us would be playing by rules on which we can all agree.

If we lose that battle, then perhaps we deserve to be disarmed--if we are so devoid of fighting spirit, it would seem that we have little use for arms anyway.

Zumbo's revenge

No, he's not taking revenge against gun rights activists for the damage to his career. He acknowledges that our righteous indignation was correct, warranted, and necessary.

Now, in an open letter to the United States Senate (which he requests be entered into the Congressional Record), he is returning fire at Senator Carl Levin, who used some of what Zumbo said in his fateful, ill-considered blog post, to try to advance Levin's civilian disarmament agenda. In Levin's speech, he utterly ignored Zumbo's complete reversal of his initial, poorly thought out position. Acknowledging Zumbo's abandonment of a position rooted in ignorance would have undermined Levin's goal of perpetuating that ignorance.

Not content with merely failing to mention Zumbo's recantation of his initial disapproval of homeland defense firearms for hunting, Levin actually deliberately mischaracterized that position as support for a general ban on these guns.

We all owe Jim Zumbo a debt of gratitude for his forthrightness, his honesty and his courage. We must put the safety of our communities first by taking up and passing sensible gun legislation that includes renewing the assault weapons ban.

As it happens, Zumbo has something to say about that.

In his final paragraph, Senator Levin misrepresents what I said. I never spoke in favor of a general assault weapons ban. Again, I immediately apologized for my blog statement that was exclusively directed toward hunting and not gun ownership.

I will not allow my name to be associated with this kind of attack on the Second Amendment rights of my fellow citizens.

Zumbo made a huge mistake (for which I suspect he will pay dearly for the rest of his life), and those who favor a government monopoly on force will attempt to exploit that mistake. How well that strategy will work for them is anybody's guess, at this point. Anything Zumbo does to defeat that strategy is OK in my book.

Does this make sense?

Despite the apparent victory for freedom in Parker v. DC, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison has introduced S. 1001, titled "A bill to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia." This bill would repeal the district's insanely restrictive firearm legislation, which (judging from the extreme levels of violent crime in the city) has been not only draconian, but utterly ineffective, as well.

While this would seem to be a good idea, the reality may not be so simple. What Parker v. DC has to offer American gun owners is the distinct possibility that it will reach the Supreme Court. There it will hopefully lead, for the first time ever, to a definitive SCOTUS ruling on whether the right protected by the Second Amendment is an individual right, or a mythical "collective right" (the civilian disarmament crowd likes to tout the United States v. Miller ruling of 1939 as having already decided that issue on the "collective right" side, but the individual right vs. "collective right" issue was never addressed in that case).

However, if DC's insanity is struck down by legislative means before the Supreme Court has a chance to hear and rule on Parker v. DC, the reason for hearing the case disappears, and those of us who do not live in Washington DC have gained nothing. Although introduced only two days ago, the bill already has 41 cosponsors. Perhaps more puzzlingly, the NRA seems to be applauding this development.

Perhaps the NRA has a good reason for pushing this--perhaps there is reason to be doubtful of a favorable outcome in the Supreme Court at this time, and the NRA believes the gun rights movement would be best served by biding its time.

On the other hand, perhaps, as some have claimed, the NRA would rather retain its wealth and power, by continuing to be seen fighting the battle against gun legislation, rather than risk losing that importance by winning the battle.

Just a quick addendum to yesterday's post

I'll post something else later today (and I'll even try to make it something of interest outside of Illinois--I promise), but a couple of events related to the push to ban .50 caliber rifles in Illinois have come up since I talked about that yesterday.

First, we hear from the Illinois State Rifle Association that the sponsor of SB 1471 (the .50 cal ban bill) got caught in a lie at his press conference yesterday.

In his address, Kotowski pointed to a rifle staged as a prop for the event and described it as being a "military" weapon. What Kotowski did not know was that Mr. Mark Westrom, President of Armalite, Incorporated, was in the audience. Mr. Westrom rose to inform the attendees that his company manufactured the rifle in question, and that his company has never sold the rifle to the military. Westrom continued by pointing out that the rifle is purchased primarily by civilian target shooters. Westrom's revelation changed the course of the press conference, to say the least.

How typical of the civilian disarmament advocates--pointing to what they call a "military rifle" that has never been sold to any military! As ISRA points out, when Senator Kotowski was the head mouthpiece for the Joyce Foundation-funded ICHV freedom haters, sidestepping the truth made sense--he was mostly speaking to people who would eagerly swallow whatever lies he wanted to spoon-feed them, anyway. As a Senator, though, he can't count on his spewings passing with so little scrutiny.

Also, if you want to read the Chicago Tribune's argument that the .50 caliber should be banned because it is the weapon of choice of . . . Godzilla, this op-ed piece should be good for a chuckle--War on Guns has something to say about that "journalism," as do Hairy Hobbit and Piss Off the Left.

Save the .50 cal in Illinois

The Illinois Politburo legislature, their strings being deftly pulled by their puppet masters at the ICHV, who in turn are supported by vast sums of money from the Joyce Foundation, are desperate to ban firearms in Illinois. After the impressive turnout for IGOLD, it has apparently become clear to the civilian disarmament lobby in Illinois that even with their pet legislators and their Joyce Foundation money, they will not have an easy time disarming the PEOPLE of Illinois, and Senate Bill 0016, the "assault weapon" ban, is unlikely to pass.

As disappointing as this undoubtedly is to the anti-gun jihadists, they have no intention of giving up, and have instead simply shifted the focus of their power and money to a more vulnerable target, the .50 caliber rifle. Senate Bill 1471 has 15 Senate sponsors now, and could be voted on as early as today.

Despite criminal use of these heavy, bulky, extremely expensive firearms being almost unheard of (with not a single death in this country attributed to them, I believe), we are to fear them as a scourge, and an implement of unspeakable carnage. The Brady Bunch is heavily lobbying for their ban here in Illinois, using particularly overheated, distorted rhetoric.

We need to get calls, lots of them, to Senators who might be undecided, and we need to do that TODAY. Here are the names and contact information (call the Springfield offices)--first, of new Senators, who don't have voting records, plus six more whose records indicate that they can often be counted on to vote for rights, but might need some friendly reminders.

Michael Bond
M121 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-7353

1156 E. Washington St.
Grayslake, IL 60030
(847) 752-7004

Michael Frerichs
118 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-2507

45 E. University Ave.
Suite 206
Champaign, IL 61820
(217) 355-5252

Linda Holmes
M122 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-0422

13300 S. Rt. 59
# 2B-1
Plainfield, IL 60544
(815) 609-3711

Randall Hultgren
M103A Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8022

P.O. Box 567
Wheaton, IL 60189
(630) 682-8100

Mike Jacobs
M120 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5957

606 19th Street
Moline, IL 61265
(309) 797-0001

David Koehler
311 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8250

333 Margaret Street
Pekin, IL 61554
(309) 642-3636

John Millner
105C State Capital
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8192

290 Springfield Drive,
Ste 225
Bloomingdale, IL 60108
(630) 351-9340

Matt Murphy
M103E Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-4471

Palatine Centre Atrium Offices
17 E. Northwest Hwy. - Suite 4
Palatine, IL 60067
(847) 776-1490

Michael Noland
M115 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-7746

Tower Building
100 E. Chicago Street, Ste. 302
Elgin, IL 60120
(847) 214-8864

Additionally, it would behoove us to give these six Senators a reminder.

Pamela Althoff
M103C Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8000

One North Virginia Street
Crystal Lake, IL 60014
(815) 455-6330

Dan Cronin309G Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8107

313 South Main St
Lombard, IL 60148
(630) 792-0040

Kirk Dillard
309C Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8148

One South Cass Avenue
Suite 201
Westmont, IL 60559
(630) 969-0990

Carole Pankau
105K Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9463

One Tiffany Point
Suite G
Bloomingdale, IL 60108
(630) 582-0390

William Peterson
309F Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-8010

3050 North Main Street
Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
(847) 634-6060

Christine Radogno
309D Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-9407

410 Main Street
Lemont, IL 60439
(630) 243-0800

Whether or not you own a .50 caliber rifle or ever intend to, the particular caliber is irrelevant--the .50 cal is merely their target of opportunity at the moment. Whether you live in Illinois or not, gun bans are a cancer in our nation--every state that is afflicted will help to spread the disease farther and faster.

And another thing

In my blog post earlier today, I neglected to refute one of Sugarmann's "points" in his latest diatribe against the NRA--one which is in dire need of being addressed. Sugarmann provides readers with his version of some NRA history, describing the 1977 shift of focus from being mainly a sporting organization to gun rights advocacy group.

That day, the membership ousted a leadership suspected of being soft on gun control and replaced them with no-compromise, pro-gun hardliners led by Harlon Carter. (A piece of personal history on Carter, as a 17-year-old the future NRA head shot and killed another child. He was convicted of murder, but was later freed on appeal on a technicality.)

It's Sugarmann's parenthetical reference to Carter's personal history that I take issue with.

Dave Kopel has a bit more information than Josh was interested in sharing. Kopel's piece, having been written years ago, was in response to a fundraising letter circulated by Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as the Brady Bunch). This letter also mentioned the shooting in which Carter was involved, and HCI's description was quite similar to Sugarmann's.

The Handgun Control letter continued: "50 years ago, Carter shot and killed a 15-year-old boy and was convicted of murder."

There is, however, rather more to the story than either Sugarmann now, or HCI before him, want readers to know.

The letter omitted the fact that Carter was defending his mother's ranch against a gang of intruders led by the "boy," and that the "boy" was menacing Carter with a knife. At the trial, the judge was the prosecutor's father-in-law, and he refused to let Carter introduce evidence of self-defense.

Having left out the crucial facts about Carter's innocence, the Handgun Control letter complained that the conviction "was reversed on the technical grounds that the judge had not given the jurors adequate instructions about the law of self-defense." Actually, it wasn't just the instructions that were inadequate; all the evidence about self-defense had been excluded.

Most people would think that a citizen's shooting of a criminal should be judged by whether the citizen was acting in self-defense. But Handgun Control apparently considers innocent persons who shoot criminals to be as bad as common murderers — since self-defense is only a "technicality."

At least Sugarmann didn't have much credibility to lose.

So, Josh--are you saying you're not out to disarm us? Why do I have trouble buying that?

Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Victim Producing Center, has recently bloviated on the NRA's efforts to spur members into action to counter the many current and impending attacks on the Second Amendment.

Sugarmann is predictably contemptuous of the endeavor, implying, I have to assume, that gun rights are not actually under attack. This, from the author of Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns. This, from the executive director of a group that wants to outlaw firearms based on their caliber. This, from the executive director of a group that wants to outlaw thousands of firearms, based on cosmetic features, and which hopes to do so by exploiting much of the public's inability to distinguish so-called "assault weapons" from machine guns.

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

While the VPC and its ideological allies collect obscene amounts of money from anti-freedom groups like the Joyce Foundation, we are ridiculed for taking the threat to our human right of self-defense (a right that the U.N. denies) seriously. A prominent United States Senator says on "60 Minutes" that if she could have gotten the votes for outright confiscation of all privately owned firearms in the U.S., she would have done so--but we're paranoid to think that our gun rights are at risk. A Washington Post columnist and civilian disarmament advocate (but I guess that's redundant) comes out and admits that a ban on so-called assault weapons is just the first step toward outright confiscation, but encouraging grassroots activism on the part of gun rights advocates is exploiting the gullibility of uneducated, gun loving rubes.

It seems to me that for advocates of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right to keep and bear arms to believe the above statements, we would have to be even more foolishly gullible than Sugarmann seems to be implying we are.

By the way, does anyone want to look at this and tell me that it's our side that uses fear mongering and overheated rhetoric to stir up the faithful (and their checkbooks)?

Serial tyranny in Illinois

The Illinois Politburo legislature has reached a new intellectual and moral low. In early February, Senate Bill 1095 was introduced, with very little text. Furthermore, what text there was consisted of a "technical change" to the language of the Firearm Owners Identification Act--and the "change" was the striking out of the word "and"--and replacing it . . . with the word "and."

Clearly, the real intent of the bill was being kept hidden at that point. Since the bill dealt with firearms legislation, and since the chief co-sponsor in Illinois Senate President and Senior Gun Rights Violator Emil Jones, it was fairly clear that when the hidden intent was revealed, it would not be good for private ownership of guns in Illinois.

With Friday's introduction of Senate Amendment 001 to the bill, the validity of that suspicion was vindicated. If the amendment is adopted (and there would seem to be little reason to doubt that it will), SB 1095 will require that the bullets of every round of pistol and rifle ammunition manufactured or sold in Illinois be stamped with identifying information. The bill is silent on what effect it would have on those who handload their own ammunition--do they now become "manufacturers"?

The bill would also make provisions for an "Ammunition Coding System Database," maintained by the Illinois State Police. The database would include every ammunition manufacturer, and every ammunition vendor, in the state, and the sale of every round of ammunition would be required to be accompanied by the logging of vast amounts of information with the Illinois State Police. Apparently, we are to believe that the interests of public safety would be best served by taking vast state police resources away from actual law enforcement, and diverting them to the tracking of every bullet in the state.

The people behind this bill are, I suspect, not quite so foolish as to believe this is a crime fighting measure--they know that ammunition manufacturers will simply decide to spare themselves the trouble and expense of dealing with Illinois, and stop selling here (and I suppose all the jobs and tax revenue provided by Olin Corporation will just be exported out of state). This is, in short, a not especially subtle bid to disarm every law-abiding citizen in Illinois.

Such legislative obscenities have been introduced in California for the last couple years, but have not passed. Illinois apparently hopes to take the unquestionable lead in citizen helplessness.

Paralyzed thinking

In Massachusetts, there's an initiative underway to force handgun dealers (and thus handgun purchasers) to underwrite the costs of spinal cord injury research. The proposal would tack a $25 surcharge onto every handgun purchase in the state, with the revenue thus raised going to research. The logic, apparently, is that spinal cord injury research funds are a bit scarce, and handgun dealers (and their customers) have money, ergo it's their responsibility to pay for a way to treat these injuries.

OK--to be fair, that's not the entire argument the measure's advocates are using--they also point to the fact that some spinal cord injuries are caused by shootings. I wonder if we'll soon be seeing a push to tack a surcharge onto the purchase of every box of Girl Scout cookies, to fund research into obesity and diabetes.

One of the advocates of the tax, McArthur Williams, is himself paralyzed as the result of a shooting. He has some interesting thoughts on how gun buyers would view being forced to pay for medical research (and also on Second Amendment rights).

"It's a privilege to own a gun," Williams said in an interview yesterday. "The surcharge, if you know it's going toward research for a problem caused by gun violence, most people wouldn't have a problem."

Hmm--the privilege of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (well, maybe some extraneous costs will be added to it)--the Second Amendment certainly is a lot more complicated in his version of the Constitution than it is in mine.

A committee member asked Williams whether legal gun owners, who would pay the fee, are the same people who are shooting others on Boston streets.

Williams said that's beside the point. "It's still violence from guns, and they got the guns from somewhere," the 39-year-old answered.

That the tax would be levied on people not responsible for the problem is beside the point?

Lest anyone believe that I am unsympathetic to victims of spinal cord injuries, I should probably point out that I am paralyzed from just below the chest on down. Granted, my injury came from a car accident, not in a shooting, but you'll not hear me crying for a tax on car and motorcycle (or perhaps gasoline) sales to fund spinal cord injury research, despite the fact that vehicle accidents cause vastly greater numbers of such injuries (and involve a vastly greater pool of money from which to extort funds).

The gun dealers didn't paralyze you, Mr. Williams, and it's not their responsibility to repair you.

Don't worry, Shaun--I think he's on your side (I sure don't plan to claim him)

Shaun Mullen apparently believes that Rudy Giuliani has let him down. According to Shaun, Rudy has abandoned his civilian disarming ways (I wish I could agree with that).

Allowing that times change and minds occasionally do too, hypocrite is a much overused word in the political lexicon.

But it is difficult to not tar presidential wannabe Rudy Giuliani with that label because of his mad dash from being a darling of gun control advocates to a suck-up to the anti-gun control crowd that dominates the Republican Party.

Hmm--maybe I haven't paid sufficiently close attention, but I've missed Rudy's "mad dash" away from the freedom hating crowd, and if he wants to be a "suck-up to the anti-gun control crowd," he is certainly keeping it a secret--even from the people to whom he supposedly wants to be a "suck-up." One would think that "sucking-up" without making the suck-upee aware of the fact is something of a wasted endeavor.

New York’s tough gun-control laws are a big reason that the Big Apple has gone from being a crime-ridden urban wasteland in the 1980s to a remarkably safe place with one of the lowest big-city murder rates . . .

And the improving economy, the greater police presence, etc. had little to do with the improvement. It certainly is strange that Chicago and Washington DC, with even more insanely draconian restrictions on private gun ownership, have been sewers of violent crime the entire time.

I have nothing against personal possession of a limited number of firearms in one’s castle (ie., a man’s home is his castle), but too many states have pitifully weak firearm laws that pretty much allow people to buy and have as many guns as they want . . .

I suppose I should be grateful that you're kind enough to let me have a "limited number" of firearms (come to think of it, ten thousand is a number, and it's not unlimited)--I have little doubt you'll be able to show me the "limited number of arms" that the Second Amendment says the people have the right to keep and bear--I can't seem to find that part in my copy.

Worst yet, Giuliani has gone weak in the knees over support of the most sensible of control-control legislation — an assault weapons ban.

Sensible if you like a government monopoly on the use of force, I suppose.

It's funny, Giuliani's reticence about "assault weapon" bans leaves you unwilling to trust that he'll support one, but it (along with his history) leaves me utterly unwilling to trust him not to. He might have more trouble with voters than the conventional wisdom suspects.

Echoing the plea

Most of my readers are probably already regular readers of David Codrea's War on Guns, and are thus already aware of how dire Wayne Fincher's situation has become. Still, I cannot in good conscience neglect to take a few minutes to add my voice to Mr. Codrea's, in asking for whatever help can be found.

Fincher is in jail, facing prison, while I sit comfortably behind a computer--for precisely one reason. That reason is that he is a patriot with the courage to put his freedom on the line for his belief in the Constitution, and I am a keyboard commando, always ready to talk about Constitutional freedoms, but much less willing to suffer for them.

If you help Mr. Fincher, you will be helping this nation, and the principles on which it was founded.