Illinois State Rifle Association urges Illinoisans to hold the ISP's feet to the fire

I mentioned not long ago has been illegally delaying issuance and renewal of Firearm Owner ID (FOID) cards (don't even get me started on the requirement for those in the first place). The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) has some suggestions for those affected.

Take action on your late FOID

The ISRA issued a press release on January 23rd, 2009, concerning the failure of the Illinois State Police to issue the FOID or provide an explanation for denial within 30 days of receipt of the application, as provided for by Illinois law.

The ISRA is working on the problem, but that doesn't immediately help those awaiting a new FOID or a FOID renewal. If you are waiting for your FOID and you sent in your application 30 days ago or more, please follow these steps:

1. Call the ISP Police Firearms Services Bureau at 217-782-7980 and make an inquiry into the status of your card. Disregard any recorded message that tells you not to bother unless you’ve been waiting more than 56 days. It’s your rights that have been put on hold, it’s your freedom that is put in jeopardy, it’s your prerogative to call and ask for action.

2. Call your Illinois Representative and Illinois Senator at their Springfield offices and inform them of your difficulty getting your new or renewed FOID. It is very likely that your call will be answered by a secretary. Always be polite to the secretaries, they’re your portal to the legislators. Provide details on your situation: when you sent in your application, date your check cleared, etc. Ask for the legislator to make an inquiry on your behalf. It’s important for the legislators to know that the FOID delays are impacting citizens in their districts.

3. Do you need to find out who your state legislators are? You can find out by checking the website of the Illinois State Board of Elections on the page for District/Official Search. If you know who your legislators are but need their phone numbers, you can look them up on the ISRA website. There is a page for the representatives and another for the senators.

4. Show your solidarity for your fellow Illinois Gun Owners by joining us in Springfield on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 for IGOLD – Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day. Go to the IGOLD website at igold.isra.org for details.

Remember, if your FOID card expires while you're waiting for the renewal, you have become what Illinois considers a "gun criminal"--and if you rent your home, Fred Crespo would like to require the State's Attorney to evict you from your home.

You, too can be a 'terrorist'

Call me the suspicious sort, but I see all kinds of potential for a sufficiently zealous administration to consider it "extremism" to point out that the Second Amendment exists as 10% of the Bill of Rights specifically to protect the people's means to kill would-be tyrants and their agents--a position I have long and loudly advocated, and intend to continue to do so as long as I have the breath to form the words. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is up. Please give it a look and spread the word.

Oh yeah--do ya' Digg me, baby?

• National Gun Rights Examiner: The 'evolution' of Kirsten Gillibrand
  
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Tech again: when will they learn?
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: What if crimes by pen were treated like crimes by gun?
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Children safest population group around guns (Part 2)
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: DC taxpayers will pay for City Council's gun ban redux
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Blind justice
• Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner: The folly across the river

My ISP hates me

My internet service cut out around 1:30 AM, and stayed dead until about twenty minutes ago. I had already written my St. Louis GRE column last night, but was waiting to publish it early this morning. When that proved impossible by the usual means, I had the bright idea of trying to do it from my (nominally) internet enabled cell phone. What I managed instead, though, was to somehow delete all the content of today's column--which, brilliantly, I hadn't backed up elsewhere.

Now, I'm EXTREMELY far behind, and when I re-write the column I meant to publish today, it will be for tomorrow. Today, once I catch up on everything else I need to do, is going to be spent fantasizing about waterboarding my internet service provider's tech support demons . . . er, people.

CSGV: Crime is going up, so disarm!

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) president Mike Beard points today to some ominous indicators of rising crime, as a result, presumably, of the economic problems.

Given the severity and depth of the economic crisis in which our country is enmeshed, it is safe to say that we are living in an interesting age. Our great depression is already having an impact on the crime rate in the nation. The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) reports that certain crimes are up across the nation due to the financial crisis. At the same time, our state and local law enforcement agencies are facing severe budget cuts and hiring freezes [pdf file]. Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey has pointed out to the Washington Post that “cities may have to curtail successful programs that have flooded crime ‘hot spots’ with officers.”

Hmm . . . crime is rising, while police numbers and funding are declining. Sounds like a good reason (for those who needed one) to take greater responsibility for one's safety, and for that of one's family.

Mike apparently doesn't see it that way. He, in fact, considers the Obama-inspired, dramatic, sustained spike in firearm and ammunition sales as an "added factor" in the problem.

An added factor is the recent upturn in gun sales. As one Forth Worth firearms dealer described it: “The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point, people are buying ammunition, high capacity magazines, Glocks—it’s all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest.”

Concerns about civil unrest, I would say, are not out of place.

Beard then goes on to dismiss concerns that the Obama administration would pursue a gun ban--that they only want to . . . ban the most effective firearms for dealing with civil unrest.

The only ban being contemplated is a renewal of the widely popular 1994-2004 ban on assault weapons.

One question keeps coming to me when contemplating the motivation of the gun prohibitionists: whose side are they on?

Denying rights without due process

The bottom line is that you don't even have to care about gun rights to be horrified by the idea of giving an unelected official unilateral power to deny Constitutionally guaranteed rights without a conviction, without an indictment, without being charged, without even being publicly accused of a crime. Ours is a justice system based on the presumption of innocence pending proof of guilt, or at least it's supposed to be, and what Emanuel advocates--to the cheers of the Brady Campaign--is anathema to that philosophy. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up. Please give it a look, and encourage others to do the same.

Oh yeah--do ya' Digg me, baby?

• National Gun Rights Examiner: The trail of tears
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Saturday special: Answering the Brady Campaign Against Handgun violence.
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Can you effectively defend your beliefs?
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: Phony gun groups: Fool me twice?
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Firearms: A great equalizer
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: DC taxpayers will pay for City Council's gun ban redux
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Who could know?
• Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner: When is it good to fail?

Light Sunday reading

Letter writer Charles Scarfe really hates so-called "assault weapons,"* and anyone who opposes banning them.

Letter: ‘Backward elements’ terrorizing America

Zip guns. Those were the good old days. Gangbangers armed themselves with these inaccurate, single-shot, homemade weapons.

Because of the National Riffle Association, Newt Gingrich’s Republican Congress and Palin-esque, simpleton, red-neck conservatives, we haven’t yet been able to get rid of assault weapons. Gangbangers once took a shot with inaccurate zip guns; now their assault weapons spray bullets over an entire house (as in “Gran Torino”).

We liberals need to keep marginalizing the NRA, red-neck conservatives and brain-addled Republicans. We need to collect every assault weapon in the country and crush it.

Remember, a gangbanger armed with a zip gun might be able to kill one person, but a gang banger with an assault weapon, thanks to the NRA and red-neck conservatives, can kill dozens at one time.

This time, if we can beat down the Republicans left in Congress, like Wally Herger, we liberals should collect and crush all assault weapons. It’s time to defeat the NRA and the backward elements that are terrorizing American society.

Let’s send assault weapons the way of the Tommy Gun.

Charles Scarfe

It is, of course, difficult to argue with someone so well equipped with information gleaned from movies.

What I want to know is this: whom does he plan to send to do the "collecting" of firearms from us "backward elements," and how many of these "collectors" is he willing to lose?

*That link seems to be unreliable--sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

More Illinois insanity

On Thursday, we talked about Illinois State Representative Ken Dunkin's HB 687, which would require a million dollar insurance policy for possession of as much as a single-shot .22 rifle. Today, courtesy of Representative Fred Crespo, I present HB 438.

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Juvenile Court Act of 1987. Provides that if a minor is found to be a delinquent minor by reason of the commission of a gang-related offense, and the court finds that the minor is a first-time offender and orders that a parent, guardian, or legal custodian retain custody of that minor, the court may order the parent, guardian, or legal custodian to attend antigang violence parenting classes. Provides that the Department of Children and Family Services shall establish curriculum for the antigang violence parenting classes. Provides that the father, mother, spouse, or other person liable for the support of the minor, the estate of that person, and the estate of the minor shall be liable for the cost of classes, unless the court finds that the person or estate does not have the financial ability to pay. . . .

If the bill stopped here, I wouldn't think too much of it--I have serious questions about what it's likely to accomplish, but I don't really see it as actively harmful, and sadly, the bar in Illinois politics is low enough that merely useless isn't something that bothers me all that much. Unfortunately, Fred wasn't done. Here's the rest:

. . . Amends the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that if any lessee or occupant, on one or more occasions, uses or permits the use of leased premises for the commission of any act that would constitute a violation of the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act or the Deadly Weapons Article of the Criminal Code of 1961 or of any municipal or county ordinance relating to the registration, acquisition, carrying, possession, or use of firearms, firearm attachments, or firearm ammunition, and the owner or lessor does not bring or assign the State's Attorney to bring an action for forcible entry and detainer to recover possession of the leased premises, the State's Attorney shall bring such action on behalf of the owner or lessor without the consent of the owner or lessor.

Get that? If you rent your home, and the determination is made that your home was used in any violation of the FOID Act, other Illinois gun laws, or local gun laws (think Chicago here--where possession of a laser sight is illegal), you are to be evicted, even if your landlord doesn't consent to your eviction.

Oh, and by the way--to get an idea of how easy it would be to end up on the wrong side of this law (and thus end up homeless), think about this. The Illinois State Police are illegally delaying issuance of new and renewed FOID cards. If your card expires while you're waiting through their illegal delay, any firearm stored in your home becomes a violation of the FOID Act, and under this bill, would become grounds for your eviction.

I was thinking that Illinois must be the most messed up state in the nation, but there are apparently eight others that are even worse.

Busy, busy, busy . . .

I haven't been dedicating as much time to the blog as I'd like, and today has been nuttier than usual--so I don't have much to say today.

I do want to do my part in helping to promote both of David's National Gun Rights Examiner columns today.

Days of Our Trailers has also been on this.

The first is "The new blacklist," about a Wisconsin middle school teacher suspended from her job because of a photograph of her with a gun. That post is followed with an update, "The new blacklist--part two." They're both must-reads, but have your blood pressure medication, if you're on it.

Also, we have yet another Gun Rights Examiner. Meet John Pierce, our Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner. Guess Examiner.com is pretty pleased with how this Gun Rights Examiner concept is working--and why wouldn't they be, when one considers that GREs hold three of the top five positions (in terms of page views) for the year within the "Politics" category, despite the fact that some of these columns weren't even up yet at the beginning of the year.

'Imagining gun control in America': Why the idea is imaginary, Part III

That is what makes "gun control" in America nothing more than a citizen disarmament advocate's idle fantasy. Passage of the laws is certainly well within the realm of possibility, but those laws will rendered so impotent as to be worse than useless, as they do nothing more than foster greater contempt for the rule of law. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is now up. Please give it a look, and help me spread the word.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: A failing grade     The new blacklist
  
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Showing cause is against the sovereign. Follow-up.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Power. We have it, they want it
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'A new day' for Eric Holder; for you, it's back to '92
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Concealed carry saved lives again
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senate passes restaurant carry, rejects private sales ban
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: Who could know?
  

New Illinois insanity

Just when I thought that the forcible citizen disarmament freaks in this state had tried just about every possible means of attacking that which shall not be infringed, a particularly creative freedom-hater comes along and manages to surprise me. Meet Illinois State Representative Ken Dunkin.

And now, let's look at his bright idea--HB 687:

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.

So this genius wants to require every gun owner to carry at least a million dollars worth of insurance for misuse of his gun.

Actually, I might have given him too much credit for creativity--he's not the first to come up with this . . . inspired idea.

Oh, by the way, he's not averse to the boring old citizen disarmament plans we've seen before, as per his website:

Tougher Gun Control
This year Rep. Dunkin is supporting a package of gun control laws that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on deadly firearms. One measure supported by Dunkin would limit handgun purchases to one per month, which would cut off a supply of guns purchased by “straw buyers.” Another measure would require more parents to use gun locks when minors are present and would stiffen penalties for parents who do not comply. Dunkin also continues to support a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Kinda looks as if it would be hard to find a freedom-killing gun law he would not support.

'Imagining gun control in America': Why the idea is imaginary, Part II

As a consequence, supply-side controls, often implemented prospectively, without explicit commitment to disarming ordinary Americans, have affected only a tiny fraction of the inventory. It is as if we are in the sealed room, but now everybody has a gun or two tucked away, there are piles of them in the corners, and we are debating reducing gun violence with laws that allow only one more gun a month or no more guns with high capacity magazines. Our results have been disappointing because supply-side rules depend, ultimately, on cutting the inventory close to zero. And that, in America, is a problem. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is now up. Please give it a look, and help me promote it.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: Sheila Dixon's prestidigitation
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Answering the Los Angeles Times' Dana Parsons.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: They're coming for the children
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'A new day' for Eric Holder; for you, it's back to '92
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Brady Campaign to prevent democracy? (Part 3)
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senate passes restaurant carry, rejects private sales ban
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: A gun owner's worst nightmare

Illinois Sheriffs' Association supports defensive firearm carry

I have to admit, this news took me very much by (very pleasant) surprise.

For the first time since it was founded in 1928, the Illinois Sheriffs' Association announced its support for a concealed-carry handgun law in Illinois.

I tend to be pretty hard on the "Only Ones," because I have no patience or tolerance for the kind of attitude that holds private citizens as unqualified to have with them at all times the tools to defend their lives, their families, and their liberty. These sheriffs, though, clearly bring a much different attitude to the job.

The association also appointed Henry County Sheriff Gib Cady as its president for 2009. Sheriff Cady has been a strong proponent of concealed-carry in Illinois.

'We are constitutional officers for the people and the people want this,' Sheriff Cady said.

It would seem that their choice of association president was a wise one, as well.

Astonishingly, the vote in favor of the resolution of support for defensive firearm carry for private citizens was unanimous.

Mr. Sullivan said at least 60 sheriffs attended this week's conference. Although he did not have the vote total, Mr. Sullivan said the group unanimously supported the call for a concealed-carry handgun law.

Granted, "at least 60" is probably rather fewer than the total number (one-hundred two) of sheriffs in the state--Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart would probably sooner support legalized cannibalism before trusting the lowly private citizens with firearms in public, for example.

Still, 90% of the respondents is nothing to sneeze at.

The association's resolution noted it surveyed Illinois sheriffs on the issue, and 90 percent of those responding "support concealed carry in Illinois if adequate training and safeguards are included."

Obviously, the "adequate training and safeguards" could be a fly in the ointment. I'm from the school of thought that says licensing of, and administrative requirements for, the exercise of a fundamental right is . . . fundamentally wrong, but Alaska/Vermont style carry laws are a long way from reality here in Illinois, and I suppose I need to acknowledge that.

Here are some of the details the sheriffs want.

Those suggestions included having a state agency issuing permits "to insure consistency in evaluation and screening."

The legislative committee also recommended individuals receive adequate training, "including basic knowledge of firearms, the proper handling of a firearm, live fire exercises for range qualification, instruction and testing on use of force as a citizen including the liability of that use."

It suggested applications be processed by county sheriff offices, "including the ability of the sheriff to articulate specific reasons why the permit should be denied and those objections should be considered by the state before issuing a permit."

The committee also suggested a concealed carry permit be an identifiable code that shows a person's driver's license, Firearm Owner's Identification Card and state identification.

That's rather a lot of suggestions, and I can imagine a number of peaceable, and otherwise law-abiding, citizens being unwilling to go through all that (and also be unwilling to be rendered defenseless).

Still, if something like this becomes law, Illiniosans have an option beyond the choice between defenselessness and criminality. I'd have to call that progress.

'Imagining gun control in America': Why the idea is imaginary, Part I

On Monday, I made a very brief, passing reference to Fordham University Law School Professor Nicholas J. Johnson's "Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem" (pdf file). Some folks for whom I have a great deal of respect suggested to me that a more detailed look was in order. It's a pretty hefty bit of scholarship, and as such is probably a bit beyond my ability to analyze as well as it deserves, but it does raise some points I'd like to take a look at, so I'll give it a shot (no pun intended). [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up--please give it a read, and help me promote it. Speaking of which, do you Digg me?

In other news, I don't know how I failed to notice that since Jan. 31, we have had yet another Gun Rights Examiner. Please welcome Dan Bidstrup, of the Denver Gun Rights Examiner.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: Dead men tell no tales
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Answering the Los Angeles Times' Dana Parsons.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: Legislating away rights in an attempt to curb crime
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Assault weapon' opening salvo: Levin lies to Congress
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Brady Campaign to prevent democracy? (Part 3)
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds sells out gun owners, fools gun banners
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
• Denver Gun Rights Examiner: A gun owner's worst nightmare

The gun prohibitionists are stirring

My fellow Gun Rights Examiner Paul Valone, of the Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner, informs us that the citizen disarmament advocates in the Senate have started the "battlefield preparation" process, with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) firing the first shots on Jan. 29th.

Understand too that politicians are inertia-driven. With exceptions, the party in control stays in control by offending as few people as possible, which means doing as little as possible. So imagine the significance of Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) troubling himself to stand before Congress, as he did last week, to lie about “assault weapons:”

But what, specifically, did Senator Levin say? See for yourself--here is how it starts:

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in the 4 years since the federal ban on assault weapons was allowed to expire, hundreds of people in this country have died and been injured by previously banned weapons. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence report, ``Assault Weapons: Massed Produced Mayhem,'' details the deaths of 165 people and the injury of 185 people by assault weapons since the ban expired. This includes the death and injury of 38 police officers. The simple fact is, our communities are less safe than they were 4 years ago.

I've looked at that Brady report once before, and pointed out several problems with it, turned up by even a very cursory look. In fact, half the examples mentioned in the report involved firearms that were not covered by the '94-'04 federal AWB.

Senator Levin continues:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives described assault weapons in their Assault Weapons Profile as weapons ``designed for rapid fire and close quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass produced mayhem.'' Unlike semiautomatic hunting rifles, which are designed to be fired from the shoulder and rely on the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, assault weapons are designed to be fired at the hip and to maximize their ability to rapidly shoot multiple human targets.

We know, of course, that if the BATFE makes a statement, it must be true, right? As to so-called "assault weapons" being unlike hunting rifles, in not having "the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile"--I beg to differ, and Remington would apparently disagree with the senator's contention that the AR-15 platform (a prime example of what the prohibitionists classify as "assault weapons") is unsuitable for hunting.

More from Sen. Levin:

The report also outlines the dangerous weapons race law enforcement officers have been forced to enter in an effort to counter the increasing likelihood that they will be confronted by a criminal wielding an assault weapon. In addition to the common criminal, assault weapons are highly attractive weapons for terrorists. The ease with which they can currently be purchased, combined with their designed ability to inflict as much damage as possible, make them ideal tools for conspiring terrorists. Just last year five men were arrested in New Jersey with a stockpile of assault weapons, while planning to attack the U.S. States Army base at Fort Dix.

What the good senator fails to mention is that the "assault weapons" in the would-be terrorists' possession were apparently not destructive enough for their tastes--they were arrested trying to obtain more capable arms.

And finally:

Despite the overwhelming support of the law enforcement community, the ongoing threat of terrorism and bipartisan support in the Senate, the assault weapons ban was not allowed to expire. Now, 4 years later, 19 previously banned military-style assault weapons, some capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute, are once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods. This Congress we must take up and pass sensible gun safety legislation, including reinstating the assault weapons ban.

"600 rounds per minute"? To put it politely, Senator, you're a filthy liar. I would say that the problem is gangs "pervading our streets and neighborhoods," and that in Congress, there's a pervasive stench of hysterical lies from the aspiring tyrants who wish to implement their citizen disarmament agenda on the people.

'Forget' something, Brady Campaign?

Notice anything . . . different about his version of the Second Amendment--a few words shorter, perhaps? It's certainly easier to argue that the right protected by the Second Amendment does not accrue to individual people, when you leave out the inconvenient little fact that it's a right . . of the people. [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner is up. Please give it a look.

By the way, I'm really working hard to promote St. Louis GRE (and yes--the blog here has suffered somewhat--I hope to be able to put more time into it soon), and I really appreciate any help I can get in that endeavor. With that in mind, one thing that can help quite a lot is people "Digging" my GRE posts, at Digg.com. Becoming a member there is easy, and once you've done that, if you click on the "Digg This" button, you've helped me out a lot. It's that easy.

Give it a try:

• National Gun Rights Examiner: Presumptive confirmation a preemptive surrender
  
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Nationwide concealed carry, Part IV: First contact.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: The Audacity of Self Defense
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Assault weapon' opening salvo: Levin lies to Congress
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Brady Campaign to prevent democracy? (Part 2)
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds sells out gun owners, fools gun banners
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns

The Nuge for (NRA) prez?

Now this would be . . . interesting:

Barack Obama jumped over a bunch of longer-experienced presidential candidates to win the White House, so will that pattern take at the National Rifle Association? It might, considering rocker and hunter Ted Nugent's popularity among NRA members. We hear that the Nuge is being urged to get into the race, and a key NRA insider tells us: "He does have a grass-roots following."

Personally, I'm torn. On the one hand, I find his personality intensely annoying, and his seeming inability to refer to the other side without the use of obscenities strikes me as rather puerile (I've also never been a fan of his music, but I suppose that's beside the point).

On the other hand, I have seen him argue articulately and well for gun rights, so I know he can do it, when it suits him to go to the trouble. I would never accuse him of blandness, and I have little doubt of his ability to grab attention--the reactions he would provoke from the other side would certainly provide some entertainment. Finally, he definitely doesn't strike me as the . . . pragmatic choice, a point I would have to score in his favor.

80% of crime is committed by gangs--must be 'the gun lobby's' fault

In short, restrictive gun laws have exactly zero likelihood of disarming criminal gangs, and instead serve only to impede those who scrupulously obey laws from obtaining the best means of defending themselves from the huge--and growing--threat of these gangs. Whose side are the gun prohibitionists on, anyway? [More]

Today's St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner column is up--I hope you'll give it a look, and maybe encourage others to do so as well. Also, the Gun Rights Examiner family has grown again--twice. Please welcome Mike Stollenwerk, of the DC Gun Rights Examiner, and Candace Dainty, of the Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner.

The_Chef has more.

• National Gun Rights Examiner: The riddle of Steele
  
• Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner: Congratulations to RNC Chairman Michael Steele. Permission to speak frankly, Sir.
  
• Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner: What is the Tiahrt Amendment?
  
• Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner: 'Ammunition Accountability' is a fraud
  
• Austin Gun Rights Examiner: Brady Campaign to prevent democracy? (Part 2)
  
• DC Gun Rights Examiner: Virginia Senator Creigh Deeds sells out gun owners, fools gun banners
  
• Milwaukee Gun Rights Examiner: Time to change our attitude about guns
  

An appealing development

Attorney Alan Gura has filed an opening brief in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. [More]

I'm probably taking the weekend off, but be sure to read David's take on the latest developments in the effort to bring some kind of sanity to Chicago, and in incorporating the Second Amendment.

A polite warning

There are lots of gun owners in this country. Many of those gun owners have seen what has happened in Australia, Britain, and other countries where people fell asleep and were not vigilant enough to guard their rights. Many of us, if a ban is passed, will not comply. We will not cooperate. We will stockpile our resources. We will wait. We will train as circumstances permit. We will study. And finally, when pushed far enough, we will defend the right of a people to defend themselves against those who would torment society for "it's own good". [More]

The_Chef is sounding a bit . . . less than pragmatic. Y'all know I'm something of a sucker for that.

Go read the rest--it's short and sweet.

A 'Mayor Against Illegal Guns' picks on some new parts of the Bill of Rights

Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (let's see--how many are in jail, under indictment, or under investigation for crimes--seven--oops, no--eight?) have made their hostility to the Second Amendment pretty clear.

Charleston SC's Mayor Joe Riley, though, wants to take a bite out of the Fourth Amendment, as well.

Among other things, the city wants the state to:

• Allow police to conduct warrantless searches of offenders on probation or parole.
• Deny bail for repeat offenders charged with new crimes.
• Bar anyone convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of two years or more from possessing handguns or military-style rifles.
• Create a separate offense for anyone caught with a gun while selling, manufacturing or possessing drugs for distribution.
• Increase the punishment for those convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill to a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life in prison. The current law carries no minimum penalty and has a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
• Expand current laws governing the illegal use and possession of firearms to include military-style rifles, such as AK-47s.
• Require all criminals to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences before they are eligible for parole or release.

"Warrants? We don't need no steenking warrants!"

That one about barring people convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of two or more years from possessing handguns or "military style rifles" seems a bit odd, too, because I thought any such crimes were felonies, and thus the convicts were already so barred by federal law.

Mayor Riley seems to have it in for people charged with crimes--hardly a nice way to treat his fellow Mayors Against Illegal Guns.