"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.

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.

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?

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

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.

 

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)

Makes no difference to me, but that wasn't a choice

I am a regular participant in national polls. I know that sounds odd, but it's true. I don't know anyone else who does, but my phone rings regularly with calls from groups like Gallup and Zogby. If I have time and feel like it, I answer questions.

The problem with most polls are how the questions are asked. I just completed a national poll where questions were asked, in essence, X is African-American, a woman, a Mormon, or 72 years old. will that make me much more likely, somewhat more likely, somewhat less likely, much less likely, or not sure that I'd vote for him/her for President on the basis of race, sex, religion or age.

These questions assume you are prejudiced. Period. You're either more or less likely to vote for a person because of their race, sex, religion, or age. This poll can only deliver a result that shows the assumed prejudice. Why wasn't there a choice for those (like me) who couldn't care less about these distinctions?

These choices should be about policy and philosophy of government. Sadly, many will go to the polls in the primaries and general elections having made their decision base upon one of the superficial "reasons" represented in the poll above. Even worse? Those of us who do not, will probably get the government they deserve.

"Phasers on stun!" Naive, but interesting

Technology Risks Warping the Law

If only D.C. residents had "Star Trek" phasers permanently set to stun. The Supreme Court would find the constitutional challenge to the District’s current gun bans so much easier to resolve. 

Think about how different the problem would look: People could protect themselves without killing anyone. The weapons couldn't be used for suicide, and children wouldn't get hurt. The city's concerns about the dangers of lethal firearms would be satisfied, while citizens would still have effective tools for self-defense.

Science fiction fantasy? Yes, for now. But someday we'll have a perfect stun gun. And that technological improvement will significantly change the legal discussion of what "arms" the Second Amendment protects.

Of course there would be the inevitable howl of "Why do you need a stun gun in the mall?!" And not to forget the "Only ones".

DailyKos blog mentions possible Yarmuth/Northrup rematch

See it here.

One of our Congressional toughest races last year was John Yarmuth's 51-48 victory over Mitch McConnell's protégé, Anne Northup.  Northup had held this Louisville seat for ten years, beating challenger after challenger.  Like McConnell and Tom DeLay, she always raised oodles of money from lobbyists and those Republican sweethearts, oil companies, tobacco companies, and drug companies, among others.

Since his election, Yarmuth has proven to be an excellent progressive representative.  In fact, his Progressive Punch score is 94.3% progressive, ranking him #33 of 433 in Congress. 

I think Yarmuth is beatable. So do a lot of Dems I've been speaking with. It will be an interesting year.

To my three readers...

Is the type I usually use too small? My better half opined she had some difficulty with it, and that made me wonder.

How about it, any opinion?

Kentucky Gun Shows through June 2008

from http://www.gunshows-usa.com/kentucky.htm

Sorry for the squishified stuff below. you can see it unsquished by clicking on the link above.

2008

Feb 16-17 Paris, Legion Dr. 1-859-497-3011 / 498-2917
Feb 23-24 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls  National Gun Day

Jun 7-8 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls  National Gun Day
Oct 4-5 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls  National Gun Day
Dec 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls  National Gun Day

Ted Kennedy endorses Obama, and all I could think about was...

If I were a photoshop guru, you know who would be on the skis, right?

Now, Obama is the Reform Candidate; all things shall become new. I wonder if he has mixed feelings about the endorsement from a bastion of the Dem Establishment? Those old hands on the Left will swallow him live. (And I bet you thought I was going to take the low road on this one. No need, really. Teddy took it as low as a road could go a long time ago...)

Another exercise in futility

Let's see.

1. Victim was in a victim disarmament zone. (she was an employee of the University of Washington which bans firearms on campus.)

2. Victim had filed a restraining order. (which was ignored by the ex-boyfriend)

3. Victim had notified her co-workers and the campus police about her "serious stalker issue". (I guess they could have thrown furniture or asked him to be nice.)

4. Victim was killed April 2, 2007, near her campus office.

And what does the Legislature of the State of Washington think is appropriate action? Why, more of the same, of course!

One of the popular definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. If that's true, I guess it's time to break out some of the white jackets with the long sleeves in one little corner of the Pacific Northwest.

Maybe it's all the rain...

Life, liberty rely on right to self-defense. Here, here!!!

(thx to Alphecca)

from the Colorado Springs Gazette via The Appeal-Democrat

Colorado Springs deserves an award. In three consecutive months, private citizens have taken responsibility to stop violent crime in its tracks, shooting five violent predators. They’ve sent a powerful message to criminals everywhere, and it goes like this: There’s no easy prey in Colorado Springs.

and

Police can’t be the only plan. It’s not their primary role to enjoin crimes in progress — an unreasonable expectation of the public. Most cops would like to interrupt violent crime, but it’s impossible in almost every case.

Would that our local rag could show this kind of good sense on the editorial page.

Mr. Lott reports Arizona move to decrease victim disarmament zones.

The proposal, Senate Bill 1214, would exempt concealed-carry permit holders from a state law that bars individuals from knowingly carrying deadly weapons onto school property. If it becomes law, the measure would allow teachers and anyone else with a valid permit to carry their weapon onto the grounds of any public or private K-12 school, college or university in the state.

Here.

No wonder he/she left Israel

Given that many carry full-auto arms as a matter of course in their daily lives...

“It’s not good for a lot of kids to go to these gun shows; it’s not safe,” Tokhli said.

I ask you, how does an Israeli get this kind of attitude about a gun show? Takes all kinds...

Uh-huh.

No prejudice here. Virginia State Senate Majority Leader overheard in elevator...

"He turns to his companion and says, ‘You can tell we’re debating a gun bill today. Half the cast of "Deliverance" is in town,’ " said John Pierce, a local gun-rights activist who was in Richmond to lobby the General Assembly against a bill to close the so-called gun-show loophole.

I bet he's a racist, too. There aren't many with that type of arrogant, self-righteoussuperior attitude that aren't. Perhaps he'll be forced to resign. Yeah, perhaps the Devil sells ice cream, too.

Illinois State Representative Schock proposes Concealed Carry

from the Springfield Journal-Register

"Personal safety is on the minds of people, not only in my community of Peoria, but throughout the state,” he said. “This is becoming an increasing priority for people. I am hoping that we will be able to give this right to our citizens, as 48 other states have already done.”

Of course, the people of Illinois already have the right to protect themselves, but will be jailed if they use the most efficient tools in the most efficient way. Good luck, Representative Schock. You'll need it.

I'm all about due process, but come on!!!

Why are these men still alive?

Epperson and Hodge were convicted of Tammy Acker's heinous murder over 20 years ago, and were convicted of in 1996 of the equally heinous 1985 Morris murders in Gray Hawk, Kentucky.

On the night Tammy was murdered, I drove by the Acker home while Epperson, Hodge, and Bartley were inside. Gave me a whole new meaning for "behind closed doors" after that day.

20 years on Death Row is a travesty.

Virginia Senate committee spurns anti-gun bills

Read about it here. 

Bills would have restricted responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in places they otherwise had a right to be.

Finally, an armed option in a self-defense article!

Here is an article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about an enrollment surge in "self-defense" classes following the slaying and decapitation of 24 year old hiker Meredith Emerson early this year.

There is, as is usual in these articles some wise words.

"You have to realize this is somebody that means you harm," says the trainer and co-owner of Forsyth County's KBX Gym. "There are no rules here. This is street fighting. This is a fight for your life."

and

"If it turns into a muscle match, you're likely to lose," says Gurley.

Students also learn to use everyday items — such as cellphone antennae, keys and hot coffee —as weapons.

As I read the article, I was increasingly sure that though "weapons" were mentioned (keys, hot coffee, cell phone antenna), firearms would not. I was only mostly correct. When I got to the end of the article, guess what was listed as the first resource?

• Personal Defense Training: Classes teach use of weaponry, including handguns, knives and pepper spray. Also offers simulation of violent confrontations. 5220 Linnadine Way, Norcross. 404-403-5739; www.personaldefensetraining.com (my emphasis. gbw)

That's right, weaponry including handguns. Makes good sense, doesn't it? At least it does if you believe the instructor quoted above really means that "This is a fight for your life," and "If it turns into a muscle match, you're likely to lose."

Homo sapiens are tool users, male and female, and should use the tools best suited for the job. I wouldn't use a rock or even a tack hammer to frame a house, and I wouldn't depend on a cell phone antenna or cup of hot coffee if I could have a pistol for self-defense.

Okay! What about Dr/Patient confidentiality???

My Doc's been talking...

D.C. v. Heller oral arguments March 18th

SCOTUS has cleared the docket and will hear oral arguments for D.C. v. Heller starting at 10am on March 18th.

The wait is over; let the waiting begin.

Dont forget the Second Amendment Blog Bash

For the legislature. Any of them.

“What it lies in our power to do, it lies in our power not to do.” —Aristotle

“No man’s life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” —Judge Gideon

3 Self-Defense Moves Everyone Needs to Know

I always thought it was draw, aim, and squeeze, but apparently I missed this day of class. 

Don't get me wrong, I understand that sometimes one may be forced to depend on hand-to-hand in a confrontation, but isn't it galling that usually it is someone on the firearms side of the question brings that up the synergy? Like PeteG over on the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association forum with "Unarmed Self-Defense As Adjunct To Pistolcraft" I've never seen a dojo present "Personal Firearms: When hands aren't enough", have you?

Of course, as is often said on gun blogs, if it gets to the point of drawing a firearm or physical contact, we have most likely failed to implement the first and most important aspect of self-defense, observation and awareness of our environment.

On Girl Scout cookies...

“If the Girl Scouts want to teach girls how to market products and manage inventory and money, can’t they be more socially responsible? Instead of selling cookies, why not sell low-energy-consumption light bulbs? Why not sell something that makes the girls aware of man’s thoughtless destruction of our fragile ecosystems? Better yet, instead of teaching the girls the principles of capitalism, why not teach them how to be government bureaucrats instead? America is moving toward European-style socialism. The careers of the future will be in government, not the private sector. Why not have the government produce a pamphlet on the harmful effects of cookies, then mandate that the girls develop a program to distribute it? Sure, I know some people will criticize me for demanding an end to the cookie sale. They’ll say that it really does teach girls useful business skills. They’ll say that it’s as much a part of American culture as baseball and apple pie that we should celebrate it and enjoy it. They’ll say that America has real problems and that I ought to focus on those rather than something as harmless as a lousy cookie sale. Well, nuts to that. I urge you to write your senator and congressperson. If the Girl Scouts won’t willingly stop foisting their cookie pox on the rest of us, we must use the might of the federal government to mandate a ban on their annual sale. I just hope the ban goes into effect before my niece talks me into placing another order.” —Tom Purcell

If you haven't been, GO! State of the art, programmable target pistol lanes. Five, one-hundred yard INDOOR rifle lanes. Pistols, rifles, accessories. Machine guns for rent. Yes, all that shooty goodness under one roof. And my only compensation for this little gush is the enjoyment I get shooting as a paying customer. For more info, go here.

Georgia Senate passed expanded carry bill...

A bill that would expand the rights of Georgians to carry concealed weapons sailed through the state Senate Thursday, over the objections of some law enforcement groups.

Does that mean that most law enforcement groups supported it? Why is it never, "...bill passed with the support of law enforcement groups and a large percentage of the general population?"

Louisville gun laws...

I get more than a few hits here on searches for "louisville gun laws". I expect some are due to the upcoming NRA Annual Meeting and the 2nd Amendment Blog Bash. Even though I have links to the Kentucky Revised Statutes, I have not provided any links to the Louisville gun laws for a simple reason.

There aren't any.

That's right, The People's Republic of Metro Louisville doesn't have any gun laws. Several years ago the KY Legislature passed a preemption law.

65.870 Local firearms control ordinances prohibited.
No city, county or urban-county government may occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or combination thereof.
Effective: July 13, 1984

No mish-mash patchwork of laws here, just go to one place, the K.R.S, and you're good all over the Commonwealth. Just look to the left, not something I would normally say, and you'll find all the info you need regarding firearms and concealed deadly weapons and your visit to Kentucky. Look forward to seeing y'all in Louisville.

He talks purty.

Read Cristopher Hitchens' Wall Street Journal article, The Perils of Identity Politics.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .)

Those of us who follow politics seriously rather than view it as a game show do not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think "first woman president." We think -- for example -- "first ex-co-president" or "first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent" or "first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap."

One might come up with other and kinder distinctions (I shall not be doing so) but the plain fact about the senator from New York is surely that she is a known quantity who has already been in the White House purely as the result of a relationship with a man, and not at all a quixotic outsider who represents the aspirations of an "out" group, let alone a whole sex or gender

and

What are we trying to "get over" here? We are trying to get over the hideous legacy of slavery and segregation. But Mr. Obama is not a part of this legacy. His father was a citizen of Kenya, an independent African country, and his mother was a "white" American. He is as distant from the real "plantation" as I am. How -- unless one thinks obsessively about color while affecting not to do so -- does this make him "black"?

and

Not to dampen any parade, but if one asks if there is a single thing about Mr. Obama's Senate record, or state legislature record, or current program, that could possibly justify his claim to the presidency one gets . . . what? Not much. Similarly lightweight unqualified "white" candidates have overcome this objection, to be sure, but what kind of standard is that?

I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.

Fred says DOJ "over-lawyering" D.C. v Heller

from buckeyefirearms.com, and others.

RedState.com is reporting that Fred Thompson wasted no time in condemning President Bush's Solicitor General's request that the D.C. Circuit Court remand the District of Columbia v. Heller appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding" under a less demanding constitutional standard.
From the story:

The Fred Thompson for President, South Carolina bus tour reached Spartanburg today, where the Law & Order TV star candidate fielded questions at Papa's Breakfast Nook from Charlotte, N.C.'s WBT-AM radio talk show host Jeff Katz.
Asked his opinion of the Second Amendment and the Solicitor General's request that the DC Circuit Court remand the appeal back to the trial court for "fact-finding", the lawyer turned Senator from Tennessee said the Bush Administration was "overlawyering" and stated that he opposed remand and that the case should move forward to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The DC District Court in an opinion written by Judge Silberman, struck down the DC ban on the possession of hand guns even in one's own home. Judge Silberman ruled that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to protect one's home with arms that pre-dates the Constititution.

NationalReview.com's Jonathan Adler followed up by noting "I do not know whether any of the other campaigns have taken notice of the DoJ brief, but Fred has. ...Thompson accused the administration of "overlawyering" the case. After all, if an individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not proscribe an outright ban on handgun possession, there is not much left of the rights it purportedly protects."
Indeed. And Fred Thompson stands alone among the short list of pro-gun Presidential candidates who is paying attention to (i.e. leading on) the latest developments in this crucial Second Amendment issue.

Last year, Senator Thompson wrote about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective “right” to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an “individual rights” view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.
I’ve always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says – it guarantees a citizen the right to “keep and bear” firearms, and that’s why I’ve been supportive of the National Rifle Association’s efforts to have the DC law overturned.
In general, lawful gun ownership is a pretty simple matter. The Founders established gun-owner rights so that citizens would possess and be able to exercise the universal right of self-defense. Guns enable their owners to protect themselves from robbery and assault more successfully and more safely than they otherwise would be able to. The danger of laws like the D.C. handgun ban is that they limit the availability of legal guns to people who want to use them for legitimate reasons, such as self-defense (let alone hunting, sport shooting, collecting), while doing nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring guns.
The D.C. handgun ban, like all handgun bans is necessarily ineffectual. It takes the guns that would be used for self protection out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, while doing practically nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining guns to use to commit crimes. Even the federal judges in the D.C. case knew about the flourishing black market for guns in our nation’s capital that leaves the criminals armed and the law-abiding defenseless. This is unacceptable.

Virginia Governor Tim Kane is clueless, or worse.

From his own mouth. Let's see...

1. Responsible, law-abiding adults exercising their human right of self defense shouldn't be allowed how or where to defend themselves.

2. Responsible, law-abiding adults should depend on rent-a-cops to protect them. (Governor Kane obviously has had little exposure to campus security.)

3. Responsible, law-abiding adults should depend on career liberal/progressive/leftist college administrators to make self defense decisions for them.

4.Responsible, law-abiding adults should have to be experts on the various regulations that may exist where there is no applicable standard across the state.

5. Kane thinks responsible, law-abiding adults exercising their 2nd Amendment rights is "not a good state response" to the VA Tech shootings, but introducing a law to close the "gun show loophole" is.

6. Kane thinks passing state bills to mandate something already mandated by Federal law is a good idea. (adding those "deemed mentally ill" to NICS)

7. "There’s new laws and the enforcement of existing laws," he said. "One of the things I learned when I was in local office in Richmond, when we did [the anti-gun program] Project Exile, was you can make a lot of headlines enforcing existing laws." Gee, and here I thought we enforced laws to protect society. Silly me.

Come on Virginia, you can do better that this.

By Drew Houff
The Winchester Star

---

WINCHESTER — Students carrying concealed weapons on college campuses is not a good state response to the April 16 shootings at Virginia Tech, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine says.

During a visit to Winchester on Thursday, he said regulations regarding concealed weapons should be left to university police chiefs and other officials on campuses.

"I tend to really trust the campus security people and presidents," the governor said. "I think the folks who are running campus security have a pretty good sense what’s the right thing on their campus or not.

"A system that allows the colleges and their own campus security to make these determinations and make rules, I support. I would be reluctant to say, ‘Hey, you’re wrong. I know more about this than you.’"

Kaine added that he had no problem with one college campus having a policy different from another’s.

Locally, Shenandoah University, which is private, and Lord Fairfax Community College, which is state-funded, prohibit students from carrying guns on campus.

According to LFCC’s employee policy manual, unauthorized possession or use of firearms, dangerous weapons, or explosives is deemed unacceptable behavior for which specific disciplinary actions may be warranted.

The LFCC student handbook also notes that possession on one’s person or in one’s automobile of illegal or dangerous weapons, including knives or guns, is subject to disciplinary action.

Although a private institution, Shenandoah’s policy is similar.

Claressa Morton, SU vice president for student affairs, said on Thursday that no student, faculty member, staff member, or employee is allowed to have guns on campus.

"The only person who will have weapons, concealed or otherwise, is a law enforcement officer," she said. "That’s a very safe policy for Shenandoah University."

Morton said SU, which has a campus security, benefits from a strong relationship with the Winchester Police Department and the Frederick County Sheriff’s Office, and those officers provide additional safety at the school.

Kaine said much had been learned from the Virginia Tech tragedy, including the need to do a better job of caring for and keeping track of the treatment of the mentally ill.

He has proposed legislation to excise the gun-show loophole in Virginia, under which non-registered gun dealers can sell firearms at shows without conducting a background check on the purchaser.

"There’s new laws and the enforcement of existing laws," he said. "One of the things I learned when I was in local office in Richmond, when we did [the anti-gun program] Project Exile, was you can make a lot of headlines enforcing existing laws. It’s not all about the new laws, but by enforcing existing laws."

Kaine said another bill that makes sure anyone deemed mentally ill would be added to the criminal database used by gun dealers to screen buyers also would help.

"That’s not going to be controversial, because I think everybody realizes that’s a good thing," he said. "The attorney general [Robert F. McDonnell] and I worked on that together, and that’s going to happen."

Kaine said in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech incident, enforcement of existing laws would go a long way toward prevention.

"If we have made the determination that a dangerously ill person should not have a gun, I think we should stick with that," he said.

Kaine said these steps make sense to almost everyone.

"The fix is not an onerous fix or a challenge, as most people who buy weapons go through the instant-records check and they know it."

Bobby Fischer dead at 64

The reason I, and millions of others, learned to play chess is dead. This is the end of a sad, sad life, from hero to paranoid fugitive.

Ah, what might have been.

And that's a shame.

Though I know many who have higher principles in their position, most of the libertarians I personally know would find a nice fit with this quote from Fisher Ames from the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 15 January 1788.

"The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."

Tennesse Senate approves firearms bill for responsible, law-abiding adults

(from KnoxNews.com -  all emphasis mine, gbw)

by Tom Humphrey
NASHVILLE - The state Senate voted 24-6 on Wednesday to authorize Tennesseans with pistol carry permits to take their weapons into establishments that sell alcohol, so long as they don't drink themselves.

Backers included Sen. Tim Burchett, R-Knoxville, who said he has used a gun to defend his property in a moment his life would otherwise have been in danger. The reference was to his use of a pistol to apprehend youths trying to break into a warehouse.

"Criminals are still going to carry guns into bars," Burchett said. "Law-abiding citizens are the ones who can't carry them now."

Opponents included Senate Speaker Pro Tempore Rosalind Kurita, D-Clarksville, who described herself as an NRA member and avid skeet shooter who believes "guns and liquor don't mix."

Sponsor Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson, said owners of establishments who do not want guns on their premises will still be able to post a sign and prohibit them under the law.

He predicted few businesses will do so because Tennessee's 185,000 permit holders have "a remarkable safety record" over the past 10 years, with no reports of any involvement in crimes or violence with their weapons.

Jackson said the current law is illogical, creating a "gun-free zone" in restaurants that offer alcoholic beverages with meals but not in "Cracker Barrel and Shoney's" that do not.

The bill, he said, is more likely to lead to a permit-holder stopping a crime than to cause a crime.

The six voting against the bill were all Democrats. They were Sens. Andy Berke of Chattanooga, Charlotte Burks of Monterey, Thelma Harper of Nashville, Joe Haynes of Nashville, Sen. Beverley Marrero, D-Memphis and Kurita.

The bill now goes to the House, where similar measures have died in subcommittee in previous years. House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh has opposed such measures.

The bill, SB23/HB702, has not yet been scheduled for a vote in the House subcommittee by sponsor Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville.

I hope someone brings this to the attention of 2nd Amendment friend Ky. State Representative Damron. We could certainly use this kind of thinking in the Bluegrass State.

Kentucky campus gun bill stirs stink

(Read the entire Kentucky.com article here)

Rep. Bob Damron's House Bill 114, which would allow university students, employees and visitors to  carry a firearm in their vehicle, has generated resistance from Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Kathy Stein (D, District 75, People's Republic of LFCUG*).

In Frankfort, state Rep. Kathy Stein, chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the bill amounts to "micromanaging" institutions of higher education, and the legislation is unlikely to get out of her committee for a vote in the full House. "Meddling in the affairs of the universities and community and technical colleges is not high on our list of priority issues," Stein said.

That infuriated the bill's sponsor, Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, who said he plans to step up his work to force the bill past Stein, whom he labeled a "gun-control Sally."

Damron said he thinks he now has more than 50 co-sponsors and could win if Stein doesn't block House Bill 114.

The Jessamine County lawmaker, who is not on the Judiciary Committee, predicted his bill could get approved by 10 of the 15 committee members and would pass on the House floor 85-15. He declined to identify the members who would vote for the bill but said the list of co-sponsors gives a clear indication of overwhelming bipartisan support.

Damron said that putting a roadblock in front of his bill was "like sticking a knife in my eye."

He said Stein represents the "same old anti-gun group, the blatant gun-control mentality that doesn't sell in Kentucky."

"She's gun-control Sally up here," he said from his Frankfort office. Damron said Stein is using a "pocket veto," in which a committee chairman prevents a bill from being considered.

He said he could respond in one of several ways: having committee members ask Stein to let the panel vote on the bill; get the House leadership to ask her to let the bill proceed; gather a "discharge petition" to force the bill out of the committee; or get House leaders to assign the bill to another committee.

A lobbyist from the National Rifle Association will come to Frankfort next week to step up work on behalf of the bill, he said.

"I never imagined this was going to be a major battle," Damron said.

Kentucky's public universities do not allow firearms to be brought onto campus, with the main exception being the weapons used by campus police.

As an example of the universities' opposition, Eastern Kentucky University President Doug Whitlock said he is licensed to carry a concealed weapon but does not bring a firearm to the Richmond campus because it is against university policy.

Now, why are responsible, law-abiding adults denied the right to have the means to protect themselves on university campuses? Must be because campuses are so safe, right? Of course, I don't think you'd find many people to listen to that nonsense at Virginia Tech.

Representative Stein is a member of the Appalachian School of Law Advisory Committee. She must not remember the January 16, 2002 shooting which was ended by students retrieving personal firearms from their vehicles.

I urge Representative Stein to overcome her natural Liberal bias and give her fellow Representatives the opportunity to vote it up or down on its merits.

Readers, now would be a good time to contact your State Representative.

(*Lexington Fayette County Urban Government)

Intent and the Second

from PatriotPost.com

“The intent of the Founding Fathers was to have an armed population that would ensure the ‘security of a free state.’ The armed population would be able to defend itself from abuses of a tyrannical government or foreign invaders, and would have the means of self-defense against the criminal element.” —Charles Bloomer

Gun rights and property rights - an apparent contradiction?

Some thoughts on the subject from The Liberty Papers, specifically referencing the pending legislation in Georgia.

My false initial premise was that the right to bear arms was otherwise being infringed by the government but in fact this is not the case. In fact, this proposed legislation would be a violation of private property rights. McQ at QandO blog made a couple of very good points on this issue:

My rights end where yours begins? I've always thought so. There is always a recourse to the courts for liability in most any situation. I am not at all sure this type of law will help us.

Bad news in Nebraska, full frontal assaults on gunnies, hunters.

(direct from Joe's Crabby Shack)

State Sen. Ernie Chambers, long known as a maverick lawmaker, has
introduced LB929. This measure would make it illegal to hunt, fish, or
trap any living animal in Nebraska.

Chambers is known for introducing outlandish measures. He gained
national attention last year for suing God over natural disasters.

There is little chance this measure will see the floor, let alone pass.

As firearm and outdoor-related legislation is introduced, Joe's Crabby
Shack will be there to alert gunowners to any attacks on their rights.

Thanks;
JoeMerchant24

LINKS:
The bill

Sen. Ernie Chambers:

Direct link to The Shack

 

State Senator Brad Ashford introduced LB958 today.

This is a massive anti-gun "anti-crime" bill that will infringe on the
rights of lawful gun owners while doing little to stop gun violence.

In short, the bill requires:
-- You must report all lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours

-- All guns are to be sold with trigger locks and a note explaning their use

-- A Gun Violence Commission will be formed to study violence
  - Members include attorney general, chiefs of police, mayors, judges, etc.
  - The report, including what laws we need to pass will be delivered
by 12/31/08

-- All seized handguns will be subject to tracing

-- A hotline will be established to report people with guns

-- the NSP will have public awareness campaigns

-- No handgun purchase certificates will be issued if you have a
mental issue inthe past ten years

-- This is an emergency act, so it takes effect upon passage.

This is particularly troubling as the police chiefs and mayors of the
two towns listed are heavily anti-gun (Omaha's mayor Mike Fahey is a
member of the Bloomberg panel).

This just was announced, so more details will come. Please watch Joe's
Crabby Shack (joemerchant24.blogspot.com) for more.

LINKS:
LB98

Sen. Brad Ashford

Direct link to The Shack

This type of blast effect law making is often attempted to get others to compromise down instead of standing up for our rights. I hope these Nebraska legislators have their head handed back to them in committees and on the floor if they get that far. If you live in Nebraska, it's time to let your lawmakers hear you loudly and clearly.

"This is definitely hostile to our position."

Says Alan Gura about the Justice Department amicus brief in D.C. v. Heller.

Sad to say, but this really doesn't surprise me.

2316 days since 9/11/2001

It has been 2316 days since we have had a major terrorist attack within the continental United States.

Someone has been doing something right.

Kerry endorses Obama

Kerry served in Vietnam, you know, so vote for Obama.

Union shenanigans draw attention of Labor Dept

One reason America’s labor unions are so eager to see Democrats back in the White House is that then they won’t have to worry about being under the watchful eye of people like Labor Secretary Elaine Chao. According to the department’s Office of Labor Management Standards, court-ordered restitution of union funds increased 16 fold since 2000, when the Clinton administration offered virtually no oversight of unions. Nearly $70 million in restitution has been collected in this decade from cases of embezzlement, illegal electioneering and fraud. In 2007 there were 406 criminal cases filed in connection with illegal activities by unions, leading to 118 convictions. The AFL-CIO persuaded its Democrat friends in Congress to slash funds for the Labor Department’s union-oversight office, and if the Democrats win the White House and hold onto Congress in 2008, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if that office is closed altogether. (from PatriotPost.com, my emphasis)

Though not now a union member, and not likely to be given my occupation, I have been in the past. Being from southeastern Kentucky, I know from personal experience how important unions were and continue to be. However, figures like those above are enough to sour most anyone on the concept and make them wonder just for whom the unions are there.

To NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, etc.

How does it go? I think it's, "Those who cannot will not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The following is anecdotal, and not well documented.

North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap: “We were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender after Tet. You had won!”

However, this one is.

Giap did have this to say in a 1989 interview with CBS: “We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you [Americans]... not only in lives and materiel. Do not forget the war was brought into the living rooms of the American people.... The most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was, therefore, a victory... The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one was American public opinion.”

Not that they'll listen, being all caught up in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

(thx to PatriotPost.com)

Hmmmm. And you know Hillary knows this.

Hailey's Non-Reciprocal Law of Sexism

If men vote for a candidate simply because he's a man, it's because men are sexist pigs.
If women vote for a candidate simply because she's a woman, it's because men are sexist pigs.

(thx to Rich via Tam)

If the law isn't on your side, obfuscate.

ob·fus·cate  /ˈɒb fəˌ skeɪt, ɒbˈ fʌs keɪt/ [ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt]

–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing.

1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.

2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

 

It doesn't take a genius to know you can't tote your .40-caliber Glock through the metal detector at Salt Lake City International Airport. It does take a book of statutes to decipher the no-guns-allowed sign at the airport door, though.
    It implies that you can't pack inside the terminal, but it lists a state law that says you can.
    "The average citizen has to be a lawyer or a mind-reader to figure out what that sign means," said Mike Stollenwerk, a Virginia-based gun-rights advocate who has asked the airport to remove the signs. Utah gun owners likewise complain of the mixed message, and some proudly ignore the warning.

D.C. Court of Appeals dismisses lawsuit against gun manufacturers

A lawsuit brought against 25 gun manufacturers by the District of Columbia and nine "gun-crime victims" (I'm not saying they weren't victims, just that the gun didn't do it.) has been dismissed in a unanimous ruling by the D.C. Court of Appeals. According to the opinion written by Associate Judge Michael William Farrell, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005 required the court to dismiss the case.

Here's the SAF on the ruling.

How about, "It isn't the government's money!!"

“There was a statistic that came out this week from the Congressional Budget Office which was just stunning to me. It said that in the last two years—from 2003 to 2005—the increase in income for the top one percent exceeded the total income of the bottom 20 percent. Given that, what would be wrong with letting the tax cuts for the top one percent expire and plowing that money into education?” —ABC’s George Stephanopoulos

An old man once told me that the income tax wasn't about what the government takes from you, it's about what the government leaves in your pocket. "It's all their money, now," he said.

Isn't that Mr. Stephanopoulos' attitude in the above as he advocates billions more go down a rabbit hole?

Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind.

"To grant that there is a supreme intelligence who rules the world and has established laws to regulate the actions of his creatures; and still to assert that man, in a state of nature, may be considered as perfectly free from all restraints of law and government, appears to a common understanding altogether irreconcilable. Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a very dissimilar theory. They have supposed that the deity, from the relations we stand in to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature....Upon this law depend the natural rights of mankind."

- Alexander Hamilton (The Farmer Refuted, 1775)

Without that "eternal and immutable law", there is no basis for "natural rights", which follow only from that transcendent point of view. Man, without that view, is only an advanced animal, and his rights are an animals rights. In other words, whatever he can claw, bite, and take from those around him is that to which he is entitled.

There are no "rights" in the animal kingdom but domination and submission, excepting the occasional accommodation between those of nearly equal power. One, who by reason of whatever power (physical, mental, political) he or she can exercise, can wrest whatever supposed rights they may from us, and moreover, are completely justified.

AR-15 can shoot "through several buildings", really!

A Pennsyvania Bourough Council doesn't think their police should have AR-15s or a shotgun. It seems their concern for potential liability if the rifles were stolen out-weighs their concern over officer safety.

The debate at Monday night's meeting centered around whether the borough should keep the guns and allow them to be used.
"I didn't think they were needed in the borough," Hammaker said.
Councilman Michael Bomberger said the issue shouldn't be "de-arming" the police, but deciding what equipment is needed.
Bomberger noted that if the weapons were fired in the borough, the bullets would be powerful enough to go through several buildings.

Councilman Bomberger, I think you should do some homework on mouse guns. Better yet, ask someone who knows. You've obviously been to the Brady site.

I did a bad, bad thing.

You see, it was just because my cousin insisted. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I mean, it's just a game, right? How much time could it take, right?

Just three little words.

World of Warcraft.

I will be back, but I've got this quest...

I always wondered where those came from...

Now Marko tells us.

Sigh...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=301436

I'm not sure I should thank Don or not.

An officer's first-hand look at the Omaha mall shooting

Policeone.com has an exclusive article by Sergeant Jeff Baker of the Omaha Police Department about the Westroads Mall shooting in Omaha. Though written by an officer for other officers, we can learn from this article, too. I'm sure you will want to go over and read the whole piece, but here are a few cogent quotes.

An active shooter, the apex predator. A calm, deliberate and seemingly remorseless gunman with a high-powered military style rifle. Multiple magazines at his disposal, each brimming with ammunition capable of passing through concealable soft body armor. Unlimited places for the murderer to hide and a target rich environment full of civilians in a "gun free zone," a massive shopping mall of about 135 stores at Christmastime.

(emphasis mine) Sgt. Baker doesn't explicitly say so, but this statement leads me to believe he isn't impressed with gun-free zones.

I’m just gonna say it: Responding to this incident proved jarringly scary.
As the supervisor dispatched with district cars when the call was first broadcast, fear crept in that we would not get there in time — this despite a 100-plus mph response on a congested freeway leading to the mall.

Could not get there in time. We do well to remember that policemen respond to threats, they seldom have the opportunity to prevent them. I am not denigrating the police for this. It is simply a fact. Over 200 LEOs were on site. After the shooting was over.There will never be enough policemen to prevent stop incidents like this.

The shooting had been confined to one store, and had been committed by one suspect who was already dead. By the time the day ended some 13 hours after my shift began, I was completely spent, both emotionally and physically. So too were dozens of other involved officers.

Know ahead of time: Responding to an active shooter is unfathomably stressful.

We often talk about what we would do in a live-fire encounter. We seldom talk about the aftermath. Fight or flight is very powerful. Adrenaline is awesome, and so is the inevitable physical crash after the adrenaline rush subsides. The mental effect is also profound. This is not the condition we would want to be in while answering questions from the police after a live-fire incident.

The law officer is cognizant of the increasingly violent realities of the world, and while praying it doesn’t happen in our hometown, we’re sober-minded enough to accept the fact, given sufficient time, it probably will.

Though Louisville is one of the safest metro areas in the country, bad things do happen to good people in supposed safe places. A couple of posts ago, I linked to "The Dangers of Concealed Carry Permits", wherein the gentlemen asked why anyone would want to carry in a K-Mart. He obviously stays in Condition White, an irresponsible and foolish way to face "the increasingly violent realities of the world". Fear should not rule us, but inform us, and that information should prepare us, too. I end with one last quote:

Anxiousness can build with serious momentum during your response to the scene. The physical taxation your body is put under is exacerbated by this psychological reality. Your dedication, training, superior tactics, determination and sworn oath as a law enforcement officer will propel you through the barrier of the human instinct to run from — not toward — the sound of gunfire.

Thus, fear does not have to be the enemy of the police professional. Fear keeps you "on the yellow" and prepared to react with extreme prejudice when the Moment of Truth arrives.

Why do cops hassle people who open carry?

Most often, at least from my reading, because of idiots like this manager. 

A guy shopping in a Wal-Mart with his fiance, with their buggy half full, gets hassled because of PSH.

I usually don't carry at WalMart, but for some odd reason I decided to stick my Glock in the holster tonight before I went out.
I had been in WalMart maybe 15-20 minutes, and my cart was half-full already (It was going to be a quick trip) and a twitchy little squirrely fellow with an Assistant Manager tag on his ID comes up to me and asks how I'm doing (I wasn't even thinking about the gun, and just figured he was coming through the aisle and was being friendly).
I realized why he was there with his next question, however. I'm going to break this down into the stereotypical conversation format for my ease.
Manager: Are you a cop?
Me: Er, no?
Manager: I see you have a gun.
Me: Yep. I usually carry.
Manager: Do you have a permit for that?
Me: No, here in PA it's actually not required that you have a permit for open carrying.
Manager: Oh, okay. I was just checking.
Me: That's alright, I make it a point to inform anyone who's unaware
And then he scurried off at about "make it a point", when I was hoping to have another minute of his time, maybe answer a few more of his questions, calm him down, etc.
So naturally, I figured he was just busy and thought nothing of it.
A few aisles later, my fiancee and I were discussing the relative merits of one bag of Lay's potato chips over another (She went with Kettle Cooked Meyer Lemon & Rosemary, if anyone cares. I'll be glad to do a full taste write up ) and I happened to glance at the entrance, as we were in one of the main circuit aisles going from the entrance to the back of the store, and I see two large fellows standing there dressed exactly the same, with the little manager almost throwing himself to them in fear.

It looks like this went about as well as it could under the circumstances. Kudos to all for keeping their head, excepting the idiot manager with the heavy load in the seat of his pants.

Are we too frightened of "scaring Whitey" to open carry? We have National Ammo Day, and National Buy a Gun Day. Do we need a National Open Carry Day or two to help some of these jerks to get over their hoplophobia? 

Pretty is as pretty does? I guess not.

Former Miss Arizona contestant accused of kidnapping and torturing her ex-boyfriend.

Up in Indy, customer pulls gun, stops robbery

Ahab has another quote, but I liked this part.

When police arrived, Charlie had the suspect on the floor. "(I) just held him until the police got there. (I) put my foot in his back and the gun to his head."

Read it here.

Welcome Blue Grass, Red State

Also to our links today, we add Blue Grass, Red State. Mr. Jefferson Poole is also a co-blogger on The Cardinal Coalition.

Welcome, Mr. Poole.

Welcome The Puddle Pirate...

Today, I have added The Puddle Pirate to my blog roll. I found him in the comments to this post, "The Dangers of Concealed Carry Permits". It was a pleasure to read his polite, patient, and informed comments to one person's emotional response to the negligent discharge in a West Virginia K-Mart.

Welcome, Puddle Pirate.

D.C. v. Heller news - District special counsel fired

Another D.C. attorney bites the dust. Alan Morrison, D.C. special counsel to former D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer who resigned two weeks ago, has been fired. See more here on The Blog on Legal Times, and here on The Volokh Conspiracy.

Desperation? Personalities? Stupidity? In any case, confusion to the enemy!

Update: Here from the Washington Post

We could use a lot more of this...

From kevin1911 on ksccw.com

Office Depot, West Kellogg, loses BIG!

---

...and I told them about it.
To whom it may concern:
I wished to express my disappointment regarding your corporate, or perhaps store, policy as it concerns the legal carrying of concealed firearms in Wichita, KS, most specifically your West Kellogg Dr. store in Wichita, KS. I was intending to go to your store to purchase a digital camera, flash memory, and some other office supplies. I had looked at products online, and I have purchased several computers and related items from your stores over the past few years. However, today, I went to the West Kellogg location and noticed the "No Concealed Weapons" sign prominently posted on the sliding glass doors. I didn't even slow down, I went over to your competitor, OfficeMax, whom I do not necessarily like the selection or store layout nearly as much, and purchased an Olympus EVolt Digital SLR twin lens kit, a 1.0GB compact flash card, an extended warranty on the camera, and a 100 pack of 6x9 clasp envelopes. Total sale was $761.39. The "no concealed weapons" sign on your front door does not provide for penalties for people carrying a weapon illegally; it only provides for legal penalty for persons who have proven themselves to have no criminal background and have taken an eight hour class and firearm proficiency test. Your sign simply tells the law-abiding citizens who happen to carry a concealed weapon that their business is no longer welcome as long as they choose to exercise that legal right. I find the sign to be an insult, as no signs were posted prior to concealed carry being enacted. The sign does not protect you from crime, and today, it prevented a $761.39 sale at your store in favor of a competitor. I enjoy shopping at your store, but will shop elsewhere so long as the store continues to be posted "no concealed weapons," and will let others know publicly (ksccw.com, the Kansas Concealed Carry forum) and by word-of-mouth about my experience and lack of patronage. Is the sticker on the window so valuable that it is worth losing sales over?
Sincerely,
Kevin Dawson

Way to go, Kevin! We don't boycott to hurt them, though it does. We boycott to keep them from hurting us.

I like the way this man talks...

From over at NRO, I see this from Fred Thompson's message in Iowa. See his entire message here.

You know, when I'm asked which of the current group of Democratic candidates I prefer to run against, I always say it really doesn't matter…These days all those candidates, all the Democratic leaders, are one and the same. They’re all NEA-MoveOn.org-ACLU-Michael Moore Democrats. They’ve allowed these radicals to take control of their party and dictate their course.

So this election is important not just to enact our conservative principles. This election is important to salvage a once-great political party from the grip of extremism and shake it back to its senses. It's time to give not just Republicans but independents, and, yes, good Democrats a chance to call a halt to the leftward lurch of the once-proud party of working people.

So in seeking the nomination of my own party, I want to say something a little unusual. I am asking my fellow Republicans to vote for me not only for what I have to say to them, but for what I have to say to the members of the other party—the millions of Democrats who haven't left the Democratic party so much as their party's national leadership has left them.

Of course, by the time Kentucky's primary rolls around, it may be moot, but the more I hear, the better I like Fred. I'd prefer Duncan Hunter, but that dog just won't hunt. Conventional wisdom has counted Fred out, too. I'll just wait and see what the voters say, thank you very much.