More Illinois counties reject Chicago-style 'gun control'

Lots of stuff has been going down while my computer problems raged around me. Even now, I'll probably be blogging lightly for the next few days, while I catch up with a lot of other stuff. Anyway, figured I'd celebrate my return to the cyber-world with something I last covered here. Here's the good news: Adams, Pope, and Wayne Counties have joined the other 12 in passing resolutions condemning the Chicago area legislators' relentless attacks on the Second Amendment. That makes fifteen counties that have passed such a resolution.

Here's a short article about the Adams County resolution.

UPDATE: By the way, speaking of Adams County, I should probably mention that the mayor of Quincy, Illinois (county seat of Adams County), is Mayor John A. Spring, one of six Illinois mayors who are part of Bloomberg's Coalition of Nanny-State Mayors (or whatever they call themselves)--I would love to hear his reaction to the new county resolution.

Monroe and Piatt Counties have added this type of resolution to their agendas, and are expected to vote soon. The current map thus looks like this:

(Click to enlarge)

Even better, way up in Kendall County (Chicago 'burbs, basically), Oswego Township has passed a similar resolution on the township level. Township by township--this is real grassroots, folks, and deep in the belly of the civilian disarmament beast.

Ready to be surrounded by a sea of green, Cook County?

E-meltdown

Sorry to just fade away altogether-had some kind of technical crisis with my network, and the internet connection thereof. Anyway, it's (hopefully) resolved now, and I'll be back to barking at the civilian disarmament lobbyists tomorrow.

Giuliani now strong supporter of Second Amendment (and I'm the Easter Bunny)

What a load off my mind--I just read that Rudy Giuliani, presently the Republican front-runner for president, has a healthy reverence for the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Hmm--why can't I shake some niggling doubts, though?

Could it have something to do with the fact that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior? Could it be related to the fact that during his administration, New York City sued not only gun manufacturers, but holster manufacturers, as well? Could it have something to do with this (from the first link):

. . . who as mayor endorsed the Brady gun bill and praised former Democratic President Bill Clinton's work on gun control.

But now (at least while he's trying to talk Southerners into supporting him for the Republican presidential nomination), he sings a different tune.

Giuliani, on a Dixie swing that includes Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, assured the crowd here that his strict interpretation of the Constitution demands that he support the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

"What your friends are probably concerned about is my history as mayor of New York City, because I enforced the gun laws in New York very aggressively," Giuliani said. "I did it because I had a city [where] crime was way out of control. It was destroying the fabric of our society."

So, because of crime (committed, obviously, by criminals), he enforced laws--laws that he now says he would not support, because of the Constitution (was the Constitution suspended during his mayoral term?)--that don't affect criminals (because laws are only obeyed by the law-abiding). If I were trying to make that argument, I guess I would be sweating, too.

Giuliani has maintained he hasn't changed his position. He said yesterday gun laws in his administration wouldn't be much different than they are now.

Not "much different than they are now," eh? Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a shall not be infringed take on the right to keep and bear arms.

Sullivan [the college student who asked Giuliani if he planned to take away our guns] said he was satisfied with Giuliani's response: "I don't want felons to have the guns, and as long as he's a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I can support him," he said.

Although Sullivan arrived with an Ann Coulter book in hand and a liking for still-undeclared candidate Fred Thompson, the actor and former Tennessee senator, "I'm more leaning toward Rudy now," he said.

Kid, if that is enough to satisfy you, I would like to offer you a great deal on a pair of breeding mules.

Tempest in a Tampa teapot

This "article" doesn't even get past the title ("Assault rifles: Dangerous , deadly and on our streets") without serious accuracy problems--assault rifles, which have a fully automatic fire capability, have been extremely heavily regulated for many decades. I assume the Tammie Fields (the author) meant "assault weapons"--a term made up by the Victim Producing Center's Josh Sugarmann--made up specifically to capitalize on the ignorance of people like Tammie, and their propensity for confusing semi-automatic firearms with fully automatic ones.

She starts with a reference to the famous North Hollywood Bank shootout of 1997.

Tampa – Who can forget the fierce shootout between police and two heavily armed men decked out in protective armor? It wasn't a movie the nation was watching. It was real back in February of 1997 in North Hollywood, California.

Police closed in on the suspects after they robbed a bank. It would become the most violent shootout in police history revealing that the bad guys are arming themselves most times better than police.

"Most times?" How does one incident reveal anything about what happens "most times"? For that matter, does the fact that she had to go ten years in the past to find her illustrative case not indicate that it was an extremely unusual event?

Next, she does her best to tie that bit of history in with current events.

Then fast forward to this week in Tampa. Local police say Antwan Gould and Derrick Howie, convicted felons, not only sold undercover officers cocaine at the Brittany Apartment complex on Dale Mabry but when officers arrested the two they found a high powered assault rifle in the back seat of their car.

The trouble is that the "high powered assault rifle" was an SKS--neither "high powered" (the 7.62x39mm round is a good deal less powerful than popular deer hunting calibers like the .30-06, .270 Winchester, etc.), nor an "assault rifle" (it has no fully automatic fire capability--in fact, by most definitions of "assault weapon," it is not even one of those).

Perhaps the police officers will clear up Tammie's confusion . . . nope:

According to detectives Gould and Howie were armed with an SKS assault rifle. It was fully loaded with enough power to send a bullet slicing through a car door according to the undercover officer. "It's a military round. So chances are the vest we wear on a day to day basis would not have helped us a whole lot with that round."

Enough power to send a bullet through sheet metal? The horror! Also, the fact that it's a "military round" has nothing to do with the inability of soft body armor (the kind worn by most police officers--and even that sounds kind of unlikely for undercover officers) to stop it--that would be the case with just about any centerfire rifle round.

Tammie should stop worrying about "assault rifles" on Tampa's streets, and start worrying about her lack of knowledge of the subjects she covers.

Gun manufacturer helps the 'Only Ones' be the 'Only Ones'

Not knowing much about long-range tactical rifles ("sniper rifles," as the media herbivores would call them), I was unaware that CheyTac (Cheyenne Tactical) offers one grade of their Intervention M-200 rifle for military and law enforcement, and a less capable version to lowly private citizens.

Until now, the CheyTac Intervention M-200 was restricted to Military and Law Enforcement sales only due to its impressive capabilities and a desire by the CheyTac ownership to maintain every advantage with our Operators in the field. Now, CheyTac engineers have developed a mildly de-rated version of the M-200 named the CIV ( Civilian Intervention Version) to offer the long range competitor the outstanding capability of the M-200 while limiting its effective range to significantly less than that of the current Military versions.

CheyTac believes that in these times all responsible companies should first consider the American and allied troops in the field when offering long range precision rifle systems to the public at large.

So it would seem that CheyTac is happy enough to accept civilians' money, but at the same time wouldn't want to put the government's ability to impose its armed will on the populace in danger.

Compare the above philosophy with that embraced by Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, who, upon passage in California of a ban on .50 caliber rifles (for civilians), refused sales and services to any unit of California government, because that government, by imposing unconstitutional laws on its citizens, had become a criminal enterprise--and gun manufacturers have a moral and legal obligation to refuse sales to criminals (I've mentioned this before).

I am not in the market for a precision long-range tactical rifle (being confined to a wheelchair, and not having anything close to the kind of money I would need), but if I were, I would look very hard at one of Barrett's offerings chambered for the .416 Barrett round.

Ronnie Barrett supports the personal freedom of individual Americans. CheyTac supports governmental supremacy. Given those choices, I know whom I would support.

UPDATE: Oops--hadn't noticed that Snowflakes in Hell had written about this already back in May--and done so quite well.

Isn't that like putting a fox in charge of henhouse security?

Just a short post today--Independence Day isn't for blogging.

Well, apparently the BATFE's outrageous abuses at a Richmond, VA gun show in August, 2005 were perfectly fine after all--at least according to the "Justice" Department (Orwell would be proud of that organizational title). Keep in mind that even the BATFE stormtroopers eventually admitted that this kind of operation was a bit over the top, but now the Justice Department has absolved them.

Wait a second, though--isn't the BATFE part of the Justice Department? Are we to consider a vast (and vastly powerful) government agency investigating one of its own subsidiaries to be independent oversight? Are we truly that gullible?

Happy Independence Day.

The right to keep and bear . . . paperweights?

Yesterday, my attention was brought to this alarming development, as reported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government agency charged with assuring the safety and health of America's workers, is proposing a regulatory rule affecting the manufacturing, transportation and storage of small arms ammunition, primers and smokeless propellants.

As written, the proposed rule would force the closure of nearly all ammunition manufacturers and force the cost of small arms ammunition to skyrocket beyond what the market could bear—essentially collapsing our industry. This is not an exaggeration. The cost to comply with the proposed rule for the ammunition industry, including manufacturer, wholesale distributors and retailers, will be massive and easily exceed $100 million. For example, ammunition and smokeless propellant manufacturers would have to shut down and evacuate a factory when a thunderstorm approached and customers would not be allowed within 50 feet of any ammunition (displayed or otherwise stored) without first being searched for matches or lighters.

This would, of course render the American people disarmed in short order. Reloading, by the way, would not be a solution to this situation, since the manufacture/transportation/storage of primers and propellant powders would face the same degree of regulatory insanity as would whole rounds of ammunition.

In a guest editorial for War on Guns, Mike Vanderboegh provides a superb analysis of the dangers of allowing the government to choke off the ammunition supply to the civilian market, and explains how such an approach could be used as a back door to largely invalidating the Second Amendment.

If we allow that to happen, we deserve the tyranny that will inevitably follow.

Do I hear twelve?

In trying to keep up with the news of all the Illinois counties to pass resolutions formally rejecting Chicago-style "gun control," (recent posts about it can be found here, here, and here), I'm staying busy--and the pace would seem to be accelerating. Don't get me wrong--I'm certainly not complaining, but this is getting hard to keep up with (or up with which to keep--nobody makes me dangle a preposition when I choose not to ;-) ).

Anyway, yesterday saw not one, but two counties hitch themselves to the freedom train. Edwards and Wabash Counties have joined the growing body that rejects the dangerously flawed notion that the way to deal with violent crime is to trample the Constitutional rights of those who are not committing it. That makes twelve counties that have passed the resolution. The most current map thus looks like this:
(Click to enlarge)

By the way, I think the map should say that there are seven counties that have the resolution proposed, rather than eight.

I also need to make a correction of a statement I made Saturday--Massac County will have the resolution introduced today (or tonight, possibly), but it will not likely be voted on immediately, as I had stated.

Starting to feel lonely yet, Cook County?

Deacons for Defenselessness take their show nationwide

No longer content with limiting his publicity seeking harassment of law-abiding Chuck's Gun Shop, Jesse Jackson is planning, to expand his campaign nationwide on August 28th (no word on whether or not "Snuffy" Pfleger is going to be involved).

Unlike Mayor Bloomberg, Jackson makes no effort to claim that he is after only "illegal" guns--he blames every gun buyer for violence committed with firearms.

“Our marching does not kill people; people who buy guns from gun shops kill people,” Rev. Jackson said.

That's funny--I've bought more than a few guns from gun shops, and know folks who have bought many more, but I don't know anyone who has killed a person.

It would seem that at least part of Jackson's angst regarding guns is based on confusion:

Rev. Jackson said the nationwide rallies would represent a grassroots effort to press state and federal legislators into passing “common sense” legislation to stem the flow of handguns and military-style automatic weapons.

The reverend should be very pleased to know that since 1934, "military-style automatic weapons" have been very tightly controlled by federal law (and even more so by state laws, depending on the state). This is great! One of his biggest objections is now taken care of. Don't thank me, Jesse--glad I could help.

By the way, if anyone has any idea what the following snippet means, please let me know in the comments section:

The National Rifle Association, a powerful special-interest lobbying organization and chief proponent of lax rules for gun ownership, is promoting a federal bill that would, among other things, eliminate any limits on the quantities of guns an individual may purchase.

Er . . . what? There is currently no federal law imposing gun rationing on purchasers. Three states (California, Maryland, and--interestingly enough, given the civilian disarmament lobby's vitriol over its supposedly "loose gun laws"--Virginia) do have such legislation, but if there is any effort underway to pass a federal law that would invalidate the gun rationing laws in those three states, I have not heard of it (and I try to keep abreast of such things).

Could be another case of confusion on Jesse's part--he seems to suffer from that a lot.

We're the Only Ones simply stunning enough

In pining for the return of War on Guns, I decided to make my own weak attempt at an entry for the "Only Ones" files.

A skateboarder refused to leave the St. Mark's Hospital parking lot. A Salt Lake County sheriff's deputy tried to arrest him, but the skateboarder resisted, wrestling with the deputy, who then shot him with a Taser.

Another time, deputies chased a drunken Kearns man into his home - the man yelling, "I'm going to kill you, get my gun and shoot you" - and shot him with a Taser when he swung at them.

With each pull of the trigger, Utah officers are growing more comfortable with law enforcement's latest innovation, the 50,000-volt stun gun. Like duct tape, the weapons have become a fix-all for potentially volatile situations.

A Tribune analysis of more than 180 Taser deployments shows that police used the weapon four out of 10 times to subdue violent suspects, some already in handcuffs, others wielding knives.

I have no problem with the addition of a non-lethal (or "not usually lethal," anyway) option to the law enforcement toolbox--I just wonder if some officers find the use of these devices a little more enjoyable than they ought to.

I have also noticed that many jurisdictions erect high barriers (up to and including outright bans) to the use of these devices by all but the "Only Ones"--are they the "Only Ones" who might need to defend themselves when killing the assailant is a less than ideal solution?

County update: more progress

Somehow, I failed to notice until now that Effingham County hitched itself to the freedom train back on the 18th. For those following along, that makes 10 counties that have passed resolutions condemning Chicago-style "gun control." Here, then, is the newest map:
(Click to enlarge)

Additionally, I am told that Massac County will vote on the resolution on Tuesday, July 3rd. Pope County is set to vote on it on the 10th, and confidence is very high that it will pass.

That map gets prettier all the time, doesn't it?

Where the immigration and gun rights debates meet

I have, for the most part, kept this blog out of the debate about illegal immigration, because Armed and Safe is pretty exclusively about gun rights, and how those are violated by gun legislation (this post is about the closest thing to an exception). Generally speaking, I think any connection between the immigration debate and the gun rights debate is fairly tenuous. Today, though, I'll discuss a tragic intersection of the two issues.

This past Monday, Schanna Gayden, a 13-year-old honors student in Chicago, was killed in broad daylight, for the "crime" of being on a playground that marked the battle line between two rival gangs. The shooter proved to be not much of a threat to his enemies in the other gang, but was lethal to the innocent child.

Predictably, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley blamed America's "gun culture." This, of course, is the same Chicago Mayor Richard Daley who over a year ago decreed that Chicago become an immigrant "sanctuary city," in which police and other officials are expressly forbidden from checking into the immigration status of the people with whom they deal (that last link is to an article about the fact that the entire county of Cook may join Chicago in abetting illegal immigration).

What does Daley's (and by extension, Chicago's) contempt for U.S. immigration laws have to do with Schanna Gayden's senseless killing? One of the two suspects, and the leader of the gang responsible, is in the U.S. illegally. Mwenda Murithi, of Kenya, came to the U.S. on a student visa in 1999. That visa expired long ago, but here he remains, only to order the shooting that killed the young girl.

Murithi, who in the eight years he has been in this country has accumulated 28 arrests, including four felonies, has clearly had plenty of dealings with Chicago police, but since they have been ordered to not care about his immigration status, deportation was never in the cards for him (and since our "justice" system allows people with such lengthy crime dossiers to run free, he was not in prison here, either).

Schanna Gayden was not killed by America's "gun culture"--responsibility for her slaying lies at least in part with Daley's mandated contempt for our national borders.

Senate Appropriations Committee displays common sense; Bradys, VPC display hysteria

Mayor (and Aspiring Supreme Being) Bloomberg and his allies were dealt a telling blow yesterday when the Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Shelby Amendment (by a nearly 2 to 1 margin). This amendment is basically the Senate equivalent of the Tiahrt Amendment--the defeat of which seems to be Bloomberg's main purpose in life.

Actually, the Shelby Amendment contains even more protection of sensitive gun trace data than the Tiahrt Amendment does, and thus has the civilian disarmament lobby in an even more apoplectic state. Here, for example, is what Kristen Rand, of the Violence Policy Center has to say:

Adds Rand, “Keeping crime gun trace data secret puts the whims of the gun lobby ahead of the needs of local officials and law enforcement who are desperate for information that will help them fight illegal gun trafficking.

What she fails to mention is that the world's largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, the Fraternal Order of Police, supports the continued protection of this sensitive information, and that when she mentions "the needs of local officials," she is referring to the ability of local officials to wage a campaign of predatory lawsuits against the firearms industry.

The Brady Bunch is, if possible, even more melodramatic:

“Today, the Senate Appropriations Committee chose the gun lobby over America’s police and local officials, making a bad law that has hurt law enforcement even worse.

“The Committee restored a provision that prevents communities from knowing the truth about corrupt gun dealers and illegal guns, and added even greater restrictions on law enforcement access to crucial crime gun information.

“At a time when crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence in our neighborhoods, this action is a step in the wrong direction.”

In their call to action (accompanied by their standard call for money), we see this:

At a time when violent crime rates are rising, and corrupt gun dealers and traffickers are fueling gun violence, the Senate Appropriations Committee's actions are inconceivable. But not surprising, given the gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members.

"The gun lobby's stranglehold on so many House and Senate members," eh? That would seem to be an odd statement for the Bradys to make just one day after crowing about what they had claimed to be a rising tide of restrictive gun legislation:

While common sense gun measures have moved forward, gun lobby proposals to weaken gun laws have foundered. The gun lobby has had very few successes, and a number of high profile failures, including defeats in states like Florida and Georgia where they have traditionally been successful.

Sounds as if Paul (Helmke) might be suffering from rapid mood swings, or something (is that bipolar disorder?). I think that can be treated--he might not be able to buy firearms, but I guess that's no big loss to him.

New Illinois gun rights blog

I would like to point folks to Gun Owners Against Violence, by a sister in the civil rights struggle against civilian disarmament in Illinois.

Any who doubt that this is indeed a civil rights struggle need only read this excellent history lesson.

With folks like this on our side, I grow more sure every day that We Shall Overcome.

The investigation begins

The alleged death threats against Commissar Senator Kotowski (discussed here and here) are now in the news. The article is titled "Investigation begun of threats to Kotowski"--perhaps that means that the real investigation has finally begun, and that the Illinois State Police are done wasting time and resources with the harassment of people who have given no reason to believe that they threatened anyone.

The following line caught my eye:

Most of the threats referred to his sponsorship of gun safety legislation, Kotowski said this week.

Most of the alleged threats were in reference to his civilian disarmament agenda? Some folks would have us believe that all the alleged threats came from the gun rights movement. I wonder if Rich Miller and friends would have ISRA apologize for and condemn those other threats, as well. I also wonder if the threats unrelated to gun legislation will receive the kind of investigative attention as those supposedly from gun rights advocates, or if instead, they'll be blown off, like the threats issued by "Snuffy" Pfleger, in front of hundreds of witnesses (and which were recorded).

The article then makes a rather odd assertion.

During the current spring session, Kotowski, of Park Ridge, successfully introduced proposals to tighten restrictions on high-capacity gun magazines and .50-caliber rifles. Both bills have received wide support and are awaiting final approval in the House and Senate respectively.

Wide support? The .50 caliber ban bill was never brought up for a vote--presumably because its supporters didn't believe that they had the votes. That was before May 31st, when it would only have needed a simple majority. Now that it needs a 3/5ths majority, its chances of going anywhere during the overtime session are minimal, at most. The magazine ban bill did just barely squeak through the Senate, but again, was never brought up for a vote in the House--presumably for lack of support.

Another of the article's claims that I find a bit dubious is this one:

Kotowski is himself a victim of gun violence and, prior to his election in November 2006 over incumbent Republican Cheryl Axley of Mount Prospect, he was executive director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.

By "victim of gun violence," are they referring to the fact that he was mugged? The fact that a couple thugs (one of whom was armed) took twenty bucks from him bestows upon him the authority to violate the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms?

A bit later, we get to why Kotowski believes that it's ISRA's fault that he has been threatened.

"The ISRA needs to take responsibility for inciting people. They created a climate where this is acceptable to some people by telling their members that my legislation takes guns out of the hands of U.S. troops in Iraq, that I'm 'dancing in the blood' of the Virginia Tech shootings," he said, referring to previous ISRA press releases opposing his efforts to pass new gun control legislation.

Let me make sure I have this right--ISRA's expression of rather unflattering sentiments about Kotowski--without ever endorsing threatening behavior or violence "incites" people to do those things? Does that mean that gun rights advocates should not be allowed to express our abhorrence for those who wish to disarm us? That hardly sounds like the position of "a strong proponent of the 1st Amendment right to free speech," as Kotowski has claimed to be.

I wonder how careful the article's author was in his quoting.

In the days after ISRA's June 18 response hit the Internet, Kotowski said three death threats appeared online, including one stating that, because of what he's trying to do, Kotowski should feel that "his life is in danger."

It is certainly possible that the article is referring to a quote other than the one I know of ("Sounds to me like Sen. Kotowski deserves to be threatened."), but if not, it would be a case of misquoting that would seem calculated to put a much more sinister light on what was said.

I don't believe in threats of violence as part of the political process, but I am proud to express my utter contempt and loathing for elected officials who would use their power to usurp fundamental civil rights.

Deacons for Defenselessness causing hardship to Riverdale

The mayor of Riverdale, IL (home of Chuck's Gun Shop), although a proponent of strict gun laws herself, takes issue with the harassment campaign engineered by Jesse Jackson and "Snuffy" Pfleger against Chuck's Gun Shop.

A suburban mayor is speaking out against a protest in her village last weekend. That demonstration ended with the arrests of Reverend Jesse Jackson and Father Michael Pfleger. They have led two protests at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale. The mayor there says the demonstrations have cost the village thousands of dollars.

The mayor says resources spent on protecting protesters' rights and safety will be better spent elsewhere, in particular, trying to prevent gun violence. This was all sparked by an incident over the weekend, a protest of a gun shop in Riverdale.

I do not contest the right of people to protest whatever they feel compelled to protest. The Constitution protects such speech, and I would not want to live anywhere that such protections were not provided by law.

Still, when the protests are damaging to the very people they're ostensibly intended to protect, perhaps a different approach is indicated.

Mayor Evans has expressed interest in accompanying the Deacons for Defenselessness to Springfield, where the legislating is done (Blagojevich's and Daley's wishes and delusions notwithstanding).

If it's new laws they want, their protests should be where laws are made--not at Chuck's, where they are obeyed.

Latest county pro-2A resolution update for Illinois

Check out this video from a news segment about the introduction to the Champaign County Board of the kind of resolution I have been tracking (most recently here)



That makes nine counties (Shelby, Brown, Pike, Schuyler, Hancock, Johnson, Randolph, White, and Greene) with the resolution on the books, and at least another nine that have it proposed for consideration on the county board agenda. Probably close to two dozen more have an effort underway.

(Click to enlarge)

Daley, Blagojevich, Kotowski, and all the rest of you aspiring tyrants, get off the tracks--a train is coming.

Update on Ohio newspaper publishing concealed carry licensees' identities

Check out the Liberty Sphere blog again today, to see an update to the situation (mentioned yesterday) involving the Sandusky, Ohio newspaper that has decided its anti-defense agenda is more important than privacy and public safety. It seems that some Ohioans are fighting back.

By the way, while we're on the topic of newspapers competing for the Christian Trejbal Award for Irresponsible, Agenda-Driven "Journalism," it seems that a Connecticut newspaper is trying to force municipalities to release the names and addresses of everyone who applies for a concealed carry permit (state law already protects the identities of those who receive the permits--this is an attempt to make an end run around that privacy protection).

Can't they find any--you know--news to print?

UPDATE: Speaking of Christian Trejbal, look who stopped by--

Perhaps Christian was hoping to find that he had some fans.

How to pass "gun control" legislation: stay the hell away from facts and logic

Drew Westen's book, The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation, is, as far as I can tell, a treatise on the need to stay away from facts and logic in political debate, and to focus instead on emotion. That, anyway, seems to be the gist of this excerpt, focusing on so-called "gun control" (i.e., civilian disarmament). To be honest, I think Westen has the right idea--when pushing an agenda so divorced from reality and rationality (and Constitutionality) as public safety through state-mandated defenselessness, facts and logic would certainly be things to avoid.

He apparently decided a demonstration was in order, waiting only until early in the third paragraph to let rip with a stunningly blatant lie.

They didn't mention that the Republican Congress had let the Brady Act, which banned the sale of semiautomatic weapons, sunset in 2004.

Actually, this is several lies, all in one short statement. First, the "Brady Act" dealt with background checks and waiting periods for handgun sales--not with semi-automatic firearms in general (many semi-automatics are not handguns, and many handguns are not semi-automatics). The criminal background check element of the Brady Act is still in force to this day, and although the five day waiting period is no longer in effect, it expired not in 2004, but in 1998, when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was implemented.

What sunset in 2004 was the ban on so-called "assault weapons" (a term invented by rabid civilian disarmament advocate and VPC executive director Josh Sugarmann). This law did not "ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons"--many semi-autos were unaffected by the law, and even the "banned" firearms were completely legal for civilian ownership and sale, as long as they were manufactured (or imported) before the effective date (Sept. 13, 1994).

One could argue, I suppose, that Westen was not lying, as I accused him earlier, but simply wrong, but if he is this far off in his understanding of guns and gun laws, I would argue that representing himself as an authority on these issues is rather dishonest in and of itself.

The next lie, although breathtaking in its mendacity, is pretty standard fare for the civilian disarmament advocates.

If ever there was an issue on which Americans are of two minds, it is guns. Most Americans believe in the Second Amendment, but most Americans also support a host of restrictions on gun sales and ownership.

So most Americans support a right of the people that shall not be infringed, but they "also support a host of restrictions" on that right? In other words, apparently, Americans are largely unaware of the plain meanings of common English words.

A bit later, we come to this puzzling sentence:

The notion of being defenseless doesn't sit well with southern and rural males, whose identity as men is strongly associated with the ability to protect their families.

Are we to infer, then, that "the notion of being defenseless" does sit well with northern and urban males (and all women)? If so, that would seem to be an attitude we should seek to change, rather than to exploit.

What civilian disarmament advocacy piece would be complete without a breathless reference to terrorism? Fear not--here it comes.

You can't fight a war against terrorists if you grant them unrestricted access to automatic weapons on your own soil.

Who gets "unrestricted access to automatic weapons" in this country? Since 1934 (and the National Firearms Act), automatic firearms have been extraordinarily heavily regulated, with the regulations becoming even more onerous and draconian with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and still more so with the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Perhaps Westen somehow failed to notice the conspicuousness of the absence of terrorist attacks in the U.S. in which automatic weapons (or any other firearms, for that matter) have been used.

He even goes so far as to include kind of a miniature manifesto regarding firearms, that he thinks Democrats should use.

Our moral vision on guns reflects one simple principle: that gun laws should guarantee the freedom and safety of all law-abiding Americans. We stand with the majority of Americans who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt and protect their families. And we stand with that same majority of Americans who believe that felons, terrorists, and troubled teenagers don't have the right to bear arms that threaten the safety of our children. We therefore support the right to bear arms, but not to bear arms designed for no other purpose than to take another person's life.

The lies come fast and furious in that little gem. First, more restrictive laws do not "guarantee the freedom"--they actively attack it. Secondly, no law can guarantee safety--even a well-crafted law designed to promote safety can only work when it is not broken. To end the breaking of laws, one would have to eliminate criminals. That seems rather unlikely.

Toward the end, Westen really gets into the emotional symbolism he is promoting, suggesting that the Democrats "put every Republican in Congress on record as caring more about the blood-soaked dollars of the NRA than about the lives of our children."

The very last paragraph is the most stunning, in which Westen actually acknowledges that telling the truth is a losing proposition for civilian disarmament advocates.

If you can't speak the truth and win elections, you need to learn another language. The language that wins elections is the language of the heart.

That just about says it all, doesn't it?

Ohio newspaper publishing names of concealed carry licensees

Rather than typing up the details, I will just point readers to the Liberty Sphere, where I found out about this newest outrage.

The Liberty Sphere, by the way, is worth a daily look just for their Second Amendment News Roundup every weekday. If you haven't bookmarked the site yet, you oughtta.