The McCarthy/NRA Gun Control Act

After all the warning signs, I don't suppose this is a surprise to many, but the NRA's support for H.R. 297, the NICS "Improvement" Act, is certainly not a welcome development to those committed to the fight for gun rights, and who are not impressed with the Neville Chamberlain approach.

Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.

The NRA is apparently congratulating itself over "significant concessions" in the bill.

To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators in weeks of painstaking talks. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records. The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.

So, the "significant concessions" include a provision whereby someone with a minor brush with the law decades in his past can ask to be removed from the state mandated defenselessness list (with, apparently, no obligation on the state's part to honor the request). Gee, that's some concession. Likewise, more than 80,000 veterans who are in the database, supposedly for reasons of mental health, would "have a chance" to own a firearm to defend themselves, after having carried one to defend us all. How generous of us. Oh, and if the list includes names that shouldn't be there, they have to be removed. That's a "consession"? Or does the "concession" lie in the fact that we don't have to pay for this new government scrutiny into our lives (but of course we do, as taxpayers--a quarter of a billion a year, apparently)?

The article did teach me something I hadn't known about my new favorite state:

Only one state, Vermont, does not participate in the instant-check system, and even with the threatened aid cuts, negotiators expressed confidence that no other state would drop out, given the funding that would be available and the stigma that would be attached to withdrawal.

Wow, no government permission slip required to carry a firearm, and no participation in the NICS program--Vermont must be a raging maelstrom of "gun violence" (according to this, two states have lower violent crime rates).

As I've said before, the only thing this bill would "improve" about NICS is the government's ability to more closely approach Orwell's nightmare. NICS doesn't need to be "improved"--it needs to be abolished. As it happens, a vastly better alternative has been thought of.

Tiahrt Amendment under fire

The civilian disarmament lobby is in a joyful tizzy over Senator Barbara Mikulski's (D-Maryland) removal of the Tiahrt Amendment from the funding bill to which it has been attached in recent years (Mikulski's gloat page). Killing the Tiarht Amendment has been one of Mayor Bloomberg's top priorities, so he's ready to anoint Senator Mikulski as a new saint of the civilian disarmament lobby.

The Brady Bunch is so happy about it that they have issued another "send us money" call (as they tend to do whenever anything happens, whether they like it or not, regarding guns or gun laws).

The battle over whether the Tiahrt Amendment stays or goes is far from over. The amendment has powerful backing, from both the Fraternal Order of Police (the largest organization of law enforcement officers in the world, but one which Bloomberg has referred to as a "fringe organization"), and even the BATFE (frankly, it's not easy for me to acknowledge agreement with the BATFE on anything, but they're right on this). As both the FOP and the BATFE point out, assertions that the Tiahrt Amendment in any way interferes with law enforcement efforts are utter fabrications.

The next battleground will be the House Appropriations Committee. If your Congressman is a member of that committee, he/she needs to hear from you.

The Tiahrt Amendment blocks nothing but predatory lawsuits--and that is why Bloomberg and his minions are endeavoring with such single-minded determination to kill it.

Pfleger's boss beginning to feel the heat?

I have to admit that I expected very little from the Chicago Archdiocese in response to "Father" Pfleger's call to "snuff out" a gun store owner and pro-rights legislators. My expectations were especially low after reading that a spokesman for the archdiocese stated that the archdiocese planned to do, well . . . nothing, really:

James Accurso, a spokesman for the Chicago Archdiocese, said he was not aware of the rally or Pfleger's participation in it until after it took place Saturday.

He told Cybercast News Service that the church had no plans to take disciplinary action against Pfleger.

"If the reports are accurate and he did make a threat - and we're not certain of that - we feel this should be handled by the civil authorities," Accurso said.

Today, I see something somewhat different.

The cardinal said in his statement: “Publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest.”

That, of course, may very well be all the further this goes, which would make my initial suspicions largely correct.

I certainly oughtn't count on much from the police:

Riverdale police called the rally “peaceful” and said no investigation was warranted.

I guess it's a special gift of the clergy to be able to make "peaceful" death threats.

Jesse Jackson, of course, blames all the controversy on gun rights advocates.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who also spoke at the rally, said gun associations were twisting Pfleger’s use of the word “snuff” to stifle his activism and divert attention from the issue of gun violence.

So, "Reverend," if a bunch of gun rights activists had gathered outside your door, and said they were going to "snuff you out," you would be above "twisting" the word into something menacing?

Somehow I doubt it.

You can do something to help Red's Trading Post

War on Guns has issued a call to anyone concerned with the survival of gun rights in America. As mentioned yesterday, Red's Trading Post is under calculated, sustained, vindictive attack by the BATFE. The latest chapter in the disgusting saga came yesterday.

The judge in charge of the case would seem to be a man capable of honor and fairness, as he showed last month. Still, any respectful encouragement to do the right thing that he gets from us can only help.

Here are the guidelines for a letter, as laid out by David Codrea (from the first link):

Please keep your letter respectful. The intent is to help Ryan, not anger the judge. Under no circumstances imply anything that could even loosely be perceived as threatening--if you do, you will be hurting Ryan, not helping him.

Please keep your letter brief. The shorter the letter, the greater the likelihood it will be read--or at least skimmed over. Keep it under a 500 word maximum, and fewer is better. If you need talking points, there are plenty of stories on this blog (Type "Red's" into the "Search Blog" box in the top left corner), but don't try to cover them all--pick a few main points and stick with them.

If you follow those suggestions, you can't go wrong. The link has David's own letter, if you need inspiration. Don't worry if you cannot match Mr. Codrea's eloquence--I can't either, but that's not going to stop me from sending my own plea on Mr. Horsley's behalf.

Judge Lodge's address:

Hon. Edward J. Lodge
Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, MSC 039
550 W. Fort St., Room 400
Boise, ID 83724-0039

Mr. Horsley's persecution comes in very large measure because he has dared to stand up for the rights that we all hold sacred. Do we let him fall, and allow the enemies of freedom to move on to their next victim, and the next after that, until there are none left, or do we stand with him?

I've made my choice.

Just added at WoG

UPDATE: I just had a "Doh!" moment. Reader JH reminds me this may be time sensitive, and suggests faxing is another useful alternative vs. snail mail. I agree--the court's fax number is (208) 334-9229

UPDATE II: This is the FAX I just sent--as mentioned, mine is nothing close to as good as Mr. Codrea's, but I trust the judge is fairly familiar with the facts, and only needs to know that there is public support for Red's.

Dear Judge Lodge,

It has come to my attention that the BATFE has engaged in a campaign of harassment against Red’s Trading Post that is characterized by breathtaking pettiness and vindictiveness. Most recently, the agency has requested that you terminate the injunction you wisely granted, which has allowed Red’s to continue business while the case is resolved. The “justification” for the termination request consists of three extraordinarily trivial “infractions” (including at least one that one BATFE agent had told Mr. Horsley was the correct procedure to follow).

Your Honor, it is abundantly clear that the BATFE is not acting in the interests of justice, and certainly not in the interests of public safety. They are engaging in bullying, apparently for the sheer joy of it. That is not what I was raised to believe is the American way. You have the power to rein in their malice. I humbly ask that you exercise that power for the good of the public.


Sincerely,
Kurt Hofmann
XXXXX

What the hell are they talking about?

I had kind of gotten away from talking much about the "Gun Guys'" bizarre arguments, because they're too ridiculous and extreme to take seriously. This time, though, they make so little sense that I'm literally at an utter loss as to what they're trying to say.

They seem to be arguing that "strong gun laws" in Montgomery, Alabama have yielded not only a significant drop in "gun crime," but in many other types of crime, as well. What I'm trying to figure out is just what are these "strong gun laws"? According to (presumably) the Gun Guys' ideological allies, the Brady Bunch, Alabama gets an "F" for gun laws. Could it be local laws in Montgomery itself? Apparently not, because (also according to the Brady Bunch) Alabama has preemption, barring municipalities from being any more restrictive of gun rights than the state is. Clearly, the Gun Guys aren't arguing that we have "strong gun laws" at the federal level (they whine continuously about how "weak" they are--and besides, that wouldn't explain Montgomery doing better than other cities at fighting violent crime).

They even point to information sharing among law-enforcement agencies as being part of the key.

Because police had access to not only shared gun information (that same information is what Tiahrt and the NRA are trying to keep from police officers all over the country), and because they had strong, widespread gun laws to convict criminals with, they were actually able to keep those same criminals off the streets and away from firearms.

Wait a second--the Tiahrt Amendment has been in force every year since 2003--if it hasn't blocked the ability of the Montgomery police to do their jobs, how could it have been blocking any other law enforcement agency?

The answer, obviously, is that it couldn't. The BATFE (clearly no friends to gun owners--my bid for the understatement of the year award) and the Fraternal Order of Police (the country's largest police organization) are both strongly in favor of the Tiahrt Amendment, and of making it permanent--a fact that the Gun Guys, the Brady Bunch, and Bloomberg and his Mayoral Minions would prefer not to address.

So somebody help me out--what are they talking about?

The "experts" have spoken, on ABC7 Chicago

I've mentioned before that "Father" Pfleger would be part of a "panel of experts" featured on ABC7 Chicago, to find "solutions" to youth violence. I also suggested contacting ABC to point out how far from "news" this piece would be.

Of course the show went ahead as originally planned (video podcast here). Be sure to read what War on Guns has to say about it--Mr. Codrea even includes a transcript of Pfleger suggesting changing the Second Amendment (a tacit admission that the Second Amendment indeed does guarantee an individual right?).

The father of murdered Chicago teenager Blair Holt (a wonderful young man, by all accounts) said that next week, Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) will introduce a bill instituting a national handgun registry. As if that's going to happen. Oh well--the more time Congress messes around with stuff that doesn't have a chance of passing, the less time they have to do any real damage.

Most of the discussion was along the tired lines of "it takes a village to raise a child."

They seem to have forgotten to mention that it takes a village idiot to suggest disarming the peaceable as a means of "stopping the violence."

The Illinois pro-gun County Count advances

I announced yesterday that Johnson County, Illinois had joined Brown, Pike, Schuyler, and Hancock Counties in adopting resolutions condemning all the civilian disarmament legislation being pushed on the state by Chicago Mayor Daley and his pet legislators.

Today, I learned that Randolph County has joined the five trailblazers in standing for freedom, and against so-called "gun control." I have also learned that Henry, Pope, Massac, Union, and White Counties (White has the measure on the County Board agenda for Monday, June 11th) are working on adopting something similar. We're also working on it here in Madison County (where I live), but it's hard to say whether or not we can pull it off here.

So for those keeping score, six counties have already adopted such resolutions, and at least that many more are giving it a good, hard look.

Oh, by the way, when I mentioned the Johnson County resolution yesterday, I promised to post the text as soon as I had it. It turns out that it's identical to the text of the proposed resolution in Madison County, which can be found in the link to the petition.

Men or mice update

David Codrea, at War on Guns, made the sensible suggestion that I (and anyone else who gets an email from AUSCS similar to the one I posted here--I know that at least one person did) write back and ask how long it would be before we could expect some AUSCS action on the 501(c)(3) issues at St. Sabina. This is what I sent:

Lauren,
Thank you for your reply. Perhaps I could trouble you with another question--can you predict any kind of timetable for action on this situation? I could not help but notice in this article that it took less than three weeks before AUSCS sent a letter to the IRS about Bill Keller's anti-Romney statements.

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

Perhaps others could send something similar, if they get a vague promise to "forward" the concerns "to the staffer who handles these claims . . . ."

New blogroll addition

As any regular reader of War on Guns (which should include every reader here) knows, Red's Trading Post (of Twin Falls, Idaho) has been (and continues to be) the victim of a systematic campaign of harassment (with intent to destroy) by the tax-collector/storm troopers of the "BATFU" (as Mr. Codrea calls them). The egregious, appalling, disgusting level of petty vindictiveness that characterizes the BATFE's abusive jihad against Ryan Horsley (manager of Red's) would be shocking to anyone insufficiently familiar with that agency to know that it is par for the course.

Mr. Horsley has started a blog of his own to try to make people aware of the abuses being committed against good American citizens, in the name of "public safety." Check it out regularly, and bloggers, please add it to your list of links. By the way, War on Guns' announcement of this new arrival to the blogosphere also has a short Q&A with Mr. Horsley.

Mr. Horsley is fighting not just for his livelihood, but for our Second Amendment rights. At the very least, we owe him moral support.

Jesse Jackson: ban semi-automatics (does that mean we get fully-automatics, instead?)

Not content with comparing gun shops to Iraqi insurgents' bases, not content with calling for the outright banning of gun shops (except possibly in rural areas), not content with accusing (without any evidence) a legal gun shop of selling the "majority of guns connected with recent shooting deaths in Chicago" (which, in and of itself, would not constitute evidence of wrongdoing, even if true, anyway), and not even content with appearing on stage next to a "priest" calling for the murder of a gun shop owner, and of pro-rights legislators--Jesse is now lobbying for the banning of all semi-automatic firearms.

Rev. Jesse Jackson is urging lawmakers to ban semi-automatic weapons.

His call to action came during the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's annual conference in Chicago. And as CBS 2's Katie McCall reports, it also comes after the violent deaths of two more Chicago teens.

Jackson is declaring a state of emergency in Chicago and asking state and federal lawmakers to ban assault weapons.

�There is no defense against these weapons, nor is there any place for them,� Jackson said.

(The odd substitution of question marks wherever one would normally expect apostrophes or quotation marks is some quirk of the CBS2 Chicago website, by the way.) "No defense against" them, Jesse? Well, I suppose not, when Chicago law effectively renders the law-abiding defenseless against the people who would use such firearms for evil. No "place for them," either? Send 'em down here--I'll make some room for them.

Also, for those parents who still refuse to be rendered defenseless in their own homes, Jesse suggests at least not being able to get to the means of defense quickly.

The Rainbow/PUSH Coalition is also urging parents who own guns to lock them up. Studies show that 90 percent of 7 to 8 year olds, and 70 percent of 5-to-6 year olds are capable of firing them.

While we're at it, why not lock up the fire extinguishers, too?

Are we men, or mice?

If we're serious about putting the hurt to "Father" Pfleger's civilian disarmament politicking machine, the way to do it (the only way, in my estimation) is to end the free ride he has been getting (for years!) from the IRS. War on Guns did the hard work, and dug up all this material (to which I referred here) to point to--showing how blatantly St. Sabina violates the provisions relating to 501(c)(3) corporations.

Then, he did even more of the work for us, and found an organization, called Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, whose stated mission is blowing the whistle on just the kind of tax violations Pfleger and his minions have gotten away with for so long--even providing their email address: americansunited@au.org. I wanted folks to see this, so for the few who read Armed and Safe, but not War on Guns (what are ya', nuts?), I linked to that blog post, too. I also sent AUSCS an email of my own:

Hello,
After reading this article, I realized you would be just the organization to approach about the gross abuses of the 501(c)(3) status being perpetrated by the St. Sabina Church. The case for this has already been superbly made at War on Guns, so rather than try to repeat that information, I will merely refer you to the link (be sure to check out this page, from St. Savina's website, as well).

I have never seen a church work so overtly, so relentlessly to influence the legislative process. This is a crystal clear violation of tax law. Please take action.

Thank you,
Kurt Hofmann

Today, I received a reply:

Mr. Hofmann,



Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I've forwarded your e-mail to the staffer who handles these claims with a note to follow up immediately.



All the best,

Lauren



****************************************

Lauren Smith

Communications Assistant

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

518 C Street NE

Washington, DC 20002

P: (202) 466-3234

F: (202) 466-3353

www.au.org

Now perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but I think I might detect a bit of an organizational bias at AUSCS that might tend to sympathize with Pfleger's particular type of tax-exempt politicking. I hope they'll pleasantly surprise me, but I believe that for there to be much likelihood of that, they'll have to hear from a lot people urging them to do something about it.

Again, it might be my pessimism, but I get the impression that not many folks are making any noise--even among those who might count themselves among the ranks of "gun rights activists." I'm not saying that from the saddle of my high horse--I haven't done half as much as Mr. Codrea, and Pfleger is in my own state, lobbying for the very laws I'm fighting. Still, if you can't find five minutes to send an email, do you think you really have much use for a Second Amendment? Anyone unwilling to take a couple minutes to write an email is hardly likely to take up arms against an out of control government.

As it happens, War on Guns found even more material today.

Are we going to do anything with it, or not?

Look who stopped by

I felt kind of left out when War on Guns got a visit from the Chicago Archdiocese, when I just got a few from St. Sabinas.

I need not have been troubled--look who dropped in for a visit today:



If I had to guess, I imagine I'll still have awhile to wait before I hear an explanation from them about St. Sabina's tax-exempt politicking.

Connecticut passes Blame the Victim legislation

I have written frequently (most recently here) about my utter disgust with the appalling drive in Connecticut to hold crime victims responsible for firearms stolen from them.

Well, SB 938 (formerly SB 903) passed last night, and is headed to the governor's desk for her expected signature. Incredibly, if a gun owner (and burglary victim) abides by the law, and reports the stolen gun, the report triggers an immediate investigation into whether or not the gun was stored "safely," by the ill-defined (if not undefined) standards of Connecticut law, leaving the gun owner open to prosecution for his method of storage.

As I mentioned here, if Connecticut wants to crack down on irresponsible storage and accountability of firearms, the legislature would be best served by injecting some responsibility into the Hartford, CT police department.

The people of Connecticut have certainly inflicted some Looney legislators on themselves.

St. Sabina's (Father "Snuffy" Pfleger's) tax-exempt politicking old hat

It seems that St. Sabina's aggressive participation in the political world, in blatant violation of the laws regulating its tax-exempt status, is old news. Guess the IRS hasn't noticed (yeah--right). Read all about it at The War on Guns: Nothing New About Pfleger Pflouting Tax Law.

Johnson County joins the pro-freedom movement

I've talked before (most recently here) about Pike and Brown Counties, and then Hancock and Schuyler Counties, fed up with Chicago-style, unconstitutional "gun control," adopting resolutions condemning said laws. In some cases, the resolutions expressly state that violations of laws that further infringe on the Second Amendment will not be prosecuted in those counties.

Now Johnson County has joined the list. I don't currently have the text of the resolution, but will post if and when I get it. I know that Henry County is considering a similar resolution, and there is an effort underway to put the adoption of such a resolution before the board here in Madison County. There are probably others that I don't know about.

I really don't know what will come of this, if anything. But I do think that at the very least, it provides evidence that many Illinois residents, contrary to what groups like the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence like to claim, are not "crying out for stronger gun laws." Indeed some of us are standing up and demanding stronger recognition of our gun rights.

Vacuous in Vallejo

Have the editorial calls for yet more draconian gun legislation been particularly ubiquitous the last couple days, or am I just noticing more of them? This time, it's the editorial staff of the Vallejo Times Herald, singing the praises of California Assembly Bill 1471. This bill, already passed the Assembly, would mandate that by 2010, any new pistol that did not have its internal working parts "microstamped" with the gun's make, model and serial number would be classified as "unsafe," and thus ineligible for sale in California.

It's about sensible gun control legislation Californians can live with . . .

Legislation that people "can live with" is hardly a rousing endorsement--people can live with being imprisoned for decades--that's hardly a reason to be happy about it.

. . . it's not a knee-jerk reaction to the horrors of Virginia Tech, . . .

Clearly not, as California has tried to pass such legislation in the past. What it is a knee-jerk reaction to is the perennial, and apparently nearly universal, wish on the part of California legislators to make gun ownership as expensive and cumbersome as possible.

. . . and it's about time.

It's about time to realize that those who would commit murder cannot be expected to think twice about defying laws regulating the "safety" of their choice in murder weapons.

It seems to me that we are constantly bombarded with the assertion that most of the guns used in crimes in states with restrictive gun laws (and California would certainly have to be considered among those states) are obtained in other states. Would that not mean that laws regulating which guns can be sold in California will have little effect on the guns actually used in crimes?

The NRA has compiled a list of objections to this legislation (I have my share of issues with the NRA, but these are well constructed arguments). To save time, I'll just repeat them here:

RESEARCH SHOWS THAT MICRO-STAMPING IS FLAWED TECHNOLOGY -The technology has not been tested in real world scenarios and recently failed testing in ideal laboratory conditions. In 2006, the Legislature requested a state-funded study of micro-stamping technology by forensic experts and researchers at U.C. Davis. The researchers found this patented technology "flawed" and concluded, “At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology in all semiautomatic handguns in the state of California be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”

MICRO-STAMPING IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT - The bill has received NO SUPPORT from California statewide law enforcement organizations of sheriffs, police chiefs, rank-and-file officers associations or the Attorney General.

MICRO-STAMPING WILL INCREASE THE POTENTIAL CIVIL LIABILTY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES - AB 1471 specifies that any new handguns not micro-stamped would fall into a category of handguns declared by the State of California as being “unsafe”. If California government agencies decide to purchase non-micro-stamped, “unsafe” handguns and issue them to their officers, they would leave their own staff open to civil litigation if they become involved in any shooting-related incidents.

MICRO-STAMPING TECHNOLOGY CAN BE EASILY DEFEATED - The micro-stamped parts of the handgun can easily be replaced without the use of tools. Advocates of the technology confirmed this in policy committee hearings in 2006, stating the firearm parts with “micro-stamping” could be easily altered in less than 30 minutes. The firearm parts also remain vulnerable to natural degradation and eventually will be erased through normal wear and tear.

MICRO-STAMPING CREATES FALSE EVIDENCE TRAILS - Micro-stamped cartridge cases fired and abandoned at government agencies’ facilities or private shooting ranges could be gathered and used to “seed” crime scenes with “evidence” implicating law enforcement officers and citizens to crimes they had nothing to do with.

MICRO-STAMPING WILL DRAMATICALLY INCREASE THE PRICE OF FIREARMS FOR ALL CONSUMERS - AB 1471 requires a complete redesign of the handgun manufacturing process and paying large licensing fees to the micro-stamping technology patent holder. The mandate in AB1471 could create a government-sanctioned monopoly for the patent holder to sell their technology at any price they choose. [That, I submit, is the real motivation behind this legislation. Many gun manufacturers will likely find California not worth the trouble (and expense) of doing business in--leaving many guns out of reach for law-abiding Californians--at any price.]

MICRO-STAMPING COULD TRAP CONSUMERS INTO COMMITTING A CRIME - AB 1471 would make the everyday practice of maintaining and repairing firearms (as outlined in the handgun owners’ manual) a felony. If a person needed to replace commonly worn out, “micro-stamped” parts to keep their handgun safely operating, that person would be violating federal law because the alteration, removal and obliteration of a manufacturer’s or importer's markings on those parts carries the penalty of up to ten years in federal prison and $250,000.00 fine.

This bill would do nothing but further tighten the screws on gun owners--the real agenda of the bill's proponents.

Brainless in Bristol

Mike Fox, of the Bristol Herald Courier, thinks that we, as Americans, should be "ashamed" that the Virginia Tech murders could happen in the U.S.

A nationwide Associated Press poll conducted the week of the Virginia Tech tragedy found that 52 percent answered "yes" to "Do you feel ashamed that this could happen in this country?"

Only 52 percent? Any percentage less than 100 is disheartening. Have Americans simply accepted such violence and crime as just a part of our society? Has it become normal? Whatever others’ sentiments may be, I refuse to accept senseless mass murder of innocent people as "normal."

OK, Mike, I'll grant that I'm ashamed of the fact that despite a Constitutional guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms, all of Cho's pool of potential victims were disarmed, and effectively rendered helpless, by university policy. Somehow, though, I doubt that's what you were looking for (perhaps it's the title of your editorial that gives me that idea: "After Tech, common-sense gun control laws cannot be ignored").

I'm certainly not ashamed that firearms can be had in this country, and I'm a bit curious as to what countries such a massacre could not have happened in (Israel, perhaps, where Cho may well have been riddled long before pushing the body count out of single digits?). Mass shootings have happened in countries with much more draconian gun laws than ours, and no combination of laws will make such acts utterly impossible. Even the utter abolishment of the Second Amendment would not come anywhere close to doing so. The Fourth Amendment would have to go too, in order to facilitate the enforcement of the outlawing of guns; privacy protections would have to go--we would need to be under detailed surveillance at all times. In short, I would be quite ashamed to live in a country where such measures were taken.

After Tech, after the infinite number of other public mass shootings, I say enough.

"Infinite number" of mass shootings? That seems rather a lot. One would think that an infinite number of even single shootings would mean an infinite number of people shot, which in turn would seem to be all of us. I'm sure I would have noticed that.

After weeks of trying to find the right words . . .

I think you should have kept looking a bit longer.

I refuse to remain silent on what I see as a destructive and embarrassing culture of violence fueled in part by a glorification of guns . . .

And you would replace it with an embarrassing culture of helplessness and thralldom fueled in part by a demonization of guns and the people who own them.

. . . common sense gun control can no longer be ignored.

On that, we agree--the brave men who established this nation certainly wouldn't have done so by ignoring the British--likewise ignoring "gun control" is not going to free us from its loathsome shackles.

Besides revamping the background check system, the federal assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated. No hunter could possibly need an Uzi, AK-47 or AR-15, and they’re gratuitous for home protection. Furthermore, the ban that expired three years ago – a survey at the time showed two-thirds of Americans supported extending it – would limit magazine capacity.

How what a "hunter could possibly need" entered the discussion is a mystery to me, but I'd love to hear your qualifications to make the judgment that the firearms you listed are "gratuitous for home protection." You have also failed utterly to exhaust the list of all the possible reasons peaceable people might wish to own such firearms. Finally, the "ban" that expired three years ago did not ban anything--the guns and magazines were still bought and sold, completely legally. What the law did was freeze the total supply for the civilian market at where it was before the law went into effect, by prohibiting newly manufactured or imported "assault weapons" or "high capacity" magazines from entering the civilian market.

Also, President Bush should sign into law a bill which would allow the U.S. attorney general to deny a gun purchase to anyone on a terror suspect watch list.

Good idea--let's destroy a person's Constitutionally protected human rights without a conviction, without an indictment, without even charging him or her with a crime. Also, since the bill that would do that has (thankfully) passed neither the Senate nor the House, I'm not sure how you expect Bush to sign it, unless your various hacks on the Constitution include a massive expansion of the executive branch of government, to the point of rendering the legislative branch irrelevant. Who needs checks and balances anyway--right, Mike?

Some conservatives mulled that if concealed weapons had been permitted on Tech’s campus, the gunman might’ve been stopped. Yet, that doesn’t mean anyone in Norris Hall would’ve had a concealed weapon or that they would’ve been able to use it to stop the gunman; after all, more than 50 people were killed or wounded in that building.

True, we do not know that any of the people present for Cho's massacre would have availed themselves of the means to stop it early, but we certainly do know the results of not allowing them to do so.

A SURVEYUSA poll conducted in the Lynchburg-Roanoke area the week of the Tech tragedy found that 52 percent think Virginia’s gun laws need to be more restrictive, compared to 38 percent who say it’s about right.

Now that's scientific! So if a bare simple majority of the people support the curtailment of rights of the rest, that's what your idea of "democracy" would have us do, eh? You do realize, I hope, that the minority whose rights you intend to take away tend to be the ones with the guns--that could pose some difficulties for any endeavor to attack their rights.

When asked if fewer or more people would have died at Tech on April 16 had concealed guns been allowed on campus, 44 percent said it would not have made a difference while 31 percent said more people would have died.

Well, that settles it, then. Who am I to question such expertise?

Rep. Rick Boucher, a Democrat whose constituency includes Blacksburg, stressed that even if he tried, there simply isn’t enough support in Congress or the White House to support any sweeping gun control measures. Sadly, this may be true.

And "sadly," the reason the support for such measures does not exist in Congress or the White House is that such support does not exist among the people consenting to be governed by those bodies. That, "sadly," is the reality of Constitutional, representative government.

The good news for you, Mike, is that there are numerous countries not saddled with such a government--perhaps you should go find one.

Mindless in Milwaukee II

The civilian disarmament advocates at the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel were busy yesterday--first (anti-gun new Glock owner) Barbara Miner's editorial (thanks for the link, David), and on the same day, this ostensibly "news" story by Eugene Kane, titled, with laudable journalistic objectivity, "Argument against gun bill tired, off target" (that was a bit of sarcasm on my part, Eugene, in case you missed it).

I've kept in touch with Fifer over the years since her son was killed with two companions outside a tavern by a shooter with an illegal gun. During that time she launched an ambitious campaign to restrict the easy access to guns in the central city of Milwaukee by toughening existing laws.

It's been an uphill battle, mainly because Fifer has found it hard to wean some people off their personal love affair with guns.

Oddly enough, I never hear First Amendment rights advocates referred to as "having a love affair with" printing presses, from which they need to be "weaned." Could it be that advocacy of any part of the Bill of Rights is the manifestation of a "love affair with" freedom?

The legislation Fifer is currently advocating is Wisconsin Senate Bill 104, which would require background checks for all firearms transfers in the state (as introduced, the bill would only have applied to Milwaukee County, but an attempt is underway to amend it to apply statewide).

It's usually hard to deny a grieving mother - let alone three - but some people have resisted the bill out of concern for their Second Amendment rights.

Yeah--we're kind of funny that way--that weird preoccupation we have with rights, again.

In Fifer's mind, the bill will be an effective way of cutting down the number of handguns passed around in not-so-legitimate "gray" markets, including gun shows where dealers have long skirted the letter of the law.

And by what authority do you claim that gun shows are "not-so-legitimate," and that dealers at gun shows have "long skirted the letter of the law"?

Fifer called to remind me of a public hearing last week on the bill on the north side of Milwaukee. She was worried the public had not been adequately informed about the state Senate Committee on Urban Affairs hearing.

And she was equally concerned that members of the NRA would show up in force.

"We need people to turn out," she told me.

Well, which is it? If you "need people to turn out," presumably members of the NRA showing up in force would constitute people turning out, would it not? Or did you mean you wanted your people to turn out? Early in the article, Kane referred to Fifer as "a grass-roots activist." While gun rights organizations are generally referred to (in dark, menacing tones) as "the gun lobby," when a public hearing about an issue is called, it's the people who care about gun rights who are the ones to show up in large numbers. Which side, then, can be more accurately characterized by the term "grassroots," again?

The hearing was last Tuesday afternoon; by the time I arrived it was a standing-room-only crowd of more than 100 people. Just as Fifer suspected, the majority of the people who arrived early to take seats in the cramped meeting room weren't central city residents plagued by handgun violence.

This was a mainly white crowd of NRA supporters or sympathizers, which wasn't exactly what bill supporters had hoped for when they persuaded state Sen. G. Spencer Coggs to hold a hearing on the north side of Milwaukee.

White and NRA? The double whammy of malignancy. In fact, I'd wager that many were white, male, NRA supporters--the veritable triple crown of evil.

"We were outnumbered," Fifer said afterward. "I was disappointed."

Well see, that's the problem with representative governments--they tend to . . . represent the people who get involved and who actually participate in the legislative process. That can cause a troubling tendency for the civic-minded types to have a disproportionate influence on the legislation passed--get enough of that going on, and you could (gasp!) actually find yourself in a society in which the Constitution is treated with reverence. But don't worry--it doesn't happen all that often anymore.

Fifer had a possible explanation for the low turnout on the civilian disarmament side.

Ironically, the hearing fell on the same day the city's African-American community was buzzing with news about the recent arrest of Ald. Mike McGee. Fifer said that last-minute distraction might have accounted for the poor turnout from the central city. She had only good things to say about McGee, who she said had supported her efforts to pass a local resolution on gun control in Milwaukee.

"Yes, he's been one of our supporters."

It seems that Alderman McGee, "one of their supporters," is suspected of extortion, corruption, and plotting a severe beating (originally a murder plot).

Those anti-gun folks certainly are an admirable bunch, aren't they?

Mindless in Milwaukee

Barbara Miner, author of this editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, is more than a little confused. After buying a Glock 19, "The kind that Seung-hui Cho used in his rampage at Virginia Tech," as she puts it (with no intention of being lurid, I'm sure), she finds herself both frightened of it and (according to her) fascinated by it.

I am scared of the gun.

But I am also fascinated.

I allow the fascination to run free, and I conjure up Hollywood fantasies of revenge and respect. A small, gray-haired woman, I imagine myself walking city streets and saying to any hulking guy who gets in my way, "Don't mess with me, I have a gun."

I look at the Glock, and it's hard not to appreciate its beauty, its sleek and economical design. I want to pick it up, feel its heft, admire its power.

"Appreciate its beauty"? Of a Glock? Don't get me wrong--Glocks are fine firearms, but this is the first time I've ever known them to be called pretty. If you think that looks good, lady, check out a custom 1911 (or even a bone-stock one).

And then I remember its purpose: to kill. And I'm not talking deer or rabbits, because a rifle is better suited for that.

No, there's little reason to own a Glock unless you intend to kill people.

"No reason to own a Glock unless you intend to kill people," eh? I hadn't realized how many of our nation's law enforcers are walking around with homicidal intent. The fact is that there is an excellent reason for peaceable people to carry firearms, including semi-automatic pistols in 9mm or larger calibers. That reason is to defend one's life against people who would destroy it. If that defense comes at the expense of the assailant's life, so be it--there is no reason that defending one's life with deadly force, when faced with a deadly threat, should be impossible to reconcile, even for a non-violent person.

I come to my senses and tell myself, "I bought a semiautomatic handgun. This is nuts."

Actually, I might have to agree. Your utterly twisted view of what the purpose of having such a firearm is would indicate that you might be better served with some counseling, or at least some education.

I am torn by these conflicting emotions and wonder if this is how it begins, the crazy addiction to guns that captivates so many people in this country.

I think it begins with that equally crazy addiction to life and liberty (addictions that a great many people seem to be conquering, sadly).

Will I be seduced by rhetoric from the National Rifle Association?

Let us hope not, lest you start believing that people like Sheriff Bill Brown and Senator John Millner are gun rights advocates, and "believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools." May I suggest looking into Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (gentiles welcome!), or at least Gun Owners of America? They'll be much less likely to poison your mind with thoughts of compromising, in discussions about the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Will I start talking about the right to carry a concealed weapon?

Perish the thought! Society would surely collapse if "authorized journalists" started talking about human rights.

How easy, I wondered, is it to get a gun in Milwaukee?

The answer is that it is absurdly easy - easier, in fact, than getting rid of the half-used cans of paint in my basement.

Acquiring the means to defend one's life should, evidently, be much more difficult than polluting the environment.

I brought along a friend who looks like a cop (why that would make me feel more comfortable in a gun store, I am not sure) and who knows about guns.

Short of wearing a uniform, how does one "look like a cop," I wonder?

The sales rep, who wore a loaded Glock and proudly showed it to us, asked a few questions about what I wanted.

He mentioned that if I had children in the home, I should keep the Glock's 15-bullet clip separate from the gun.

Because, obviously, if one has children in the house to defend, as well as oneself, one had better not be able to do it quickly.

I realized how effortless it is to get carried away by the excitement of owning and shooting a gun.

Luckily, my husband brought me back to reality. When I got home and showed him the bullet-riddled target, his response was, "Oh, great. You killed somebody."

Would your husband prefer that when faced with an attacker, that you merely annoy him?

After the two days, I returned to pick up my Glock. This time, the nervousness of buying a gun almost over, I noticed the stickers throughout the store, such as the one that says, "Fight Crime. Shoot Back."

I also took a closer look at the submachine guns on the wall behind the counter, realizing that I probably could have bought one of those if I had wanted.

I decided not to shoot a few rounds at the range. Maybe it was the submachine guns or maybe it was the stickers, but I had had enough of the gun culture for one week.

Sure you can buy a submachine gun--if you submit to fingerprinting, a much more invasive background check, get permission from someone in local authority (chief of police, sheriff, judge, etc.), pay a $200 tax, and wait on the BATFE for months.

Now that I have my Glock, the question is, what do I do with it? Part of me thinks it would be neat to become an ace shot.

But a more sober voice tells me that the sooner I get the gun out of the house, the safer I will be.

But how does one get rid of a gun? It's not like I can throw my Glock in with old dishes and outdated sports equipment and hold a garage sale.

The more vexing question is, do I really want to get rid of my Glock?

My question is why did you buy the thing in the first place if you're so uncomfortable around it, so afraid that it will suddenly convert you into a homicidal monster?

I am not sure I want to probe that question too deeply. It would have been much better if I had never bought the gun, if someone, somewhere, had made it even a little bit difficult.

So that's what this is about. You don't like the freedom of making your own choices about your personal security--you want the government to add to the difficulty of exercising your inalienable rights. You don't trust people with guns--you don't even trust yourself with a gun. Big Brother would be so proud.

The sad reality is that it remains outrageously simple to buy a semiautomatic handgun in this city. Even sadder, the youth of Milwaukee are paying with their lives for our refusal to legislate gun control.

No, the "sad reality" is that our society has sunk to blaming tools for the evil work wrought with them, rather than the perpetrators.

Illinois gun owners get a respite

It seems that we have made it through the spring session without any further successful attacks on the few gun rights left here. As of midnight on May 31st, the Illinois Politburo legislature has gone into overtime. By rule, bills passed in extended sessions need not merely a simple majority to pass, but a 3/5ths supermajority. That would mean 71 House votes, or 36 Senate votes. Almost all the bills we were fighting against were held back because their supporters did not believe they had the simple majority, so it would seem that the supermajority is out of reach.

Now is not the time to become complacent, however. The other side does have options. They could vote on a bill they want (say SB 1007, which has already passed in the Senate). Even if they can't get the 71 House votes they would need (and they almost certainly can't--if they had thought they had the 60 votes they needed before May 31st, they'd have called it then), they can still vote on it, and if they get 60 or more votes (but not 71), they can then amend it, pushing its effective date back until at least June 1st, 2008. I don't see them going to all this trouble, especially with all the real business of the state they have left unfinished, but then again, I hadn't expected Commissar Senator Kotowski to hijack a bill about sexual exploitation of children, and turn it into this useless, unconstitutional bill in the first place.

Speaking of SB 1007, by the way, it's first House co-sponsor was (supposedly) pro-gun Representative Ed Sullivan, Jr. When angry gun owners in his district called to express their displeasure at his perfidious, back-stabbing treachery, his pathetic excuse was "this is going to pass anyway, and by supporting it, we can appease them to prevent worse infringements" (I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist). Well, what do you say now, Ed? It seems that it's not "going to pass anyway," nor are the worse infringements, no thanks to you. Don't think your treason will be forgotten, just because it wasn't successful. Sullivan wasn't the only ostensible "ally" who sold us out (do you hear me, Senators Cronin, Dillard, Hultgren, Murphy, and especially Millner?).

Our getting through this session more or less intact was the result of a great deal of very hard work by a great many dedicated defenders of freedom in this state. The grassroots gun rights movement announced its official arrival this year with IGOLD, and continued to make its presence felt in a big way throughout the session. A comprehensive list of folks who deserve credit would be too voluminous to be practical, so I'll name just one--Valinda Rowe gets my vote as hero(ine) of the Illinois gun rights movement. Without her boundless energy, her tireless exertions, and her cheerful encouragement for all of us who lack her determination, I believe that this would have been a grim spring in Illinois.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating--I'm glad she's on our side. If she were fighting against gun rights, we would be lucky to be permitted slingshots.