NEVER BEEN SHOOTING? Would you like to try it?
An offer for Louisville Metro area residents.

If you have never been shooting, are 21 years old or older and not otherwise barred by state or federal law from purchasing or possessing a firearm, I'd like to invite you to the range. I will provide firearms, ammunition, range fees, eye and hearing protection and basic instruction.

(Benefactor Member of the NRA, member of KC3, former NRA firearms instructor, former Ky CCDW instructor)

Email me if you are interested in taking me up on this offer. Five (5) people already have.

February 29, 2008

Read this!

HERE. Phlegmfatale will make you proud.

I'll say here what I said there. This is the spirit that makes America America.

Gun Control Claims More Victims...

From an essay, "Gun Control Claims More Victimes", by Benedict LaRosa on LewRockwell.com

...Consider that in all such incidents, the shooters are not so deranged as to attack police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows. They have enough presence of mind to assail unarmed people in gun-free zones because they will encounter no effective resistance. (The one incident in which an individual was foolish enough to threaten to kill hostages where guns were prevalent was at a shooting club in California in July 1999. The gunman was promptly shot by an employee, without harm to the hostages.)...

...How many more victims must be sacrificed on the altar of gun control? How many more Virginia Tech incidents must occur before common sense prevails? Blaming inanimate objects for criminal acts and legislating barriers to self-defense is foolish and self-destructive. The hostile atmosphere to gun possession and training fostered by gun-control advocates is costing lives. Frustration, pain, and other emotions shouldn’t drive legislation; reason should. Though we may not be able to prevent such incidents, we can limit the damage they do.

Instead of listening to gun-control advocates whose advice brings death and injury, we would do better to abide by the Boy Scout motto: Be prepared!

February 28, 2008

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed

(This is used with permission from Mad Rocket Scientist who says, "I give leave to anyone to copy the damn thing verbatim, or tweak it to fit local laws, and sign your chop to it. Giving me credit is appreciated, but not required, as I feel the message is bigger than me.)

At any given moment, on any given day, I can legally conceal a firearm on my person for the defense of myself or others.

As a person who carries concealed, I have accepted an enormous responsibility to myself, my family, and to my community at large. I bear the responsibility to be aware, at all times, of my surroundings and of myself. I bear the responsibility of being trained and confident in the use of my firearm, and to take any and all measures to maintain control of myself, and my firearm, whether it is riding in the holster, or I have drawn it to confront a threat.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I had to be certain of my own moral center, to know that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the two pounds of steel and plastic on my hip is more than an uncomfortable bit of weight. To know that should I reveal my weapon, the situation may escalate to a point where I must use deadly force in defense of myself or others, and to know that my skill and training may not be up to the task, and despite the firearm, I may die, and that I am OK with that

Before I can accept this responsibility, I must be old enough, I must have enough money for the permit fee, and I must subject myself to a complete background check, one that involves local, national, and possibly international police agencies. If I have any instances of violence in my background, or events that have demonstrated my inability to be careful, lawful, and responsible, I will be denied this responsibility.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I need to know how to use a firearm safely. I need to know the four rules and have them such a regular part of my daily regimen that I am always aware of them and never forget them. Depending on where I live, I may be required to bear the expense to attend firearms training, or demonstrate my skill with a firearm at the range, or demonstrate it during a mock combat scenario.

Before I can accept this responsibility, I have to have a firearm. I must do my research and choose a firearm that fits my needs, my lifestyle, and my hands. I must again have the financial resources to purchase this firearm, which can range from $200 to $2000. I must have a holster that can safely secure my firearm on my person for carry, and it is likely a good idea to have different holsters for different occasions or seasons.

Before I accept this responsibility, I must know the law governing it. I must know how I may carry, where I may or may not carry, and under what circumstances I may reveal, draw, or discharge my firearm; and I must know the consequences of being wrong in my ability to discriminate these circumstances.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I will be expected to maintain a higher standard of behavior than my fellow citizen, and, it could be argued, a higher standard than even the Police, as should I make a mistake with my firearm, I will be required to defend myself against criminal charges, and I will not have the resources and influence of the Police Union to support me.

As I accept the responsibility, I must understand that I can not be allowed to make a mistake with my firearm, as one mistake will result, at the very least, in the suspension of my responsibility, and should I be convicted, the permanent revocation of that responsibility, and possible loss of my freedom.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand the following:

  • I cannot verbally reveal to anyone that I have a firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
  • I can ot visually expose my firearm in a manner that could be considered threatening, intimidating, or otherwise hostile without the existence of a credible threat.
  • I cannot draw my firearm in any manner without the existence of a lethal threat.
  • I cannot discharge my firearm for any reason without the existence of a lethal threat.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can not allow myself to become involved in an easily avoidable physical, or even verbal, altercation while in possession of my firearm, and that I am required to attempt to leave or defuse a tense situation that may escalate. I must make every reasonable effort to "turn the other cheek" so that should I be forced to fight, it is only in self-defense. I must always stay in control and keep a cool head. I cannot give someone a piece of my mind in the parking lot, I can not belt the guy who is talking smack about my mother, I can not go drinking and get into a fight, I must avoid confrontation whenever possible.

As I accept this responsibility, I must understand that I can never be complacent as I carry, as I cannot allow another to gain control of my sidearm, nor can I ever place an innocent in jeopardy because I am careless. I must make every effort, and bear every expense, in order to improve my skill with a firearm and my ability to safely use it.

I have to be better than a model citizen, I have to an exemplary citizen.

I accept this responsibility not because I think "guns are cool" or because I want to be a gangsta, or because I want to make someone my "beyotch", or because I want to be a hero, or because I am expecting trouble and want to be tough; I am not so shallow in my self.

I accept this responsibility because the police, as honorable and courageous as they may be, cannot be everywhere. I accept this responsibility because criminals, and those that would do violence for their own purposes, respect no boundaries, and can ply their trade anywhere, from the slums to the gated communities.

I accept this responsibility because I firmly believe that the only person that is responsible for my defense is me, and that every citizen, not just the police, is responsible for the defense of the community. I accept this responsibility with the same honor and courage that calls me to the aid of others, whether they are in peril for their life, or they merely stumbled on the sidewalk.

I bear this responsibility willingly and with love because I am a citizen of this great nation, and I want to protect it and all her people, and this desire imposes on me a duty to defend her with my skill, my determination, and possibly my life.

My name is GreatBlueWhale, and I carry concealed.

Gun buybacks a noble idea that always misfires

From The Oakland Tribune. I really enjoyed his old sneaker analogy.

Alex Tabarrok is research director for the Independent Institute in Oakland, and associate professor of economics at George Mason University

02/23/2008

...

The buyback has been criticized as a poorly organized fiasco, but even the critics say it was "the right idea" and "a step in the right direction."

On the contrary, the buyback was a bad idea from the beginning. Gun buybacks have been tried before, in cities from Seattle to Washington, D.C., and they simply don't work.

In an authoritative study, the National Academy of Sciences reported that "the theory underlying gun buy-back programs is badly flawed and the empirical evidence demonstrates the ineffectiveness of these programs."

It doesn't take much insight to understand why gun buybacks don't work. Gun buybacks attract low-quality guns from people who aren't likely to use them to commit crimes. The Oakland police, for example, bought a dozen guns from seniors living in an assisted-living facility. Are you relieved to know that Don Perata has disarmed these dangerous senior citizens?

The Oakland buyback was especially absurd because of the high price offered: $250.

Did no one running the program think to look at the price of a new gun? In

fact, the first two people in line at one of the three buyback locations were gun dealers with 60 firearms packed in the trunk of their car.

One wonders why the police even bothered to buy the guns from Oakland residents. Why not buy directly from gun manufacturers? ...

#1 Brady state (California) has "unintentional" mass shooting...

Read about it here. (thx to ProGunProgressive)

Yes, all those anti-laws surely protected all those poor folks, didn't they?

February 27, 2008

Kentucky Gun Shows thru December 2008

Sep 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Sep 27-28
Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 13-14
Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 26-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows

Bronson of The (Cincy) Enquirer has another good article

Actual journalism strikes again.

'More Guns, Less Crime'
Why a convention center in Wilmington was Ohio's safest place last weekend
by Peter Bronson

As I waited in the parking lot for the doors to open at 9 a.m., two guys pulled up next to me in a black Chevy pickup. They wore camo ball caps, jeans and sweat shirts. Nothing unusual there - until one slung a rifle over his shoulder as they headed for the door.

Anywhere else, people would grab their cell phones and dial 911. But this was the Pro Gun Show at the Roberts Centre in Wilmington. Dozens of guys were toting shotguns, rifles and handguns, not to mention swords and knives.

It looked like a not-very-well regulated militia from Red Dawn, reporting for duty.

As the line spilled out the door, each gun was carefully inspected and tagged to certify that it was unloaded, and safe to sell or swap.

"No cameras," said a sign. It occurred to me that I could get kicked out for carrying a Kodak, but nobody would blink if I flashed a Glock. Apparently, gun owners and dealers value their privacy.

I'd heard ads for these shows and always wondered about them. So when a guy in my concealed-carry class last month gave me a flier, I decided to find out what a gun show looked like. The pictures I couldn't take would show:

It looked sort of like a craft show. There were leather belts, German helmets from World War II, polished stones, wood carvings and special handbags for women who carry guns.

It looked sort of like an Army surplus store, with bayonets, canteens, Samurai swords and even a box of disarmed grenades that could make panic-inducing paperweights.

It looked sort of like a convention of hunters, with lots of bright orange and camouflage.

But mostly it looked like a gun show.

Once I got past the surprise of so many firearms in public, it was quite interesting. There were John Wayne Winchesters, Davey Crockett muzzleloaders and Dirty Harry magnums. A retired cop from Middletown showed me his WWII Colt Commando .38 in vintage condition: $425.

Nearby, new Glocks sold for $490. And for guys who need to have the biggest gun in the woods, there was a .50-caliber Barrett rifle for $11,500, with cartridges as long as ballpoint pens and as thick as broom handles.

Long tables displayed teddy bears, targets and nearly every kind of ammo known to mankind.

And everywhere in the crowded aisles, men talked guns; buying, trading, selling or just swapping bullet points about magazines, holsters and ammo.

They all were very polite - as people are prone to be around so many guns.

But there was one cringe-inducing item: a T-shirt that said, "One Person Can Change the World" on the front. Then on the back: "With Enough Ammunition."

Not the best message on a weekend after five college kids were killed by a deranged campus shooter at Northern Illinois University.

And that's a shame, because the gun owners I've met are among the nicest, most helpful, most law-abiding people anywhere. They're no scarier than collectors who hoard coins, baseball cards or Beanie Babies. In fact, gun shows are probably safer. Even the world's dumbest criminal is not stupid enough to hold up a gun show packed with armed NRA members.

The rules are stricter, too.

Private gun owners can sell guns to anyone of legal age (18 for long guns, 21 for handguns), without federal regulations or paperwork. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence wants to close that "gun-show loophole."

But the so-called loophole applies anywhere. You don't need paperwork to sell a gun to your neighbor. And you don't need a gun show to buy a "nine" in Over-The-Rhine.

The notion that gun-control laws can disarm law-breakers is so irrational there's no place to even begin that conversation. And when I see media stories about outlawing "assault weapons," I just wince.

I'm not a gun expert. But I'm not that ignorant. Yes, there were guns made to look like military M-16s at the gun show. But they're not automatic. Real automatics are regulated almost to extinction. The ones on sale at the show are no more deadly than any semi-automatic varmint gun. They might look scary. But a pellet gun in the wrong hands is scary enough.

The truth is, there's probably no way to keep mentally ill or dangerous people from getting a gun. But gun shows do their best. Gun-show dealers do instant, while-you-wait federal background checks. If there's a wrong answer to any of the 15 questions about mental health, criminal records, drug use and citizenship, the buyer has to walk away empty-handed or find a private seller.

Gun-phobics refuse to believe it, but researcher and author John Lott says state after state has proved that concealed-carry laws reduce shootings by putting more guns in the hands of law-abiding people. The title of his book says it all: "More Guns, Less Crime."

His comment on recent shootings: "At some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones. Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks."

I guess that gun show last Saturday might have been the safest place in Ohio.

Peter Bronson is a columnist for The Enquirer. E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 513-768-8301

SCOTUS docket page for D.C. v Heller

Lot of info here.

Names and addresses for all counsel and all parties which have submitted amicus briefs.

March 8th looms.

John Lott can't find PSH* bugaboo...

From Investor's Business Daily comes an article from John Lott. A sample:

Indeed, despite the fears being discussed about the risks of concealed handgun permit holders, I haven't found one of these multiple-victim public shootings where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander.

With about 5 million Americans currently with concealed handgun permits in the U.S., and with states starting to have right-to-carry laws for as long as 80 years, we have a lot of experience with these laws and one thing is very clear: Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Those who lose their permits for any gun-related violation are measured in the hundredths or thousandths of a percentage point.

We also have a lot of experience with permitted concealed handguns in schools. Prior to the 1995 Safe School Zone Act, states with right-to-carry laws let teachers or others carry concealed handguns at school. There is not a single instance that I or others have found where this produced a single problem.

Though in a minority, a number of universities — from large public schools such as Colorado State and the University of Utah to small private schools such as Hamline in Minnesota — let students carry concealed handguns on school property.

Many more schools, from Dartmouth College to Boise State University, let professors carry concealed handguns. Again, with no evidence of problems.

Few know that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was closely following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Klebold strongly opposed the legislation and openly talked about it.

No wonder, as the bill being debated would have allowed permitted guns to be carried on school property. It is quite a coincidence that he attacked Columbine High School the very day the legislature was scheduled to vote on the bill.

With all the media coverage of the types of guns used and how the criminal obtained the gun, at some point the news media might begin to mention the one common feature of these attacks: They keep occurring in gun-free zones.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for these attacks.

Lott,  a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland is the author of "Freedomnomics", "More Guns, Less Crime", and other books.

*PSH - pant soiling hysteric

February 26, 2008

Even crazy predators look for sheep...

I don't think for one minute that allowing concealed carry everywhere would stop shootings. It would only stop those shooters who had some idea of coming out of it alive. If you are going to kill yourself any way, getting shot at isn't that big a deal. And we have to realize, even crazy predators go where the sheep are, even if there's a sheepdog near.

As Dennis Miller said, "The nutters are always gonna get the drop on you." The only thing I would expect is that people would be allowed to have the means to protect themselves.

Responsible, law-abiding adults should be allowed to carry anywhere they have a right to be.

February 25, 2008

Another student heard from...

Zundel: Protecting oneself is a human right

from an opinion piece by Aaron Zundel from the Daily Utah Chronicle, an independent student newspaper at the University of Utah.
...

Until we have metal detectors and security guards posted at every entrance to every building on campus, the anti-gun (and current administration) position of "we'd rather risk everyone's lives than our own ideology by 'banning' guns on campus" is a hollow, selfish and moronic stance perpetuated by those who have never been required to check their ideas against the reality of the outside world.

"I'm willing to run the risk of being shot in a school massacre," the anti-gun students say. "So long as we take reasonable measures to keep guns off campus." That's fine. People get to make their own choices. What's not fine is to demand that everyone else make that same choice. That's called fascism.

When sufficient protection isn't provided by others, people ought to be able to protect themselves if they choose. It's a human right. What's not a human right is to demand that other people jeopardize their own safety so that we might all have a false sense of security.

That's just the way things are.

Mr. Zundel possesses an apparently rare skill seldom found in college student. The ability to think critically.

Wait, can I say that?

There has been much noise from the Left the last several years about "censorship" in the U.S.A. Of course, the world in which many of these folks live has very little in common with reality. Below is a bit of the real stuff, just for comparison.

Pakistan removed from the Internet by ZDNet's Richard Stiennon -- 4:30 PM Eastern (US). The telecom company that carries most of Pakistan’s traffic, PCCW, has found it necessary to shut Pakistan off from the Internet while they filter out the malicious routes that a Pakistani ISP, PieNet, announced earlier today. Evidently PieNet took this step to enforce a decree from the Pakistani government that ISP’s [...]

Ignoring all the facts, studies, and statistics, as usual

Found this little rant in the Chicago Daily Herald. I'm beginning to believe that projection stuff.

Once again, tragedy strikes and the NRA pops out of the woodwork -- Give every impulsive, low self-esteemed, road raging hot shot a pistol and we'll have peace on earth.

And this garbage about having safer streets when law-abiding citizens can carry weapons?

Murderers are usually law-abiding before they pull the trigger.

Familiarity with human nature is not an NRA strong-suit. Imagine the carnage at NIU if 20 or 30 armed and frightened students had opened fire.

Art Dulan

Palatine

February 22, 2008

Actual Journalism, says the Mikester...

And he's right.

Concealed-carry course graduates are armed but not dangerous

BY PETER BRONSON | PBRONSON@ENQUIRER.COM

On a cold and early Saturday morning, the class at Scarlet Oaks in Sharonville begins the usual way. Students take their seats and the instructor introduces himself.

Then he makes an announcement: "No guns today."

"Did anyone bring their gun in?" he asks. Nobody raises a hand. Good. The shooting starts Sunday morning.

A few plan to bring .22 revolvers. A man with a neatly trimmed gray beard says he and his daughter will use .38s. Others mention Colts, Smith & Wessons, a .32 Beretta. A big man across the room says he's bringing a 1911 Colt .45, and he's not talking about malt liquor.

"That's a man's gun," says the instructor, retired FBI agent Dennis R. Lengle.

I don't have a man's gun. I don't even have a woman's gun or a "mouse gun," which is what serious shooters call .22s. I don't have any gun at all. But the Great Oaks Police Academy Concealed Carry Course has a great deal. For $25, I can rent a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and get 200 rounds - cheaper than cartridges alone.

There's a 20-something couple in the back, but most of my classmates are 40s and 50s, I'd guess. A man in bib overalls wants to legally carry the gun he uses on his farm. A husband and wife own a business. One man tells me his kids are grown and he's interested in shooting. Another guy says during a break that he worries about being mugged when he goes for walks. He says he has no doubt he'd use a gun if he has to.

But a few hours later, after we've been through the legal minefield and gritty details of what "controlled expansion" hollow-points do to a body, someone half jokes, "I'm not so sure I want to do this anymore."

I understand.

The course is excellent. We start by naming the parts of a cartridge, a revolver and a semi-automatic pistol, then move on to 25 true-false questions on dozens of topics. "Being armed is a tremendous responsibility," it says. True.

And while police cadets open fire at the indoor range across the hall, making muffled bangs like someone pounding a file cabinet with a ball bat, Lengle targets safety, safety and more safety.

He tells true stories of stupid gun tricks by trained lawmen who shot the carpet in their office, or put a 9mm round into their neighbor's car - through their own house and the garage next door. Lengle has our attention. During the state-mandated 12 hours of instruction, all 17 students are riveted.

In cover and tactics, Lengle warns that a doorway is a "vertical coffin," a "fatal funnel" for anyone silhouetted in its frame. If an intruder ignores warnings and keeps coming, "immediate incapacitation is your only goal."

And that requires accuracy.

So Sunday morning we go to the range. I start out jumpy, but get the hang of it and pass all the tests, hitting paper outlines of bad guys from five, 10, 15 and 20 feet.

Safety is drilled in as loud and clear as that booming 1911 Colt, which barks with deep authority, even through ear protection.

Everyone passes. Nobody gets hurt. From what I can tell, legal concealed carry is nothing like the anti-gun crowd made it sound when Kentucky and Ohio passed laws in 1999 and 2004. There are no cowboys. No wild shootouts. No blood in the gutters, as gun-banners predicted. Just law-abiding adults who want to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense.

As we're leaving, classmate Jim Hansel, who lives "out in the country," tells me about the night he woke up to a break-in. He called 911, told his son to take cover and waited on his couch with a shotgun. He warned he would shoot, but the guy kept coming until the cops arrived, 40 minutes later. "He had seven outstanding warrants for automatic weapons use," Hansel says, shaking his head.

Now Hansel has a certificate to get a concealed carry permit from his county sheriff. "It gives me knowledge and confidence," he said. "Most people are afraid of guns because of what they don't know."

If every gun owner took a class like this, we'd all be safer. But meth-heads, crack junkies and street muggers don't take classes. They don't get permits or certificates like the one Lengle gave me Sunday. They just grab a "nine" and use it against defenseless victims.

Each month another concealed-carry class graduates from Scarlet Oaks. And the bad guys are a little less sure their next victim is defenseless.

E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com or call 768-8301.

Virginia House of Delegates passes expanded concealed carry bill...

But they expect Governor Timothy Kaine to veto the bill. That should be expected. Governor Kaine is not a friend of responsible, law-abiding citizens who choose to carry concealed for personal protection. Read about it in The Daily Progress.

Here is the money quote for me.

Del. Harvey B. Morgan, R-Gloucester, said the legislation is years overdue. If someone is walking down the street with a legally concealed weapon “and someone says let’s get some lunch, what are you going to do, put it under an ash can?” he asked.

“Are you going to take it into a restaurant and say, ‘I wonder if the proprietor will hold this for me,’” Morgan said. “I’ve always thought it was absolutely insane to require someone legally carrying a firearm to somehow dispose of it before getting a bite to eat,” he said. He said experience in other states shows that “concealed weapons permits have reduced armed robberies.”

February 21, 2008

Nebraska "Assault Weapon" ban proposed to prohibit "inherently dangerous" firearms.

LINCOLN -- State Sen. Brad Ashford (Omaha) amended his proposed Gun Crime bill to remove everything, but to add the formation of a seven-member panel to meet every two years to decide what guns are inherently dangerous and should be prohibited from sale or ownership in Nebraska.

Preliminary attributes would criminalize a very large number of firearms.

This amendment comes AFTER the public comment period.

For the full story, please visit joemerchant24.blogspot.com

LINKS:
Omaha World-Herald article

Joe's Crabby Shack

Gee, I'm glad most of mine are in a safe. Who knows when they otherwise might jump up and attack me!

Another student opinion on campus carry from Boise State University in Idaho.

From Arbiteronline, Boise State University's independent student newspaper, comes a letter from the editor-in-chief, Dustin Lapray. Mr. Lapray approaches the issue of campus carry with more honesty than Linsen Li at the University of Kentucky's Kentucky Kernel, but reaches some contradictory conclusions. Here is the letter, with my comments in red.

Today on the quad The Arbiter is hosting a Free Speech Forum, with the topic "Guns on Campus."
We decided to open our media to students because we honestly are not sure how they feel about this. Our online forum flooded with pro-gun writers who bashed on everyone who refused to accept weapons on campus. Only a few comments online were from students. Anyone can post at arbiteronline.com, even people who are not students.
We want to know how students at Boise State University feel, so we will be on the quad today, rain or shine, asking you how you feel about allowing guns on campus.
(Good idea, just don't get caught up in the "feeling" thing. Depend on critical thinking. gbw)
Our editorial board had such diverse and complicated opinions on this subject we were forced to write each of our opinions individually in Monday's paper. (Honest)
As state legislators work their way toward a solution, the students of this campus are left waiting, unsure of what this will mean to us.
One thing that is certain is the trend of violence we have seen on college and university campuses in the last year needs to stop. We cannot continue to kill each other. (Statistically, your age group is more at risk for murder. Humanly speaking, there are some very disturbed individuals out there who are unpredictable, and their actions are not preventable. In light of these two facts, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on protection in addition to prevention? gbw)
For those out there who have been calling college students cowards for not wanting guns on campus, I think you have us mistaken. It's not that we are afraid of guns, it's that we are honestly afraid of the people who wield them. Realize that, yes, if students are allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus, they will be able to stop would-be murderers from a continued rampage, but also that passage of this law would also allow those same criminals the same right to legally bring weapons on campus. (Well, not really. Responsible, law-abiding people act responsibly and obey the law. Criminals do what they want regardless of the law. No one has the right to use a weapon to commit a crime. Please remember, it isn't the weapon that's dangerous; it is the person who carries it with ill intent. gbw)
By legalizing concealed weapons on campus we are inviting anyone who wants to carry a gun to bring one. BSU is a metropolitan university, in the heart of an active city. I have seen dozens of homeless people and absolute creeps walking around campus, some of whom are sex-offenders and others are just people I misconstrue as dangerous. (It isn't an invitation, it's a warning; we are not sheep here. Wolves look elsewhere for victims. I could carry on your campus every single day, and your safety is not compromised by it. In fact, as you noted above, it might even save lives. Please do not make the mistake that criminals need an invitation to bring a firearm on campus. They will do what they want to do, remember? gbw)
I am always on the lookout for others willing and able to due harm to students at this campus. I think that as a student leader it is my responsibility to keep an eye out for my employees, to assure them of a safe working environment. (Awareness is the first and best tool of self-defense. Good for you. But as Dennis Miller says, "A nutter is always gonna get the drop on you." Awareness is not enough. gbw)
There are people willing to commit these crimes. Legalizing guns on campus would make them able. I don't want that atmosphere of kill or be killed to exist on this campus. That atmosphere should exist in open war (which is why the Second Amendment was added to the constitution, to assure that when push came to shove, Americans could protect their homes), but not on a university campus. There is no war in Idaho. (How does allowing responsible, law-abiding adult students the means to defend themselves if attacked enabling criminals? There is no logic to your statement. And the U.S. was not at war when the Constitution was written or ratified. Part of the security of a free state is also the safety and security of individual citizens. gbw)
I do agree that the police are not in position to stop this from happening. In both of these major shootings, the gunmen killed themselves. I have seen nothing from Boise Police to make me think things are different at BSU.
But the consensus of my staff is that guns are plum dangerous, that people who wield them are often irresponsible and that though there are people out there who are very responsible with their weapons, we don't want them here.
Sincerely,
Dustin Lapray
Editor-in-Chief

(OK. You have no confidence in the police to protect you. That's smart because police respond, they are seldom in a position to prevent or protect. "There are people willing to commit these crimes", so the crimes are obviously going to happen. But in spite of these facts, you want to limit the ability to responsible, law-abiding adults to protect themselves from the criminally irresponsible you readily admit are present in community. I'm sorry Mr. Lapray, but not wanting him there does not make the boogey man go away. gbw)

Now, just die like a good chap, and you'll stay out of trouble...

From Blue Crab Boulevard comes this.

A shopkeeper in the British town of Skelmersdale, Lancashire, fought back against a career criminal who was in the process of trying to carjack the man. Despite being stabbed himself in several places, the shopkeeper, Tony Singh, managed to wrestle the knife away from Liam Kilroe, a wanted fugitive with warrants out for his arrest. Singh stabbed Kilroe, killing him.

The police then promptly arrested Singh and charges of murder are being considered.

In the Comments, Lars says,

You have a civic responsibility to be assaulted in a location convenient to the police.

Yes, the police will protect us. Heh. And if you don't think that will happen in the U.S. after we're all disarmed...

I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."

-- Thomas Paine (Common Sense, 1776)

February 20, 2008

But, gee occifer, I didn't mean for anyone to get hurt...

How would you like a SWAT team to surround your home in the middle of the night, handcuff you and your spouse, put your kids in a police car, and search your home because some 19 yr. old punk 1000 miles away pulled a practical joke by spoofing a 911 call to Orange County, CA.?

In the Orange County case, (Randal) Ellis is facing five felony counts and one misdemeanor for the March incident, including computer fraud, assault with a machine gun and false imprisonment by violence, Emami said.

The last two charges offer a novel prosecution strategy for a crime that doesn't have much precedence. Prosecutors will argue Ellis is guilty of both crimes "by proxy," meaning that because of his actions, the responding officers acted, in effect, as an agent for him.

"Even though the defendant wasn't actually there in Lake Forest pointing weapons at them, he was directly responsible for what happened to these victims," Emami said.

Public caning before the jail time is what I say.

Public record? How about we publish everyone's tax records while we're at it.

Can someone, anyone, tell me how publishing the name and address of a concealed carry license holder serves anyone's purpose other than that of a thief looking to steal a weapon? Just how is it my neighbors are safer if they can look up this info?

"Lax gun control root of problem" Uh-huh.

In the University of Kentucky student paper, The Kentucky Kernel, opinion columnist Linsen Li gives us "Lesson from campus shootings: Lax gun control root of problem" which I include below, with my comments in red.

The tragic shooting at Northern Illinois University on Thursday that left five dead plus the shooter has instigated a new round in the campus concealed-weapon debate.

Just like after the Virginia Tech shooting last year, proponents of concealed weapons jumped onto the story as if it were a godsend. Donning the I-told-you-so attitude, they claim that had students been allowed to carry concealed weapons on NIU's campus, the tragedy would not have happened. Therefore, they conclude, UK and other universities should allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons legally on campus.

I told you so attitude? Yes. Pearl, MS., Grundy, VA. and others make an "I told you so attitude" quite appropriate.

First of all, the notion that students should carry concealed weapons in class to stop campus shootings is ludicrous. It is the job of the police to protect us from these killers. And many of us would undoubtedly feel safer if the police, rather than gun-carrying students, were handling such a situation.

And I’m sure that there is a policeman in every classroom and on every campus corner 24/7. What? There isn’t? Then how can they protect you?

The police are not there to protect us and have no legal obligation to do so. At least, that’s what the courts have held every time someone says, “The police should have protected me!”T hey are there to investigate and draw the chalk outlines on the floor. Why carry a gun? Because it’s lighter than a policeman. I’d also like to point out that the recent shooting in Kirkwood, MO included two armed police officers among the victims.

If anything, the NIU shooting only increased my confidence in the police's ability to react to and manage school shootings quickly. According to a Friday article on CNN.com, the NIU police responded within seconds after the first shots were fired and placed the campus under "lockdown situation" four minutes later.

The police arrive at NIU two minutes after they were called (if that's accurate), and that is a very good response time. I’m sure the students in the lecture hall under fire from the murderer were very conforted that they were only being shot at for five or six minutes before the police arrived outside the building. And you got it right. The police "react", but protection requires proactive presence.

As for the “campus lockdown”, there were students who still didn’t know what was happening over 30 minutes after the events were reported to school administrators. Do a little more research and get your facts down.

Anyone not buried under blind zeal for firearms can recognize from these mass shootings that guns, not firearm restrictions, are the root cause of the tragedies. More specifically, irresponsible federal and state gun-control regulations armed these killers to commit atrocious acts of murder.

Yes, those guns just leaped out of storage into the hands of a perfectly innocent person who was compelled by their presence to commit unspeakable acts. If you believe that, you need to seek help. You may be experiencing a psychotic break yourself. I have owned firearms for over 30 years, and none of them have ever compelled me to shoot an innocent person.

Many proponents of gun rights fail to, or more often refuse to, realize that guns already cause too many deaths in this country, especially among our age group.

See above about “guns already cause” and really, consider some therapy.

Firearms caused 21 percent of deaths among people in the 15 to 24 age group, only second to motor vehicle accidents, according to a 2002 report by National Center for Health Statistics.

No, firearms may have been used in those deaths, but firearms didn’t cause any of them. (You’re really starting to sound a little hysterical about this now) And you should know these statistics also include all the gang-on-gang, criminal-kills-criminal, and even deaths of criminals at the hands of police officers.

Banning private ownership of guns would be too radical to be accepted at any level of the government, and it's not necessary. For many Americans, owning guns for hunting, protection or the joy of collecting is deeply rooted in the culture, and that can be respected. Instead, we should look to tighten gun control to prevent potential criminals from accessing these weapons.

What part of “it’s already illegal for these people to have guns” don’t you understand? And would you care to define “potential” criminal? That would be anyone who hasn’t committed a crime, wouldn’t it? You may want to refresh your understanding of due process as enumerated in the Constitution on this “potential” garbage. As I mentioned in a previous post, that darned Constitution just keeps getting in the way.

Loose regulations on firearms and even looser enforcement made these tragic shootings possible. Both shooters from the NIU and Virginia Tech shootings bought their weapons legally despite having histories of mental illness; not only that, they both purchased gun accessories online.

Now, I’ll cut you some slack on “looser enforcement” as Virginia was not supplying mental health information to NICS, but if you would, please tell me which regulations are “loose”. It is more difficult to legally obtain a firearm in this country than any time in it’s history. Of course, those who ignore the law to begin with have absolutely no difficulty whatsoever illegally obtaining guns from unregulated sources.

When people with alarming backgrounds can purchase murdering weapons legally at the click of a button, no one in this country should feel safe.

There you go again. Weapons don’t murder. People murder. There is not one single pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun serving time for a murder conviction in any jail in the entire world. And you really show your ignorance with that “at the click of a button” comment. Even if you purchase a firearm from an out of state dealer via the Internet, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee in your state who will transfer the firearm to you after you fill out the required Federal (and state and local, if applicable)paperwork and pass the NICS background check.

More importantly, because the weapons available to these criminals include multi-shot shotguns and handguns with high-capacity magazines, these killers were able to murder innocent people on a mass scale.

Shotguns with higher than two-round capacity should be outlawed in all of the United States. Such action may bring some minor hindrance to avid hunters, but it would eliminate a fearsome killing tool for the criminals.

At which point all the responsible, law-abiding citizens who would obey the law will be horribly out-gunned by all the criminals who will, by definition, ignore and disobey the law. And you obviously haven’t heard of a concept we like to call “reloading”. Capacity limits had absolutely no effect during the so-called Assault weapons ban, and would have no effect if enacted again.

Handguns are especially dangerous in the hands of criminals because they are easily concealed and have a high round capacity. Hunting and self-protection (with the exception of concealed-weapon carriers) don't require a handgun, and frankly, I am willing to bet that most of the concealed-weapon carriers wanted the license not for self-protection, but for the self-sensed superiority from carrying a gun. Allowing handguns to flow loosely in the market only increases the dangers in our society. Therefore, regulations on handguns should be particularly strict.

Linsen Li, it isn't the handgun that makes the criminal dangerous. The criminal's intent to impose his desires upon me in violation of my rights makes him dangerous.  One is just as dead if stabbed, bludgeoned, or shot. It is not the tool, it is the intent. Personal firearms are used in excess of 2.5 million times a year for personal protection. Gee, it’s a good thing that when attacked by a criminal, those responsible, law-abiding citizens were carrying those guns because of the sense of superiority it gave them.

Allowing guns on campus is not the answer to campus shootings - tightening gun control is. If the politicians can only look beyond campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association's lobbyists, they'll see that the reckless handling of gun control must be stopped.

Yes, let’s just keep doing more of what has never worked. In spite of the hard evidence that arms in the hands of responsible, law-abiding adults reduces violent crime, let’s move in the other direction and create more sheep for the wolves to slaughter. Park your emotions and do some research before you write your next article, you being a journalist and all.

Doesn't this say it all?

Says Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown.

I'm anti-gun, so the conceal-and-carry crowd can save its breath for some other columnist. More guns is not the answer. I don't care what your study says.

Let us not make the error of assuming facts makes a difference. Makes you wonder why we bother. But at least Mr. Brown is not totally deluded.

But I've also learned that gun owners have two things going for them -- plenty of political support and the U.S. Constitution. Even in the face of another bullet-ridden classroom, it will be difficult to achieve anything more than puttering around the edges of the current gun laws.

Yeah, that pesky Constitution just keeps getting in the way. Darn!

February 19, 2008

The man behind Heller...

Interesting article on Bloomberg.com about Robert Levy, the man behind the Supreme Court challenge to the D.C. gun ban.

February 15, 2008

Bloomberg Mayor group setting up gun database.

Database will target illegal gun traffic. 

Yeah, right.

Folks, murder is murder, assault is assault, and it doesn't matter whether you use your hands or a tool, the crime is the same. It doesn't matter if a gun is legal or illegal. Imprison and/or execute convicted violent felons, and there will be a tipping point where most of the really bad guys will be in prison or dead. The 80/20% rule works here, too. If we get rid of the 20% that commit 80% of the crime...

"Violent crime, particularly gun crime, is not just a local problem," Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon said. "It's a national problem."

Mayor Giuliani reduced violent crime in New York City by enforcing all the laws on the books. I wonder why that hasn't caught on in cities like Baltimore. Obviously they prefer to demonize inanimate objects than do the difficult thing.

"..everything we could...?" Hardly.

My prayers to the families of the victims at Northern Illinois University.

"This is a tragedy, but from all indications we did everything we could when we found out," said Peters, the university president.

This should tell anyone everything they need to know about these shootings. "...we did everything we could...," says the university president. How about placing an armed guard in each classroom, and metal detectors and searches for everyone coming in and out of every campus and building entrance 24/7? But I would agree that those are not reasonable expectations. And they probably did do everything reasonable that could be expected, except  allow responsible, law-abiding adults to carry a weapon to protect themselves.

The university is not alone in this omission. The state of Illinois shoulders most of the responsibility for disarming citizens so they cannot legally protect themselves. Yes, Illinois, home of the FOID, a sweetheart state for the Brady Campaign to disarm America. is number 9 in the Brady state scorecard rankings. According to Brady, Illinois is in top 10 of states doing the most to curb gun violence. Really working, eh, Mr. Helmke?

By the way, when was the last time we heard of a mass shooting that wasn't in a gun-free victim disarmament zone(that anti-gun panacea is really working well for everyone, don't you know)?

My earnest hope is that someone in the fire zone who held an FOID (and could carry unloaded) but wasn't carrying because of the restrictions, will sue NIU.

February 14, 2008

Five Pro-Gun Bills Introduced in Alabama!

Alabama’s State Legislature began its 2008 session last week on Tuesday, February 5. So far, the following NRA-backed bills have been introduced:

Senate Bill 18, sponsored by State Senator Henry “Hank” Erwin, Jr. (R-14), authorizes a student at a state-supported college or university to carry a firearm on campus if he or she has a permit to carry a concealed handgun, is in good standing with the institution, and has completed an approved course on “gun skills.”

Senate Bill 27, also introduced by Senator Erwin, prohibits state-supported colleges and universities from adopting policies prohibiting professors from carrying a firearm on campus if they have a permit to carry a firearm.

Senate Bill 156, sponsored by State Senator Rusty Glover (R-34), would create a special disabled person's hunting license available for $1 during the period of total disability.

Senate Bill 271, also authored Senator Erwin, authorizes professors at state-supported colleges and universities to carry a firearm on the campus of the college or university at which the professor is employed, so long as they have a permit to carry a firearm.

Finally, House Bill 339, “Emergency Powers” legislation, sponsored by State Representative Marc Keahey (D-65), will protect our Second Amendment rights by prohibiting any government agency from confiscating or regulating the lawful sale, possession, transfer, transport and carry of firearms during a state of emergency, such as occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Vitter renews Sullivan complaints, continues to block nomination

from the Boston Globe via the NRA.

Senator David Vitter of Louisiana said yesterday that he met with Sullivan late last year to discuss what Vitter described as burdensome regulations imposed on gun owners and dealers by the bureau, which Sullivan has led as acting director since September 2006. Vitter asked Sullivan to address the concerns in writing.

"I recently received his answers to those questions, and I was disappointed in his responses, so I am going to continue to hold this nominee," Vitter said in a statement released to the Globe. "The nominee seems to support the ATF's current inadequate policies and exhibits a lack of willingness to address these problems."

Vitter's office did not release Sullivan's response, but the senator said the bureau holds gun dealers and owners to unreasonable licensing standards and subjects them to severe penalties if they make errors in paperwork.

"Al Gore's Current TV takes on Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot"

From BuckeyeFirearms.org.

Recently, Buckeye Firearms Association was contacted by Evan B. Stone, Executive Director for Current TV:

     'I am a producer for Current TV and I produced a short documentary on "The Machine Gun Shootout" in Kentucky.

     Yes we are owned by former Vice President Al Gore but the piece is straight down the middle.

     I was wondering if you can review it in your web site or review it for any other media that you cover. It is a very well produced piece and I think it is pretty fair but you make the call."

We did take a look, and now you can too.

Knob Creek Gun Range Machine Gun Shoot information.

"Innocent Bystander At A Catfight"

Some things you just can't argue...

by Michael Gravette in the American Chronicle.

One very talkative guy was selling a lot of pistols to women.

I decided to listen to him, and he had a real good pitch. I'd say he was selling over half the women he was talking too.

Then one woman started giving him a hard time. She was not there to buy a gun or look at a gun. She was there to be disruptive, and I have been through this experience before when I have had a booth.

She was laying out all the trite arguments about guns, and he was patient, answering all her attacks.

After a few minutes a young woman let herself in the booth. She listened to the anti gun woman for about a minute, and told her to move on. The anti gun woman didn't budge, and continued her rant.

The young woman asked her to leave again, and again she was ignored.

Just then three women walked up to the booth. The young woman started showing them different models, and making recommendations. The loudmouth woman butted in, and said, "Give me one good reason for buying a gun."

The young woman stepped back, pulled off her sweater, and I gasped. She had several scars clearly visible. She then told the story of an assault in which she was stabbed 22 times. After she finished she asked the loudmouth if that was good enough for her. The loudmouth disappeared quickly.

I learned how to deal with these anti-gun, anti-personal protection people a long time ago. But this young woman had her own way of dealing with the situation.

February 12, 2008

GM Posts Biggest Annual US Auto Loss

General Motors Corp. (GM) reported a $38.7 billion loss for 2007 on Tuesday, the largest annual loss ever for an automotive company, and said it is making a new round of buyout offers to U.S. hourly workers in hopes of replacing some of them with lower-paid help.

The earnings report and buyout offer came as GM struggles to turn around its North American business as the economy weakens.

I don't know about you, but I think they have a bigger problem than hiring cheaper workers can solve. With a workforce of about 300,000 employees, that's about $140,000 average annual loss per employee.

South Dakota Senate Committee Kills Campus Carry

Thanks to Mr Heidelberger for the update. He didn't appreciate the pun in the linked news item. I hope my excessive alliteration doesn't offend. Mr Heidelberger thinks the vote to kill was a good idea. I've asked him why shouldn't a responsible, law-abiding adult be able to carry any place he has a right to be. I'm looking forward to an answer.

Here's another SD blogger's (Sibby Online) take on the committee vote.

February 11, 2008

If you're looking on info about D.C. v. Heller...

Look HERE.

Traction Control has a post with lots of links to lots of briefs, and I ain't talking Fruit of the Loom, either.

Give his main page a look see, too. Nice gun porn, and some interesting graphs on the Hutchison amicus brief signers.

BTW, McCain signed the Hutchison amicus brief on Heller.

That's all. For what it's worth.

Another gun-free zone bites the dust...

A senior at a Mitchell High School in Memphis, TN was shot at least twice by a classmate this morning and is in critical condition.

How can this happen? Wasn't the H.S. a gun-free zone? Of course, it was. This is the second recent shooting in a Memphis school.

Here for more info.

Idaho lawmakers consider campus concealed carry

Read about it here from KPVI TV.

Idaho lawmakers are in the process of considering a bill that, if approved, would allow college students to carry concealed weapons on campus - but it will also require them to tell their school administrators if they have one.

Of course, they had to have quotes from students. Sadly, the ignorance is quite pronounced. No one under the age of 21 can carry a concealed weapon. and I'm sure they would take umbrage if called "kids", as does one of the interviewed students.

Shouldn't a responsible, law-abiding adult have the right to carry any place they have a right to be?

February 8, 2008

Yarmuth again conspicuous in his absence...

Senators Bunning and McConnell, and Representatives Davis, Lewis, Rogers, Whitfield, and Chandler have a joined a majority of members of Congress in both House supporting the respondent in an amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller. John Yarmuth (KY-3, D) did not join the rest of the Kentucky delegation, including fellow Democrat Ben Chandler, in this brief.

Not surprising considering Yarmuth's "F" rating from the NRA.

Just sayin'.

Find your Delegation's names here.

More from Kirkwood shooting

Different reactions under severe stress.

As the man fired at City Attorney John Hessel, Hessel tried to fight off the attacker by throwing chairs, McNichols said. The shooter then moved behind the desk where the council sits and fired more shots at council members.

"We crawled under the chairs and just laid there," McNichols told ABC's "Good Morning America.""We heard Cookie shooting, and then we heard some shouting, and the police, the Kirkwood police had heard what was going on, and they ran in, and they shot him."

(Not making any judgements here. I know what I hope I'd do, but one can't say until the fat starts to sizzle.)

South Dakota House passes campus carry

The South Dakota House of Representatives passed HB 1261 yesterday, affirming the right of college students to possess firearms on campus. The bill passed 63-3.

More here at Dakota Voice.

Gun-free zone tragedy with a twist

A man killed six people and wounded others at the Kirkwood, Mo. town hall yesterday. Details here.

Here's the twist. You know how all the antis say that the police are sufficient protection? Well, at least two of the victims were police officers. And, not only were there police officers present, but the town council members are exempt from the carry restrictions.

So, a gun-free zone failed its purpose, an immediate police presence didn't help these poor folks, those who could have been armed to protect themselves weren't, and laws passed to (presumably) prevent this type of incident were ignored, hence ineffective.

I'm sure there will be calls for more restrictions, there always are, but there are plenty of laws that the murderer ignored. Several more wouldn't have stopped him. In fact, look here in Kirkwood ordinances Chapter 17, Article VI, sections 17-130 through 17-132 for all the restrictions in place just within the city limits.

 

OK, I'm over it now. McCain it is...

Here's my two cents.

  • You can't teach a political party anything. If you could, Republicans would still be riding the Contract With America horse, we'd have a Fair or Flat Tax, SS would be privatized, and there would be massive Republican majorities in both houses of Congress. I could change parties, stay home in November, or vote Democrat, but how does that advance a single conservative principle?
  • Any Republican to the right of Joe Lieberman is better than 100 Democrats to the left of Joe Lieberman.
  • 2. All politics is compromise. It may be a  search for perfection, but it will never reach the pinnacle. Consequently, I will take any opportunity in a general election to advance a single conservative principle
  • Really, wouldn't you rather see a Basset Hound in the White House than a socialist Democrat? I would. The Second Amendment implications alone of a Democrat Senate, House, and White House decide it for me.
  • Can you think of a single bad law that a Democrat Congress would pass that John McCain might veto? I can. Can you think of many bad laws that will sail through a Democrat controlled government? I can.

Why/how do I arrive at this point? McCain v. Democrat...

 

McCain

Democrat

War/Foreign Policy 1 0
Economy 1 0
1st Amendment 0 0
2nd Amendment 1 0
Borders 0 0
Taxes 1 0
Pro-Life 1 0
Pork 1 0

Now the way I count it, That's six of eight very important issues I can advance at least a small amount by voting for McCain if he gets the nomination, as opposed to  going backward on these six issues if I stay home or vote Democrat.

That's enough for me.

53 Senators, 250 Representatives sign amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller

Tester: Gun rights belong to all law-abiding Americans

Senator defends constitutional rights in speech to Heritage Foundation

Thursday, February 07, 2008

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – During a speech today to a conservative think-tank in Washington, Senator Jon Tester said Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearms is an affront to all Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Tester, along with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Tex., spoke to the Heritage Foundation after the two penned a Friend of the Court brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the gun ban. The law, which went into effect in 1976, prohibits District of Columbia residents from possessing handguns and rifles. The ban was overturned by a federal appeals court last year.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Washington, D.C. from outlawing firearm possession by law-abiding residents. Tester’s and Hutchinson’s brief has been signed onto by 53 of their Senate colleagues and 250 members of the House of Representatives.

This will be the first time the high court has considered a Second Amendment case since before World War II.

“Unwavering protection of the Second Amendment isn’t just about having more guns than we need and not nearly as many as we want,” said Tester, a longtime supporter of gun rights. “And it’s not just about our heritage, our traditions and our families. It’s about the rights guaranteed by our Constitution.”

Tester, who made a living with a gun for decades as a farmer and custom butcher, said Washington’s gun ban “isn’t just a bad idea, it’s unconstitutional.”

“We’re talking about law-abiding folks—like you and me—who cannot exercise their rights simply because of the city they live in,” Tester said. “Our Founders didn’t intend for the laws to be applied to some folks and not to others. They didn’t mean for the laws to apply at some times and not others.”

Tester told the Heritage Foundation that the right to bear arms goes hand-in-hand with another Montana value—the right to privacy. That’s why he and many other Montanans are also opposed to the Patriot Act and the REAL ID program.

“I believe that when one person’s rights are taken away, all of our rights are taken away,” Tester said. “And I believe that when any law-abiding American’s right to bear arms is compromised, my right to bear arms is compromised. If we value the Constitution, we must protect it. Every part of it.”

Sen. Hutchison Defends 2nd Amendment Rights in Heritage Foundation Speech

Highlights Majority Opinion of Congress to Uphold “Fundamental Individual Right”

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Texas’ senior senator, today defended the right of all Americans to bear firearms and protect themselves and their families in their homes. At a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation, Sen. Hutchison discussed the issue in light of the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which presents an important opportunity to affirm this right.

“Next month, for the first time since 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the issue of Second Amendment rights. Their decision will have major implications for all Americans,” said Sen. Hutchison.
“Tomorrow I will file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court with my colleague Sen. Jon Tester. We’ve gathered the greatest number of signers on a brief to the Supreme Court in recent history. A majority of both houses of Congress have signed our brief in support of the respondent, who simply wishes to exercise his constitutional right to protect himself. In a situation like this, we feel it is important for members of the legislative branch to give our opinion on the legislative history and its relevance,” Sen. Hutchison said.
Sen. Hutchison emphasized the need to restore this constitutional right to residents of Washington D.C., who are currently living under the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, which are prohibiting individuals from protecting themselves in their own homes.
In 1976, the D.C. City Council banned handguns and required rifles and shotguns to be registered, stored unloaded, and either locked or disassembled. Six D.C. residents sued the city over its firearms prohibition and the constitutional right to protect themselves. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled last March that the city’s gun control laws violate individuals’ Second Amendment rights. The majority opinion wrote, "Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional."
Next month, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear the District of Columbia’s appeal in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case this term marks the first time since 1939 that the Court will rule on a Second Amendment challenge to a firearm law.
“The Supreme Court has the perfect case to affirm that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense,” said Sen. Hutchison.
Sen. Hutchison introduced the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act of 2007, S.1001, a bill to restore Second Amendment Rights to the residents of Washington, DC. She also authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in support of the Court affirming the decision and upholding the Second Amendment as a fundamental individual right. The amicus brief has been signed by 55 Senators, and 250 members of the House

February 6, 2008

Consequences of weapon carrying?

Got a hit this afternoon from someone in New Bedford, Mass. with the search string "consequences of weapon carrying". Sorry, need more info.

It depends on what you are planning to do with it, doesn't it. If you see someone carrying a Louisville Slugger down the street, can you determine if they're going to the batting cages or going to go all Carrie Underwood on someone's truck? Of course not.

Say I'm a responsible, law-abiding adult. The consequences of carrying a weapon are mainly going to be the inconvenience of carrying, unless, of course, someone attacks me and I use the weapon to protect myself or someone else. In that case, the consequence is that I have given myself or someone else an extra chance to survive the encounter with...

A gang-banger looking for trouble. Well, we have a completely different set of circumstances which spawn a completely different set of consequences, don't we? Possession of a firearm is typically illegal for these folks. The acts they commit with the firearm are typically illegal. They don't run in the better circles, hence are usually in potential danger from their companions, who are also carrying. If caught and convicted, varying degrees of punishment are exacted.

I'm happy to answer the question. I'd just appreciate more details so I can do a better job of it. I

Just a thought

In my half-century, I've known many people. Some eventually ended up in prison. Given my personal experience with these folk, and anecdotal evidence, would it be unreasonable to say that most, not all now, but most of those incarcerated are either sociopaths (yes, I know they don't call them that any more), psycopaths, or stupid? With most of them tending toward the stupid side of the equation?

I guess they're deader with a gun than some other weapon...

Two South Florida Dems are introducing a bill in the Florida Legislature that will set a mandatory life penalty for "any criminal killing or seriously injuring someone with a gun".

I don't know why they don't just incarcerate the firearms. It's obvious that those inanimate chunks of metal, plastic, and wood are the real problem. Better yet, why don't we hang them!! That will teach them.

Happy 39th, Mr. President


He's sooooo close!

From the Frederick News Post Online comes this editorial from D.C Rice. Mr. Rice takes common sense approach here that others would do well to emulate.  Though he is still missing the mark on some things, for example, thinking that Nebraska's gun laws are "relatively lax", he's getting close.

Warning Sign

The case against a citizen’s right to own a gun is sometimes accompanied by the suggestion of adding more legislation to the current crop of laws that are already on the books.

Gun rights supporters, however, often respond by mentioning that those with bad intentions won’t be dissuaded no matter how many laws are passed.

A short time ago, Americans once again witnessed a senseless shooting from a troubled individual. This time, the shooter was 19-year-old Robert A. Hawkins and the setting was the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska. Nine people, including Hawkins, fell that day in an attack that police labeled both “premeditated” yet “very random and without provocation.” As I understand it, Hawkins went on his reprehensible rampage just because he felt like it.

Nebraska’s gun laws, by some people’s standards, are relatively lax since the state allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons. Some will undoubtedly point to the leniency of such laws with an “A-ha!” If there were stricter standards, then this and every other shooting that’s ever occurred, would’ve never taken place. Or so the logic must go.

But, I’ve yet to really understand any of the dissenters’ reasoning. More laws won’t automatically force others to behave. Strengthening punishments and leveling them swiftly probably has a chance, but due to the absurdity of those who always prefer to protect a criminal’s rights, not to mention our somewhat slow-moving justice system, swift and harsh punishments will likely never exist.

At any rate, I don’t know if Hawkins obtained his firearm legally or not, and, frankly, I don’t care. Someone that troubled, that suicidal and that unstable was going to find some kind of weapon one way or another, regardless of whatever waiting periods or background checks he would’ve had to go through.

Lost in all the coverage following that tragic day, however, were the rules and regulations that actually were in place that, theoretically, should’ve prevented such a terrible action. An article on foxnews.com shortly after the incident turned their readers’ attentions toward a little detail that wasn’t very prominent throughout the media outlets that chose to cover this story.

The mall was a gun-free zone. Probably not the most earth-shattering tidbit that any news organization could reveal nor is it a status that’s unique to just the Westroads Mall. Yet it’s still a point that’s at least worth bringing into the discussion.

Despite the rule, this tragedy still occurred. It’s my understanding, and I’m sure someone out there will correct me if I’m wrong, that criminals don’t live by the same honor code that the rest of society follows. I’m guessing that’s part of the makeup of a criminal mind.

But, perhaps we should just give Hawkins the benefit of the doubt and assume he missed the gun-free sign. I’m sure had he seen it, he would’ve turned around and went home.

Or, more likely, he was well aware of the laws and rules he was about to break and didn’t care what happened to anybody, as evidenced by the number of rounds he fired and the suicide note he left behind.

Sadly, as was certainly evidenced in this case, like many similar cases before, if someone was heartless enough to use a gun against another human being, it stands to reason that he’s defiant enough to ignore the posted signs or established anti-gun laws.

I don’t necessarily believe owning a gun is somehow morally wrong, though, admittedly, I’m not the biggest gun supporter on the planet.

Personally, I just think a firearm in my hands would be dangerous. I don’t think I have the world’s steadiest hand, and I’ve been known to be a bit clumsy at times. Not the kind of guy anyone would want carrying a gun around out in public.

But many are responsible, law-abiding and, perhaps most importantly, coordinated citizens who should not be punished for the unlawful activity of those who, if more laws are passed, are only going to end up breaking more laws.

If we ever want to begin to solve some of these problems, we need to focus more on correcting the paths of the potentially dangerous and less on limiting the compliant.

The Human Right of Self-Defense by Kopel, Gallant & Eisen

Read it here from the BYU Journal of Public Law.

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms.5 The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.
This Article investigates the legal status of self-defense by examining a broad variety of sources of international law. Based on those sources, the Article suggests that personal self-defense is a well-established human right under international law and is an important foundation of international law itself.

Of course, as in so much of what the UN does, there is little basis in reality for their conclusions. Disarming civilians is currently the answer to tyranny, genocide, global warming and really, really bad body odor.

 

February 4, 2008

As I prepare to prepare to file my tax(ing) return...

I was reminded of this quote.

“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”—Ronald Reagan

Why is is so difficult for so many to understand that before you can give it away, you have to take it away from someone else? Why so difficult to say to people, "You've made your bed. Now you have to lie in it?" I am not without compassion. My wife and I give sacrificially to church and charity. Those who can should help those who need help, but shouldn't be forced to help those who will not help themselves.

Be honest. If, instead of payroll deductions, you had to write a check every year to the IRS, and state in Kentucky, for the total amount of your taxes, would you stand for it? Instead of worrying about how much you would get back, you would be much more concerned about how much they were keeping. 

Just for the fun of it, when you finish your return get out your checkbook and write a check for the amount they are keeping, Void it and put it somewhere you can see it. I'll be willing to bet you will be calling, writing or emailing those who represent you more often about tax and spending issues.

How do I find a concealed carry instructor in Kentucky?

Several people have hit my site with searches similar to the title of this post, and I don't believe I've ever posted anything specific to it. So, how do you find a concealed carry instructor in Kentucky?

The first thing I'd recommend is going to the KC3 (Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed) page for instructors who are members of KC3, and patronize those instructors who help stand for your carry rights.

If there isn't an instructor for your area in that list, you should check with the Sheriff of your county. Each Sheriff has a list of active instructors for your county.

If an instructor offers to cut you a "deal" so you don't have to attend class or otherwise circumvent the concealed carry licensing certification procedure, run away screaming. Instructors who are found out are prosecuted, and anyone they have "taught" will lose their license to carry concealed. Do it right the first time and you won't have to worry about it.

Remember, all your license does is allow you to carry concealed deadly weapons. It does not mean you are proficient in the use of arms. Further instruction is not required by the state,  but proficiency requires further instruction and much practice. Some CCDW instructors offer additional classes in several different aspects of safety and self-defense with firearms.

One man's opinion: What do you do AFTER you have stopped the bad guy?

Glenn B. over on Ballseye's Boomers has an interesting piece on the immediate aftermath of a defensive shooting. He says a few things somewhat differently than I have heard or thought in regards to a defensive shooting. Glenn is a LEO, so that colors his views. I'm not sure a civilian has all the obligations he mentions, but we'd do well to at least  think of them.

Typically, I'd share one or two quotes here, but I'd prefer you just follow the link and read his entire post.

Within a Republic, too.

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another."

-- James Madison (Federalist No. 55, 15 February 1788)

head