Posted 11:25 AM by Publicola

Witness Pics



The first target I shot with the new Witness Elite Match in 10mm. This was using American Eagle 180 grain FMJ's which traveled around 1025 fps. The distance to the target was roughly 30 feet.


The second target was shot with handloads. Speer 180 grain TMJ's on top of 8.5 grains of Longshot. They were clocked at around 1180 fps.

Here's another one of the targets hopefully in an easier to see format.




8.9 grains of Longshot pushed those Speer 180 grain TMJ's to around 1240 fps



& this is the first target shot with handloads again.

As I said, er typed it was only around 30 feet because I was mainly trying to chronograph the handloads but the accuracy doesn't seem to be too bad considering I've never been a great pistol shot.

For a more detailed review see Can I Get A Witness Part Two

Posted 5:56 AM by Publicola

...So Long As 100 Of Us Can Remain Alive...

On Tuesday, August the 23rd of 2005 Sir William Wallace was honored in a ceremony in the place where he was executed by the English in 1305.

Sir William Wallace was further honored by a few polls over the years:

"Opinion polls in recent years suggest between a quarter and a half of Scotland's 5 million people want the same independence from London which Wallace fought for seven centuries ago."

The man who honored Wallace in the ceremony went further to show his respect:

"Our country is still ruled from somewhere else,' he said, referring to the British parliament. 'It's time the leaders in Scotland woke up and listened to what the people want."

That quote was from David Ross, historian, author, musician & International Convener of the Society of William Wallace. I also recommend looking at his site WalkforWallace.com.

700 years ago Wallace was tortured, executed, butchered & scattered because he dared stand up to a foreign king who claimed dominion over his home. Today Scotland is still subject to the foreign land that Wallace fought against. It would seem to me that honoring Wallace would have to entail at least some sympathy for Scottish independence.

Now if the Scots wish to live subject to British Parliament then that's their decision. I'm not a Scot & I would not presume to tell them what to do with their country. But if you're wondering whether I'd support those Scots who wish to live absent the British Parliament my answer would have to be aye.

Posted 5:54 AM by Publicola

Oh Good Grief

This is not directly gun related (though I might play a round of "Six Degrees of John Moses Browning").

Gretchen Wilson is being asked by some ass in Tennessee (actually the AG, or Ass, Generally) to stop using chaw (i.e. smokeless tobacky) at her concerts.

"State officials said
Gretchen Wilson can be seen on concert jumbo screens pulling a can of Skoal from her pocket while performing her new song, 'Skoal Ring.'
That may violate the 1998 settlement between states and tobacco companies forbidding tobacco ads targeting young people, Attorney General Paul Summers said."

WTF??? Exactly how does it violate an agreement miss Wilson was not a party to?

"Many young people attend your concerts and purchase your music and T-shirts,' Summers wrote in a letter he sent to Wilson Thursday. 'Because your actions strongly influence the youth in your audience ... I ask you to take steps to warn young people of negative health effects of smokeless tobacco use."

Huh. Well I wonder how many "young people" read papers that have asshatted quotes from the AG of Tennessee? Doesn't that impart a duty on him to remove his head from whoever's orifice it's currently entrenched in? After all, we wouldn't want impressionable young folks to start acting like self righteous controlling statist assholes now would we? I mean aren't there negative effects of participating in such behavior, well other than being accused of being a lawyer? (To all my lawyer pals, nothing personal, but damn - jerks like Summers give the other 2% of ya'll a bad rep).

"The landmark $206 billion tobacco settlement 'provided that advertisements such as this would be and should be prohibited,' Summers said."

Hmmm. I am almost certain that "advertise" was used in the sense of compensating a person or company for the promotion of their wares or services. That would exclude the more generalized sense of advertise (i.e. AG Summers advertised both his ignorance of the law & his disdain for private actions not controlled by the state with his asshatted statements).

"U.S. Smokeless Tobacco does not have an agreement with Wilson or any artists to promote its products, said company spokesman Mike Bazinet. Summers said his office is also contacting the company about the use of its products at Wilson's concerts."

Hmm So Summers, being the astute paragon of legal intellect that he is, is claiming that an agreement between party A (the tobacco companies) & party B (the government) is enforceable against party C (miss Wilson). What a brilliant actionable strategy. I know; next why doesn't he make Smith & Wesson sign an agreement - wait, not Smith & Wesson since some still aren't over the last time they did that - let's get Rug...er, Col... Damn. I'm running out of untainted firearms makers. Let's get the firearms industry to sign an agreement with the government saying that none of their products will be "advertised" during a crime. That way should anyone use on of their firearms while committing said crime then the AG can write them a letter telling them to stop cause kids are impressionable.

Asshat.

Disclaimer: I don't know miss Wilson. I've heard one or two of her songs but only in parts. I did hear "Redneck Woman" when I was in the Carolinas, but it was performed by my friends in a band called Latitude not by miss Wilson. (In case you missed it the url was for Latitude; Myrtle Beach's finest Beach, Dance & Party music duo - now hopefully they'll stop calling me about that 20 bucks I probably owe them ;D ) Further I don't use Skoal or any other form of smokeless tobacco. I smoke cigarettes with an occasional cigar thrown in the mix. I am not being paid by miss Wilson, Skoal, or any group generally opposed to asshattery in public orifice office holders.

I am a musician though & the idea of the state even having a freakin' opinion on what I do that is not against any law, legit or contrived, is as repulsive as Tipper Gore's explorations into a new special place back in the mid 80's. I don't care if smokeless tobacco is bad for you. I don't care if fast food is bad for you. Nor do I care if language or subject matter is offensive. If you don't wish to be subject to that kinda of thing then don't go to the damn venue where it's occurring. If you don't want your children to be exposed to that kind of thing then don't let them attend the venue where that will be occurring.

I mean bloody hell, what's next? Banning t-shirts or caps cause they have a picture of a firearm? - oh, nevermind. Or perhaps suspending young children for playing cops & robbers at school? Er, nevermind again. Oh surely some places haven't proscribed the spelling of the word "gun" have they? Ayup.

The root of this (& here's how it does come back to firearms, albeit indirectly) is the desire to prohibit things that aren't thought to be proper. Even when things are popularly accepted there are some who would deny those things to others based on their own beliefs. (Temperence anyone?) It's different in specifics for sure, but the base is constant: someone is doing something I do not approve of therefore I will try to get them to refrain. Now acting asan individual I can tolerate a bit of that. But as an individual I can also tell you to go straight to hell & disregard any entreaties to stop whatever my "offensive" behavior is.

Summers is not acting as an individual. He's acting as an agent of the state of Tennessee. He has not told anyone they must stop doing anything, but the weight of the state is presumed to be behind him if he did so. If he wished to voice his concerns to miss Wilson as an individual then it wouldn't be that much of an issue for me. But to use his office to ask someone to reduce or eliminate a legal behavior because he does not approve of such behavior is a subtle yet brutal strike at the notion of a people not controlled by the state.

Sure, smokeless tobacky might be bad for ya, but it is not the states' place to protect us from ourselves. The states' place is to protect us from each other whenever we try to disparage the equal rights of one another. Anything more than that is more dangerous than any substance in a can could ever be.

Considering the title of some of her songs ("Redneck Woman"; "Pocahantus Proud"; etc.) I sincerely hope miss Wilson does not give AG Summers the typical southern courtesy & keeps the Marlboro red between her lips while she tells him to kiss her country fried ass.

Posted 9:14 AM by Publicola

Independence Day. The 229th anniversary of a statement of freedom from a government that impeded individual liberty. (Please note: the holiday is called Independence Day. It occurs on the 4th of July. Unless you typically wish people a happy 25th of December or ask if they have plans for the 31rst of December then please try to refer to the holiday by its rightful name. Referencing it by its date belittles the import of it to just another day that you don't have to work & the banks are all closed - thanks.)

Some are unhappy with the way things are yet hopeful. Some othersare unhappy with the way things are & feel dejected. There is a long list of grievences to be unhappy about for sure. Though unspoken as the cause, it's not difficult to speculate on the nature of some folks depression.

I was thinking about making a big long post filled with links to support the greivences I have against the government - or perhaps more accurately the ones it seems to have against me. The links above do a fine job of that, even if they're somewhat understated. Instead I'll point you to this post on Patriots' Day; this one about the Mecklenburg Declaraion of Independence & the Mecklenburg Resolves; this one on The Declaration of the Causes & Necessities of Taking Up Arms (No Quarters has more on the Document that We Forgot); this one on Independence Day; & this one on Bill of Rights Day. I'll also point you to The War on Guns' Patriots Day post as the pictures sum up things too accurately. Tell Me How Do I Get To My America? is another one I'd ask you to glance at. & it will be much worth your while to visit this post of IsThatLegal's where an Independence Day speech by then AG (soon to be Supree Court justice) Robert Jackson is transcribed.

Today is not a happy one for me. I think of my state & the Republic which she is a member of & I find little comfort or cause for celebration. I won't wax dramatic on you about it but I will say that I have little or no faith in the government & not much more in the people. Churchill said that it's good for an uneducated man to read a book of quotes. I admit I have found this to be good advice for myself at least. Sometimes words from others give solace & comfort to a troubled soul. I will leave you with some excerpts of folk more sober in thought & spirit than I am currently.



"Suppose two-thirds of the members of the national House of Representatives were dumped into the Washington garbage incinerator tomorrow, what would we lose to offset our gain of their salaries and the salaries of their parasites?" - H L Mencken

"It is the fundamental theory of all the more recent American law...that the average citizen is half-witted, and hence not to be trusted to either his own devices or his own thoughts." - H L Mencken

"A good politician is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar" - H L Mencken

"It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men." - H L Mencken

"The argument that capital punishment degrades the state is moonshine, for if that were true then it would degrade the state to send men to war... The state, in truth, is degraded in its very nature: a few butcheries cannot do it any further damage" - H L Mencken

"The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's good-bye to the Bill of Rights" - H L Mencken

"Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods" - H L Mencken

"All government, in its essence, is organized exploitation, and in virtually all of its existing forms it is the implacable enemy of every industrious and well-disposed man" - H L Mencken

"The ideal government of reflective men, from Aristotle onward, is one which lets the individual alone" - H L Mencken

"It is the theory of all modern civilized governments that they protect and foster the liberty of the citizen;it is the practice of all of them to limit its exercise, and sometimes very narrowly." - H L Mencken

“The average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenth’s imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men. It is the exclusive possession of a small and disreputable minority, like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty--and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies. It is, indeed, only the exceptional man who can even stand it. The average man doesn’t want to be free. He simply wants to be safe.” - H L Mencken

"Anything that is moral for a group to do is moral for one person to do" - R A Heinlein

"No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment" - R A Heinlein

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects" - R A Heinlein

"Any government will work if authority and responsibility are equal and coordinate. This does not insure 'good' government; it simply insures that it will work. But such governments are rare; most people want to run things but want no part of the blame" - R A Heinlein

"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do" - R A Heinlein

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it" - Ayn Rand

"The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." - Ayn Rand

"A government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims" - Ayn Rand

"Evil requires the sanction of the victim" - Ayn Rand

"It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master" - Ayn Rand

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws" - Ayn Rand

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" - Ayn Rand

"Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off" - Ayn Rand

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law" - Ayn Rand

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)" - Ayn Rand

"It is a mistake to try to look too far ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time" - Sir Winston Churchill

"It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required" - Sir Winston Churchill

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -Jeff Cooper

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke

"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt." - John Philpot Curran

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government" - Alexander Hamilton

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" - Tacitus

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual" - Thomas Jefferson

"Can our form of government, our system of justice, survive if one can be denied a freedom because he might abuse it?" - Harlan Carter

"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood . . ." - James Madison

"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." - Patrick Henry

For a few more quotes look here.

Posted 6:21 PM by Publicola

Note: I use this site for initially posting audio stuff. My written posts can be found at http://publicola.mu.nu.

Posted 5:03 PM by Publicola

Just an update to remind everyone that the new blog can be found via this link. (& to keep the blogspot site open in case a back up is ever needed.)

Posted 3:40 PM by Publicola

We're moving. Pixy has graciously offered space over at mu.nu for Publicola & we're going to give it a go. As far as I know this site will still be here & accesible, but the new posts will be at the new site (makes sense doesn't it?).

The new address is http://publicola.mu.nu

It'll take a few days to a few weeks to get everything in order over there, but the new posts will be there as of today.

Posted 7:19 AM by Publicola

Cheney spoke at the NRA convention on Saturday. Kerry made a statement prior to Cheney's address. Tom Mauser (father of a victim at Columbine High School) was denied entrance to the NRA convention despite his literally wearing his murdered son's shoes. Here's the article from which the following fisk is based.

"PITTSBURGH - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) portrayed President Bush (news - web sites) and himself as champions of the Second Amendment ?— and Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) as a potential threat to gun owners ?— in a speech at the National Rifle Association's 133rd annual convention Saturday."

Oddly enough, if I portray myself as cantaloupe that does not make it so. Champions of the Second Amendment? Not the one I've been reading all these years. Perhaps he should have portrayed himself & Bush as champions of the 2nd Amendment with reasonable exceptions.

"John Kerry's approach to the Second Amendment has been to regulate, regulate and then regulate some more,' Cheney said, citing votes against legislation that would protect gun makers from lawsuits and in favor of allowing federal authorities to randomly inspect gun dealers without notice."

& Bush's approach has been to enforce, enforce & enforce so more the gun control laws we have on the books - despite their conflict with that whole "...shall not be infringed..." thing.

"Cheney lauded the NRA for its safety programs and said the best way to prevent gun crimes was to enforce existing laws. Federal prosecutions of crimes committed with guns increased 68 percent under President Bush, he told the crowd."

Funny, the lying bastard didn't mention how many of those laws he seeks to enforce pass constitutional muster. Nor was it mentioned how many of those gun crime prosecutions involved a person or persons with no harmful intent who just happened to possess something verboten or not have their papers in order.

"Bush 'has shown you respect, earned your vote and appreciates your support,' Cheney said."

Bush showed me respect? Earned my vote? Appreciates my support? Damn skippy I'm not included in the "you". Bush has bitch-slapped gun owners, told them eveything'll be okay if they just use a little more make-up to cover the bruise so the family won't talk, & then tells us he's a saint compared to the other abusive pimps out there.

"Cheney did not address the federal assault weapons ban, which expires in September, and which the NRA maintains has been ineffective."

Damn right he didn't address that. Neither would a prudent man discuss his approval of wife beating with his wife right before he takes a nap. Cheney didn't bring it up cause he knows that gun owners wouldn't be able to cling to the "Bush is pro-gun" lie if confronted so directly with his bullshit.

"Kerry, in a statement issued before Cheney's address, said 'most voters don't know that (Bush and Cheney) are standing against major police organizations and breaking their promise to renew the assault weapons ban ?— which helps keep military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists."

& Kerry doesn't know that all federal gun control laws based on prior restraint stand against the 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united States. But one good thing about Kerry is that most people see through his bullshit. I don't think anyone - Republican or Democrat - will actually argue that Kerry is pro-gun. But both Republicans & Democrats think Bush is.

"Earlier in the day, Tom Mauser, whose son, Daniel, was killed with an assault weapon in the Columbine High School killings five years ago, tried to enter the convention hall where the NRA was meeting, seeking to urge Cheney to support extending the assault weapons ban. Mauser was turned away by a security guard..."

I do not know for certain Daniel Mauser was Murdered with an "assault weapon" or not. The murderers had a Tec-9 which was mentioned specifically by the "assault weapons" ban, but I never heard if they determined who was killed by what. Since the Tec-9 fires the 9x19mm cartridge it is very possible that he was killed by either that particular weapon or a pistol chambered in that cartridge. I seriously doubt Mr. Mauser recognizes the problems with ballistic matching of a projectile to a particular firearm, but it is possible that the Tec-9 was the only 9mm weapon they had, or that the rifling differed significantly from the pistols they may have had.

In any case Mr. Mauser doesn't seem to grasp that the "assault weapons" ban did not prevent two deranged people from committing a horrific act of murder. Neither does he realize that since they were prepared to break the laws concerning murder, possession of weapons & explosives on school grounds & a host of other laws that the AWB probably wouldn't have made them alter their plans.

Mr. Mauser also does not realize that the problem wasn't the instruments used - it was the people who were using them. Daniel Mauser would be just as dead if they'd have used muzzle-loaders. In fact if you average the number of people killed or wounded at Columbine from the time they started shooting until the time they presumably killed themselves you'll find that the rate of fire was under 3 rounds per minute per murderer. That's a little slower than the Minutemen were expected to accomplish in the 1770's. So "assault weapons" didn't enable the murderers to do anything they couldn't have done using230 year old technology & techniques.

But Mr. Mauser is a sad case. I cannot fathom the pain he went through in losing his son & feel a great amount of pity for him because it has warped his logic.

"Mauser, who marched three blocks to the convention hall literally in his son's shoes, said before the march that continuing the ban would be common sense.
'What is the useful purpose to these weapons? ... They are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people.' Mauser said. 'It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."

They are also the weapons of freedom fighters, of people who will be free & of people who will not be forced to give up that freedom even to their own government. A sick person is not one who espouses the ownership of arms, but one who thinks that through a law the good as well as the bad will give up their arms & leave peaceably forever. It is further evidence of sickness that a person thinks that I & others such as myself will acquiesce to a law demanding us to give up our arms without first enduring the war in our streets that Mr. Mauser claims is a bad thing.

"Mauser called the NRA 'an organization with a Field-and-Stream-magazine membership but a Soldier-of-Fortune-magazine leadership."

Ya know, I keep hearing about this radical leadership in the NRA. Where the hell are they & who the hell are they?

I'm tired of everyone getting it backwards: the NRA membership is typically more pro-gun than the NRA leadership. If you presented detailed questions to both, I think you'd find that it's the leadership who are in favor of gun control far more than the members.

But some of this is starting to leak out in the mainstream press. This MSN video touches on that. Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com is interviewed & has some pretty harsh (well for him mild) words for Bush's support of the AWB. However you should keep in mind that the press is mainly interested in this angle because it's anti-Bush.

I have no problems with airing grievances against Bush - as long as the grievances are based on substantive issues instead of a general bias. If you want to trash Bush on his record or his views then I can understand that. But the bulk of the opposition to Bush is based on either a personal dislike of him (he's uneducated; he has no tact, etc...) or a misunderstanding of him (he's shrinking the government too much; he's too pro-gun, etc...).

The video has a couple of interesting thing sin it;

First of all they reporter says the NRA has launched its own news network to "get around" campaign finance laws. That's like saying a person joined the military to "get around" federal firearms laws. The NRA started its own news network simply because that was the only legal avenue left to them to get their message out in the months prior to an election. It'd have been real nice if the reporter had mentioned the constitutionally questionable nature of those campaign finance laws (yes I know how SCOTUS ruled - they were wrong) but since reporters are immune to those same laws I doubt she was aware. After all if it doesn't affect a reporters livelihood it couldn't violate the 1rst Amendment could it?

Next we have LaPierre saying that gunowners know the difference between Bush & Kerry on the 2nd Amendment. What difference? What freakin' difference is there between a man who calls them reasonable regulations & a man who calls them common sense gun laws? One fakes to the left while the other fakes to the right but they both try an end run around the constitution. Now I have no doubts Kerry would be a messed up president, but I don't think he'd be much worse than Bush. Their methods would differ but they'd both be the wrong methods to achieve the wrong goal. But focusing strictly on the firearms issue I see abo-freakin'-lutely no difference between Bush & Kerry.

"President Bush's support of the "assault weapons" ban is an embarrassment. He should hang his head in shame." A bit harsh you say? Those were the words of Angel Shamaya. Considering the source I'd think it was on the mild side. Honestly I'd expect Mr. Shamaya to start talking about tar & feathers, but perhaps he did & the reporter thought it best to not air that portion of the interview.

In the introduction to Mr. Shamaya's statement the reporter said his website (KABA.com) has "tens of thousands of followers" (emphasis mine). First I'd be surprised if KABA.com didn't have a hit count of 6 digits, but I suppose that it could be in the 70 to 80 thousand range. But does it strike you as odd that a web site & political organization has "followers'? I can understand "members" & I could understand "visitors" but "followers"? Maybe I'm just reading too much into it but it seems like the reporter was trying to subtly plant the idea that you should equate the people who visit KABA.com with a religious group. After all, the word "followers" is rarely used unless you're talking about a cult of some sort. The NRA has "members", not "followers". Jim Jones had "followers". But as I said perhaps I'm just reading too much into it.

Just for laughs pay close attention to the segment of Kerry with the side by side & orange vest. I'd be hard pressed to find a better visual for "Fuddite".

It goes on to say that most NRA members are supportive of Bush. The two people interviewed to support this statement never said they support Bush wholeheartedly; rather they feared Kerry would be worse than Bush.

Don't be fooled - the only reason the mainstream media is airing this story &/or others like it is not to spread the truth but to garner opposition against Bush. They don't care if he's pro or anti gun as long as they can use it against him. But despite their ill intent the word is getting out. It'd be a beautiful thing if Bush did a turn around & started being actively pro-gun, but the skeptic in me doubts that will ever happen. What I do think is possible is for the election to send a message to the Republicans that the half assed approach to being pro-gun (i.e. relying more on reputation than action) isn't going to cut it. But that's real difficult when the NRa leadership is constantly being called extreme.

Just out of curiousity if the leadership of agroup who supports every federal gun law on the books is consiered pro-gun in the extreme, then what would I be labeled as? Extreme extreme? ultra extreme? Uber-extreme? Course if you're thinking that most of the mainstream press couldn't even imagine people with my beliefs exist let alone label them, then you're probably correct.

Posted 4:35 AM by Publicola

I can't say I wholeheartedly agree with David Kopel on everything although I must confess I'm more in agreement with him than Ted Kopel. But over at the High Road someone linked an article Mr. Kopel & Stephen D'Andrilli wrote in 1990 about Switzerland & its militia system. It's called The Swiss & G U N S ~A Success Story~. It's a bit dated as some changes to the gun laws in Switzerland occurred in the 90's. In fact the Swiss pro-gun group Pro-Tell is busy fighting these efforts as we speak. But the bulk of the article is correct in its assessment of Swiss firearm laws.

Now here's something to think about:

"Indeed, the militia is virtually synonymous with the nation. 'The Swiss do not have an army, they are the army', says one government publication. Fully deployed, the Swiss army has 15.2 men per square kilometre; in contrast, the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R. have only .2 soldiers per square kilometre. Switzerland is 76 times denser with soldiers than either superpower. Indeed, only Israel has more army per square kilometre."

I'd venture to guess that only certain parts of the American South & Southwest could even begin to approach that kind of coverage by the militia. If I'm looking at the correct conversion table (hey - it's late) a square kilometer is 0.3861 square miles, & a square mile is about 640 acres. So the U.S.A. figure mentioned above would equate to (if my calculations are accurate) about 2.5 soldiers per square mile. Now a mile is 1,760 yards so at the dead center of a square mile you'd have 880 yards in all directions (actually a little more than that in the corners). That's along way to shoot. But throw in the other man & a half & you could cut it down to something a bit more reasonable - say just shy of 600 yards. Now for a rifleman with a rifle that'd be no problem, but for a soldier with an M16...let's just say I'm not optimistic. After all, no matter how good Hank Aaron was ain't no way in hell he could've hit anything in a meaningful way if he substituted his Louisville Slugger for a flyswatter.

But the Swiss can field 38 men per square mile. That's a man for every 16.8 acres. They'd be spaced so close together that they could effectively cover each other with rifled muskets!

Now Kopel & D'Andrilli don't take into account the U.S. militia which would boost our numbers a bit. But probably not by that much. If someone tried to invade Switzerland almost the whole citizenry would show up to stop them. In the U.S. we'd expect the Marines & Army to show up & do something. But the average citizen for years & even decades has been bombarded with the idea of letting the professionals handle things. Hell, lowly peasants often get arrested for shooting criminals in self defense or merely partrolling private land on the borders. So it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear a chorus of "let the Marines handle things - that's what we pay them for" echoing through the countryside if anyone ever tried to invade the U.S.

In Texas, the Carolinas, Georgia, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Colorado, New Mexico & Arizona I'd expect a little more turn out than average but only in the rural parts of those states. Any state with a medium to large urban area (i.e. a big city) can almost write that part of the state off. This isn't so much because people in big cities are cowards but rather they've been indoctrinated so long into government dependence that it'd be difficult to get them to change their views in time to do any good. The rural areas of every state won't have the same mindset as most rural folk are used to doing for themselves - well at least to a greater degree than their citified brethren.

Another reason is that in urban centers (i.e. big cities) gun control is usually more strictly enforced. That means the confidence that comes with developing skills in arms will be lacking & create another psychological barrier. & that's not even dealing with the issue of having arms in the first place. After all, would you feel positive about repelling invaders when your most potent weapon is a bottle filled with gasoline & a lighted rag? I'd like to think the city dwellers in D.C., Chicago, NYC & other places where possessing arms is legally difficult to impossible ignore those laws, but I can't see more than 10% or so being armed with anything more than a small pistol.

The Geek With A .45 touched on a related subject in a post of his a few days back. His focus was on gun control laws on the federal level being harmful to small arms development that is essential to national defense. A few months ago I wrote about an article on the National Matches & their relationship to national defense, or more specifically how the government has been withdrawing its support of this important primer for national defense. But as important as those two issues are to address I feel they are insignificant compared to the one I'm talking about now, which is an apathy on the part of the populace. After all, if we could buy newly designed & manufactured machine guns over the counter & the government was actively involved in civilian matches as it once was it would accomplish very little if the majority of people simply looked to the government to protect them.

Pay attention over the next week or so to the news & other forms of mass communication. In newspaper articles, news stories, billboards & magazine ads & articles you'll see that anytime the public's role is mentioned in anything its merely to be a good witness &/or informant. No cop has ever said (in recent times at least) for a citizen to get directly involved in preventing crime. Illegal aliens crossing on your land? Call the cops. A little old lady getting her ass kicked? Call the cops. Someone's being gang raped in the alley beneath your window? Call the cops.

What this message is doing is conditioning the populace to not getting directly involed. It's taking them out of their proper place in society a sparticipants & making them mere spectators. Now I'm not saying you should go out on "patrol" every night looking for drug lords & pimps to place under citizens arrest. But if you see a person getting beaten up & robbed, even if its by the cops, you should try to intervene if you can. Yes, it's risky as hell; you don't know if the attacker will turn on you or just run away. But here's the thing - that attacker whom you let get away because you feared for your own safety could very well be the attacker your wishing someone will save you from 3 weeks from now. Or worse: he'll be the one who beats up &/or kills your wife or daughter or son 3 weeks from now. C'mon - didn't you watch Spider-man? He let a guy go because he didn't want to get involved & that same guy ended up killing his uncle. There's a message in that which most people seem to ignore: if you tolerate someone you don't know being mistreated then don't be all shocked when it happens to someone you care about.

That's one of our problems as a society: we do not want to get personally involved. If we won't get involved when crime threatens our community, then what makes you think it'll be different if an invasion threatens out community? Do you think the Jews in Hitler's Germany just accepted their fate? Do you think they were all pacifists up till the very end? No, it was conditioning that made them too susceptible to inaction. That same conditioning is present today in the U.S. It's perhaps a bit more varied than what the Jews in Nazi Germany were taught, but everytime you here that "it can't happen here" or "we'd be no match for a modern military so resisting would be futile" I hope you'll recognize it as a modern variant of the reasoning that caused millions of people to allow themselves to be murdered with little if any resistance.

More from the article:

"Since 1291, when the landsgemeinden (people's assemblies) formed circles in the village squares, and only men carrying swords could vote, weapons have been the mark of citizenship. As a Military Department spokesman said, 'It is an old Swiss tradition that only an armed man can have political rights.' This policy is based on the understanding that only those who bear the burden of keeping Switzerland free are entitled to fully enjoy the benefits of freedom."

I can't say that I'd be opposed to something like that over here. Hell, can you imagine the looks on Schumer's, Feinstein's & Brady's face if on election day everyone showed up at the polls with their pistol, rifle & best web gear?

"In 1977, the Münchenstein Initiative proposed allowing citizens to choose social or hospital work over military duty. It was rejected at the polls, and in both houses of parliament (the Bundesversarnmlung's Nationalrat and Ständerat). There are provisions for conscientious objectors, but this group only numbers .2% of conscripts."

& keep in mind Swiss militia service isn't about getting job training or money for college. These people are very serious about defending their country. They want to serve.

"In 1978, Switzerland refused to ratify a Council of Europe Convention on Control of Firearms. Since then, Switzerland has been pressured by other European governments, which charge that it is a source for terrorist weapons. As a result, in 1982 the central government proposed a law barring foreigners in Switzerland from buying guns they could not buy in their own countries and also requiring that Swiss citizens obtain a license to buy any gun, rather than just handguns.
Outraged Swiss gun owners formed a group called 'Pro Tell,' named after national hero William Tell. In 1983, the Federal Council (the executive cabinet) abandoned the restrictive proposal because "the opposition was too heavy" and suggested that the cantons regulate the matter. A few months earlier, the Cantonal Council of Freiburg had already enacted such a law by a one-vote margin. A popular referendum overturned the law the next year, by a
60%-40% vote."

Apperently they want to vote as well. Can you imagine what the press would do if gun owners got off their ass, stopped making excuses for the lesser of two evils & elected pro-gun politicians to repeal gun control laws? Imagine every time a gun control law is passed it gets repealed right after the next election. But imagine is all we can do because gun owners are petrified of Kerry even though Bush isn't all that different on the gun issue.

But go read the rest of the article. It does a good job of explaining the Swiss mindset when it comes to guns & culture. I still think in theory America has the best system going, but in practice the Swiss aren't that far behind, if at all as far as arms ownership goes. Switzerland isn't perfect by a long shot, but if you read your history you'll note that several American institutions were copied from the Swiss. One of those was the militia. It's a shame it's more a part of history for us than anything else, especially when the Swiss seem to be doing well with it after 500 years or so.

Posted 2:51 AM by Publicola

At End the War on Freedom I found a rather interesting link: a fellow by the name of Larken Rose has put together a flash presentation called "The 861 Evidence: A Disturbing Exposé of the United States Income Tax System". It takes a while to load & it's rather lengthy but considering the day I thought I'd pass it on.

Posted 5:48 AM by Publicola

April 15th. It's only 3 days away so you have to get moving.

No, I'm not trying to encourage you to send your yearly extortion payment to the IRSS; I'm telling you about B.A.G. day.

Aaron the Liberal Slayer came up with this last year. His original goal was for everyone to buy a gun on April 15th just to piss off Michael Moore. Can't say his heart wasn't in the right place with that one, but he decided to shorten it to B.A.G. so it'd be a little catchier this time around.

Unfortunately due to a lack of finances & a recent purchase I won't be able to join in with y'all this year. But that will not stop me from vicariously shopping through you - so if you're undecided on what you want to purchase feel free to drop me a line & I'll give you my $0.02 for free.

But allow me to go over what in my opinion is a complete battery for anyone in the U.S. to have in their gun safe:

First & foremost a .22LR chambered firearm is essential. No, it won't stop a tank with one shot nor will it shoot flying saucers down from a low orbit. It will put food on the table. I've never seen a squirrel or rabbit that's immune to a .22LR. It will also keep pests out of your garden. In a pinch it'll keep the two legged vermin from doing much damage to you (although there are better choices). Most importantly it's cheap to feed. You can still get a 100 round box of decent quality ammo for around $3.50. Three cents a round ain't anything to laugh at & you can find plinking ammo for a bit less than that. But the beauty of its economic friendliness is that for under $10 you can have a nice little practice session. & practice, even with the lowly little .22LR, will help your shooting skills to develop.

As far as which .22LR to get it's hard to go wrong with damn near any well know make of firearm. Ruger makes a superb autoloading pistol as well as a decent single action revolver in .22LR & .22 Magnum. CZ makes a much talked about line of .22LR bolt action rifles. Browning makes fine autoloading pistols in .22LR. Smith & Wesson & Taurus have both pistols & revolvers to choose from. Remington makes a superb line of .22 rifles as does Marlin. But my favorite for a host of reasons is the Ruger 10/22.


Next I'd list the shotgun. In fact if a pragmatist was limited to one firearm a repeating shotgun of some sort would not disappoint. The main virtue of the shotgun is its versatility. By switching the ammo you can have a firearm that propels multiple projectiles or a very large single projectile. It's ideal for close range hunting of damn near any game in North America & is an ideal choice for close range defense against bipedal predators. I would also advise getting a 12 gauge. For the recoil sensitive people out there (& it's nothing to be ashamed of) you can use target loads in your 12 gauge to reduce the perceived kick. If it comes down to it Aguila makes a 1 & 3/4" (as opposed to 2 & 3/4" or 3") shotshell they call the Minishell. They make slug, buckshot & birdshot loads. As you might imagine it doesn't have as much projectile as the longer shotshells but a 7/8 slug or 5/8 ounce of birdshot will get most jobs done that you need done at close range. The big plus is that they generate very little recoil so those who are sensitive to kick don't have to settle for a smaller gauge (not that there's anything wrong with 16, 20 or 28 gauge guns).

Remington makes perhaps the best pump action shotgun available in the model 870. There are other very reliable & very decent pump action shotguns out there but I've always had a soft spot for the 870. One other one I will mention is the Ithace model 37. It's another one of JMB's designs & as such I wouldn't feel slighted with it at all. (For more on JMB look here, here & here.)

Of course being somewhat of a traditionalist I have a big soft spot for double barrel shotguns; particularly side by sides. My grandfather was an avid bird hunter in his youth & the first firearm I ever had any exposure to was his L.C. Smith 12 gauge field grade. Unfortunately it was stolen from him when I was still a teenager. I'm primarily a rifle person so I could never justify spending a grand or two on a long gun that doesn't have any rifling although when I think of the old man & the look in his eyes when he'd tell me about dove hunting with his favorite pointer I'm tempted to sell something & find an L.C. Smith that needs a good home. In the meantime however I'm making due with a rather enjoyable & economical Brazilian side by side imported by Stoeger called the Uplander. I doubt my grandfather would turn his nose up if he'd have been handed one though I'm sure he wouldn't have favored it to his Smith.

But there are automatics as well as single shots & over/unders made by many manufacturers. Depending on your needs finding something suitable won't be nearly as difficult as narrowing the selection down.

Handguns are next on the list. Revolver or auto is strictly a matter of preference. Personally I'm intrigued by the S&W model 610 although I haven't acquired one for various reasons. The steel frame 10mm EAA Witness is another one I've had my eye on. Keep in mind though that the fit & feel of a handgun are the most important things to consider. A gun that fits comfortably in your hand may feel awkward in mine. & recoil that you're comfortable with may cause me to flinch. So try to narrow your choices to handguns that feel comfortable in your hand when you hold it & cartridges that are tolerable when you shoot them.

Now if you're thinking I'm a fan of the 10mm you'd be correct. It's odd because I don't own one & can't honestly say I've ever fired one, but the external ballistics have me hooked. A full powered 10mm load would be ideal for hunting medium to large sized thin skinned game & I wouldn't feel too peevish about carrying one into brown bear country. But the thing that has me most intrigued is that in my opinion the 10mm would make the ideal cartridge for military use. It'd be a much more decisive fight stopper than the 9x19mm & I'd wager it'd be more effective than the much revered .45 ACP. But that's another discussion all by itself.

The important thing to remember about handguns is that their main purpose is to allow you to fight you way to your long guns. So without further ado...

Rifles are what make my world go round. & nothing spins it faster than an accurate rifle. Remington, Browning, Ruger, Savage & many other make brand spanking new bolt rifles that will usually shoot better than you can right out of the box. Those same companies also make fine auto-loading rifles. A few companies even make single shot break open rifles.

But in my opinion there is no finer product offered today than the ones offered by the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They sell government surplus 1903 Springfields, 1903A3 Springfields, 1917 Enfields & M1 Garands. All four rifles are chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge & as such I cannot think of any man or beast in North America that would not be deterred by its judicious use. Now in keeping with the original theme of B.A.G. can anyone think of a way to piss off Michael Moore, Sarah Brady or any others of their particular ilk more than to buy a battle rifle from the U.S. government? I think not.

Another reason to buy the Garand in particular is that it can have 5 (count 'em - 5!!!) of the features that make a semi-automatic firearm into an evil "assault rifle". Reese Surplus has some BM-59 folding stocks that will fit on the Garand. That'd knock out the folding stock & conspicuously protruding pistol grip. The Garand's gas system uses a threaded part on the barrel that will accept a flash suppressor so even if you don't have one that knocks out that requirement. All Garands come with a bayonet lug - it's part of the gas system. & finally Numrich Gun Parts among others offers grenade launchers for the Garand. So all 5 of the evil features can be on your rifle at the same time. The only thing lacking is the "high capacity" detachable magazine.

One rifle, sold to you by the government that can have 5 of the 6 features that the hoplophobes feared so much they sought to make them illegal. I'd say that alone would be reason enough to buy a Garand. Of course I am of the opinion that the Garand is the finest piece of machinery available, so forgive me if my bias shows.

But just as important as the platform you select to launch projectiles from are the projectiles themselves. Or more precisely the cartridge. If you only want one or two rifles in your collection then a general purpose cartridge such as the .30-06 or .270 Winchester would be what to look for. But if you don't mind having two or more cartridges in your ammo locker then I'd say there are three areas you'd want to focus on: a small bore, a medium bore & a large bore. Now keep in mind these are all dependent upon your needs: I'm only offering an opinion.

For a small bore I'd look at one of the medium velocity .22's such as the .223 or the .222 Remington Magnum. They're not the fastest out there but they're close enough to give good performance without the decreased barrel life offered by the .220 Swift or the .22/250 Remington. & I'd prefer a decent bolt action but I wouldn't be opposed to an accurate autoloader since these cartridges would be limited to target shooting & varmint hunting. So don't misunderstand - I am not telling you to get an AR-15 for defense from anything other than prairie dogs. A decent variable powered scope would be a must no matter what type of rifle as the targets are often small & far away, but occasionally closer than you'd need a 14x scope for.

I also wouldn't discount the .243 Winchester or some other 6mm cartridge to bridge the gap between a small bore & medium bore. Truth be told for deer (not elk) & varmints a .243 is pretty close to ideal as long as you use the appropriate bullet weights for the game you're hunting.

For a medium bore I'm all set with the .30-06 Springfield. But the .270 Winchester, .280 Remington or any of the .30 caliber magnums would work just fine. & almost any action type will work depending on your needs. Bolt actions have a reputation for accuracy, but I've seen Garands that will shoot 1 inch groups at 100 yards.

For a large bore I'd look somewhere between the .338/06 & the .375 H&H Magnum. Personally I don't see a need for anything larger than the .375 H&H for any North American game, although if I were in Alaska amongst the grizzlies I might consider revising my standards considerably. But for me a .35 Whelen would be about ideal for anything that could be hunted. This has nothing to do with the fact that Garands can be chambered in that particular cartridge. I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

If you plan to hunt in Africa then that's a whole ?nother ball game. I'm sure there's a host of people that could give more accurate detailed advice on which cartridges are best for Cape buffalo & other dangerous quadrupeds. But feel free to ask & I'll try to point you in the right direction.

I'd be remiss in not pointing out that the pistol caliber carbines such as the Ruger PC4, High Point carbine & M1 carbine fill a very unique, if somewhat limited niche & they'd be worth considering. Also the cheap surplus rifles aren't a bad idea especially for those on a budget. The SKS in 7.62x39mm, Mosin-Nagant in 7.62x54R, & 98 Mauser in 8mm can still be found relatively cheap.

So to sum it up I think everyone should have a .22LR (either handgun or long gun but preferably both), a shotgun, a centerfire handgun, & at least one rifle.

I regret that I won't be able to make any new (or used) purchases this week but by all means let me know if you do. Hearing from a reader who buys a firearm isn't quite as good as getting one myself, but it's definitely the next best thing. Thanks again to Aaron for not only coming up with the idea but for doing a lot of footwork on its behalf.

So do him, me & yourself a favor - go buy a firearm on the 15th.

Posted 4:13 PM by Publicola

The Volokh Conspiracy, Instapundit & Kim du Toit along with a few others are talking about the number of dissenting judges & the intensity of their dissents in 2nd amendment cases. What seems to be of interest are the dissents in Nordyke v. King. Of particular interest is that Justice Kozinski concurred with the majority opinion to deny an en banc hearing. This is the same Justice Kozinski who wrote a passionate dissent in Silveira v Lockyer & wrote the majority opinion in U.S. v Stewart(which stated that privately manufactured machine guns do not affect interstate commerce & therefore can't be used as a basis for NFA prosecutions).

I am simply not heartened by the dissents. their intensity is admirable & many good points are made in them, but they are still an underwhelming minority. The main reason I'm not as optimistic is that despite their personal feelings all these judges are bound by precedent. Justice Kozinski is arguably the most outspoken supporter of the Right to Arms on the federal bench today, yet he has denied 2nd amendment claims because he was bound by previous rulings of the court. He even concurred with the majority in Nordyke for what he deemed "prudential considerations".

If you haven't read "Game Over, Man. Game Over." by Kevin of The Smallest Minority then please do so. It sums things up quite nicely.

What we have is a judiciary that keeps building on very bad decisions even when the judges disagree with those decisions. Some will say this is a triumph of the rule of law or the impartiality of the courts. I disagree. I'm more inclined to say it's a sign of failure of the rule of law & shows the bias of the courts.

The rule of law is a very simple idea: a ruler is bound by the law just as the common person is. In this country we have a pecking order as far as the law goes. Deference must be given to the federal constitution when a conflict arises between it & a federal or in some cases a state law. The main purpose of the federal constitution is to place limits on government authority. What the courts have been doing with regards to the 2nd amendment is not to make the common folk & government equals in the eyes of the law but to side with the government against the common folk despite the constitutions limitations on government. They have done this through exercises in acrobatics of logic that are at times quite astonishing.

This demonstrates not only their personal prejudice in the matter but a deference to the government rather than the constitution. When a judge who openly agrees that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right feels compelled to abide by a system that whittles all the substance from said amendment he is not acting impartially. What he's doing is showing deference not to the constitution but to the courts.

You might disagree with my view on this. A very good argument could be made that without the system of precedent that the courts have long honored we'd have judicial activism of the worst sort. But I fail to see how that would be any worse than a system in which a man must forsake common sense & his oath to defend the constitution (assuming judges are still sworn in with an oath that affirms such) because he is verboten to rule against the government (i.e. the courts).

Let me make this clear - the judiciary is a branch of government. Some will say that the courts are not swayed as easily by politics & other factors which seem to drive the legislative & executive branches, but supposing that's true they are still swayed by considerations other than what their original purpose was: protecting the people.

Courts were instituted so that the ruler would be seen as fair in matters that directly effect the people. A murderer could not be summarily executed w/o a trial to determine if he was in fact a murderer. Similarly a person could not be punished for refusing to abide an unlawful act on the part of the government. (& yes I realize this is a rather simplistic explanation but bear with me as I'm a bit rushed.) For these reasons the courts were viewed as a good idea as a way to impose fairness on a government which by its very nature is unfair.

In our system the constitution is supposed to be the highest law in the land. No law that conflicts with the constitution is supposed to be upheld as valid by any court. In this way the courts are supposed to check the excesses of the legislature which in most circles are a recognized & unavoidable part of a legislative system.

But now it seems the courts are (& have been for some time) bending over backwards to explain why the laws which seem unconstitutional on their face are in fact quite constitutional. As many others & myself have said the lengths some courts have gone to in order to justify laws they approve of despite conflicts with the constitution are simply amazing.

But what discourages me is not so much that the courts are doing this, but that even judges who see this as blatently wrong are going along with it. Sixty four years of bad precedent is more compelling to them than their own conscience. That to me is the main source of my discouregment & disgust with the courts.

Some have opined that for reasons similar to what I stated above that we should be glad that a lot of 2nd amendment based cases are not heard by the higher courts. The idea being that until the courts are more favorable we should thank judges who vote against hearing such cases. & this I disagree with as well.

There is simply no practical effect that a Supreme Court ruling would have as far as the 2nd amendment goes unless it reversed those 64 years of bad precedent. If they sustain a federal courts ruling in whole that the 2nd amendment means the states have a right to a militia but individuals have no right to arms, then what difference will it make? Since the Supreme Court hasn't heard a direct 2nd amendment case in the last 64 years the district court rulings are binding on all lower courts. In other words the practical effect is the same whether the Supreme Court upholds a bad ruling or they simply refuse to address it.

This is because all federal district courts have promoted a collective rights view of the 2nd amendment. The 5th Circuit is the only notable exception & as yet hasn't been tested in their district. Considering the lengths judges have gone to in order to refute the meaning of a constitutional amendment I have no doubts that the 5th Circuit ruling in Emerson will be worked around in some fashion. Perhaps by a direct reversal or possibly even by stating that the 2nd amendment shouldn't have been addressed & the opinion concerning it was merely dicta (which is part of an judicial opinion that holds no legal weight). & as the recent Parker v DC demonstrates the 5th's view of the 2nd amendment is not seen as persuasive by other districts.

& you must remember that in Emerson the court did say that the 2nd amendment protected an individual right, but it was subject to reasonable government restrictions. To me there is little if any practical difference between the "collective right" view & the "reasonable government restriction of an individual right" view. It all revolves around what is considered reasonable & given what I've seen of the courts I'd wager that their idea of reasonable is a lot closer to Sarah Brady's than mine.

I wish I could share the optimism expressed by some, but for the reasons stated above I cannot put any more faith in the judiciary than I can in the legislative or the executive branches of government.

Posted 2:58 PM by Publicola

A decision was made in Parker v D.C.: the 2nd amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own or possess arms unless it is directly related to service in a state militia, therefore D.C.'s firearms laws are valid.

Again we see a court take U.S. v. Miller & misinterpret it. Then they cite 60+ years of circuit court decisions that also misinterpret Miller. & on top of that they claim that since the Supreme Court has not reviewed Miller or any direct 2nd amendment cases since Miller that the highest court in the land must approve of the interpretation of Miller.

They do spend a little time downplaying the 5th Circuit's decision in U.S. v. Emerson. Well downplaying isn't the proper description: they explain why they feel Emerson was an incorrect decision based on precedent as well as reasoning. I thought that was interesting since Emerson is the only circuit court decision issued recently that would support an individual as opposed to a collective right. & perhaps even more so because the Emerson decision was a 5th circuit matter: not binding on any other circuit. Yet the D.C. court went to some trouble to argue against it.

The court explained in some depth that a person had to be sanctioned by the state to qualify as a member of a militia. They reasoned that a militia must be trained & organized by the state & subsequently that enrollment in such a militia is the only means of claiming to be part of the militia. In other words, they suggest that unless you are actually on a roll of a state's militia then you're not a member of the militia. This despite the evidence presented in Miller that the militia was composed of all capable people within certain a certain age frame.

But the D.C. court held that since the plaintiffs raised no argument that they were members of a militia that they had no claim under the 2nd amendment & ruled against them.

Kevin of The Smallest Minority has a post up entitled "Game Over, Man. Game Over." that has more than a little relevance to the situation with the courts generally.

Parker is further proof that we have no redress in the courts. The only thing that could alter my view of that would be for the Supreme Court to hear & reverse the findings in Parker or a similar 2nd amendment case, but they've been ducking the issue since 1939 & I doubt they'll grow a conscience & courage at the same time.

Posted 2:53 PM by Nicki

So I get this nasty, shrill message in my KABA mailbox this morning from a British panty-wetter reporter, who is apparently irate that we repeatedly use articles in UK publications to point out how ineffective, absurd and positively medieval their gun control laws are.

Greg Truscott writes:

DO NOT USE MY NEWS STORIES TO FUEL YOUR DESIRE TO BEAR FIREARMS.

TAKE NOTICE OF THIS WARNING OR I'LL PASS IT TO OUR LAWYERS TO DEAL WITH.

GREG TRUSCOTT, SOUTH LONDON PRESS, UK.

The message resulted in an email exchange between myself, KABA Executive Director Angel Shamaya and Mr. Truscott, detailed here.

Give it a read. It will give you a chuckle. Not only are the Brits unilaterally disarmed, but they are prosecuted for defending their lives without permission from their tyrannical government and they try to threaten those who expose this savagery with legal action!

Mr. Truscott's email address is: crime@slp.co.uk

I imagine he will be quite irate tomorrow when he gets to work and finds his email box full of love letters from gun rights supporters.

A friend of mine wrote the following in an email:

I was born and raised in the UK.

I live in the US now.

It's very sad to see the festering sh*thole Britain is becoming.

Under the US Constitution, we have free speech and press.

By federal law and Supreme Court decision, anyone may post links to
anything on their site, as free speech and free press.

It's sad that your articles prove our point. But your lawyers can't do
a damned thing about it, and you won't find an honest US lawyer to take
the case. A shyster will take your money, lose and get us lots of free
publicity. I urge you to do so.

Are all British reporters incompetent and irrational fools? That's all
I seem to read anymore from over there.

Cheers

Posted 6:35 AM by Publicola

Now I am not the first to tackle the problems with Miller: Brian Puckett wrote a piece entitled United States v. Miller and Short-Barreled Shotguns which I would encourage you to read. (He has more modern examples of shotgun use in the military - with pics!) I've previously touched on Miller here & here But for my own reference felt a more in depth refutation of Miller was necessary.

Many federal courts rely on U.S. v. Miller in which the Supreme Court remanded a case back to the District Court that had overturned the National Firearms Act of 1934. The District Court agreed with Miller that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court that the weapon in question, a shotgun with a barrel of less than 18?, was not known to the court to have use in the militia & therefore the NFA didn't conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

Most federal courts since then have misconstrued this to mean that unless a person was actually serving in a state militia with a state approved weapon then the 2nd Amendment is inapplicable to them. This is flawed simply because the findings in Miller did not state or even imply such a conclusion. In fact Miller went to great lengths to establish that "militia" meant every person capable of serving in the common defense.

Before I get into the Supreme Court's decision in Miller there are a few facts I would like to point out about the case. First of all a gentleman named Patrick L. Aultice compiled all the available information on Miller that he could find. It contains every document from the district court's grant of bail to the Supreme Court decision itself as well as a brief summation of Jack Miller himself.

It should be noted that Miller was indicted twice for the same violation of the NFA; once on June 2nd, 1938 & again on September 23rd, 1938. In the first instance a demurrer to the indictment listing 5 items was filed on June 11th, 1938 with a memo opinion from Judge Ragon on June 11th, 1938. In the second instance a demurrer to the indictment listing 6 items was filed on January 3rd, 1939 & a memo opinion was given by Judge Ragon on January 3rd, 1939. In Mr. Aultice's chapter on Jack Miller, he mentions that Miller originally plead guilty but the judge advised him to withdraw his plea & he appointed counsel for both him & Mr. Layton (who was indicted along with Miller). I think if you have an interest in the case you'll find all the documents & summaries provided by Mr. Aultice interesting, but I'll leave it to you to click on the link above for the detailed story.

This is Judge Ragon's opinion as stated on January 3rd, 1939:

"The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132 c, Title 26 U. S. C. A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Fire Arms Act.

The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C.757, Section 11, 48 Statute 1239. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing, '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 demurrer is accordingly sustained."

That & the demurrer itself are all the Supreme Court had to go on from the defense. They did not submit a brief or attend oral arguments.

The briefs from the government in objection to the lower court's ruling were very detailed. Common law was cited as far back as 1686 in England to support the idea that restrictions on arms were justifiable. What they failed to do was demonstrate that the 2nd Amendment sought to adopt the common law of England in its restrictive view of the Right to Arms. But oddly enough the Supreme Court decision itself fills in many gaps that the government left in its briefs concerning militias.

This is an excerpt from Miller where Justice McReynolds states his overall findings concerning the case:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

He then goes on to explain the Congressional power concerning the militia that was granted in the Constitution & concludes that

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

He then continues about the militia:

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Justice McReynolds spends a great deal of time in discussing the history & purpose of a militia:
"Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out 'that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom' and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'

'The American Colonies In The 17th Century', Osgood, Vol. 1, ch. XIII, affirms in reference to the early system of defense in New England-

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).'

Also 'Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals. According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a 'good fixed musket,' not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers."

He then continues with examples of regulations concerning militias in the states before he concludes:

"Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

In the margin some of the more important opinions and comments by writers are cited. 3 [307 U.S. 174, 183] We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed.

The cause will be remanded for further proceedings."

Justice McReynolds never mentions that Miller was not a member of a state militia & therefore had no standing. Rather he concludes that the weapon Miller had was not of a benefit to the militia, but he even left that open by mentioning that it was not within judicial notice.
Now once again here's the relevant passage of Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense"

Matters of fact are usually left to the trial court, unless it is something very obvious such as the capital of Oregon or the allegation that a river runs from the upper midwest to the Gulf of Mexico or that cars use gasoline. But what is curious is that the Supreme Court at the time had two justices with prior military experience, three if you count a newly appointed justice who recused himself from the case due to his missing the oral arguments. From this site the JPFO put together on Miller I found the following:

"...Two of the Court's members had seen military service, Justice Hugo Black as a Captain in the Field Artillery in 1918 and Justice Felix Frankfurter as a Major in the Army's Legal service. Justice William O. Douglas, who did not take part in the decision, had been a private in the U.S. Army in 1918."

So it should have been possible that at the least Justice Black had some exposure to the military's use of short barreled weapons. From the same article from the JPFO we see numerous examples of the military use of short barreled weapons.

"The British issued a Sea Service flintlock blunderbuss with a 16-inch brass barrel, circa 1760..."

Jumping to the Late Unpleasantness 'Twixt the States:

"The degree to which barrels were amputated depended upon the whim of the cavalryman, or was dictated by battle damage sustained by the gun. Thin gun barrels were often dented or bent. Since weapons were scarce, the damaged portion was simply cut-off to restore the gun to action. This resulted in the discovery that shortened guns were more controllable while mounted; therefore, they were better suited for fighting purposes."

& further:

"In 1861, the Federal government purchased 10,000 Austrian-made carbines (KammerKarabiner, Model 1842). This muzzle-loading .71 caliber firearm resembled a shotgun: it had a 14.5" rifled barrel and no bayonet...The government issued three types of ammunition for this carbine: buckshot and ball combined, ordinary buckshot, and round balls..."

& from WW1:

"...The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers..."

But it is entirely possible that none of the justices were aware that short barreled shotguns not only could be of use, but had & currently were in use by the U.S. military.

Now Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides in part for Congress to have the authority to:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water..."

A letter of marque is defined at Findlaw.com as: "a letter from a government formerly used to grant a private person the power to seize the subjects of a foreign state" & more specifically: "authority granted to a private person to fit out an armed ship to plunder the enemy (usu. used in pl.) (often used in the phrase letters of marque and reprisal)".
Private citizens were granted permission to engage an enemy nation on the seas. Now if any of you have ever spent time aboard any ship you'll understand what a commodity space is. A short barreled shotgun or rifle, not to mention a belt fed machine gun, would be the preferred weapons aboard any ship. I am sure that the U.S. Navy employed shot barreled weapons, including shotguns, aboard her vessels & it would be foolish to conclude that given the options we have today short barreled automatic weapons as well as shotguns would not have been coveted by the early American Navy.

The same part of the Constitution also states that Congress is empowered:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions..."

Up until the mid 1800's the military (including the militia) was expected to perform the same duties as police officers do today. & considering that in most states citizens have power of arrest when they see a felony or other dangerous crime being committed it would not be unreasonable to conclude that weapons similar to what the police departments use would be well suited to the private citizen. If you weren't aware police departments & other law enforcement agencies do use short barreled shotguns among other NFA weapons.
The justification used in Congress to pass the NFA was that certain weapons such as short barreled shotguns were particularly suited to criminal use. Criminals did use them on occasion. But this points to a another class of people at whom the sale of short barreled shotguns was targeted: law abiding citizens.

Miller was decided foremost on an inaccurate assumption of fact: that short barreled shotguns had no militia use. It's obvious to anyone with more than a moderate knowledge of firearms that literally any weapon is suited to militia use, just as any weapon is suited for criminal use, or police use. It is not the type or design of the weapon that determines their suitability to a specific class of person, but the intent of the individual wielding the weapon.
Moving on to Justice McReynolds finding of law, I cannot begin to fathom how he would have (if indeed he would have) justified the NFA once he was shown that the short barreled shotgun, as well as all other weapons covered by the NFA, do in fact have a use for the militia. But let's just forget that point of fact for the sake of argument.

Justice McReynolds states that, "...With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." The preceding part of his statement merely recited the powers Congress was granted concerning the militia.

So the continuance & possibility of an effective militia was considered the reason for the amendment & all interpretations must be consistent with that goal. To which I must point out that the militia was to be called forth to "...execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". Justice McReynolds states a little later on that "...The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia--civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." (emphasis added)

The same weapons useful for one of the purposes would be useful for the others, providing the wielder of said weapon was proficient with them. Naturally a belt fed machine gun would be useful in repelling an invasion, but also in suppressing a riot or to stop or discourage looters during a black out. & equally a short barreled shotgun would be useful in repelling invaders, as it would be in suppressing a riot or discouraging looters during a black out. The same could be said of any weapon as long it was used by someone who knew its strengths & limitations.

If a person one day finds himself behind a belt fed machine gun, or a short barreled shotgun in the course of his lawful duties within the militia the type of weapon he has will do him little good if he is not properly trained in its use. So if the 2nd Amendment must be interpreted with the goal of keeping a well trained militia capable of acting for the public defense, then the courts must strike down laws which impose burdensome fess or other restrictions on the individual obtaining & practicing with weapons suited to militia use. That would encompass all weapons as a militia may find itself in what we today would consider a military combat role; a military peacekeeping role; an irregular military role; a general police role; or a specialized police role (such as a SWAT team).

A militia was expected at the time to perform the duties of soldiers as well as policeman. Fighting an invading army is the most common thought of use for the militia, but fighting an oppressive government, suppressing insurrections, enforcing laws, controlling & dispersing riots, as well as helping an area during & after a natural disaster would all fall under the duties of the militia. That these duties have been neglected is bad for us not just because of the misunderstanding surrounding the 2nd Amendment, but because our obligations to our communities, states & country have been neglected along with them.

I believe Justice McReynolds own findings established that the militia is any able bodied person capable of acting in the public defense. But I will add a few quotes from those around at the time of the Revolution as well as some who lived to see the Constitution ratified:

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169

"It is reported that the Governor has said, that he has Three Things in Command from the Ministry, more grievous to the People, than any Thing hitherto made known. It is conjectured 1st, that the Inhabitants of this Province are to be disarmed." - "ABC" (PSEUD., SAMUEL ADAMS)

"The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." - James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775].

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244.

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." - Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787).

You get the idea: the militia was thought of as the body of the people that were capable of bearing arms. The law that currently defines the militia in the United States can be found at 10 U.S.C. § 311. While it only includes males between the ages of 17 & 45 I would say its safe to say that with the case law concerning equality between the sexes that women should not count themselves out of the militia just yet. & it should be noted that whether this age range is applicable depends entirely on the occasion for which the militia is called up; should a hurricane ravage a town along one of our coasts or an invading force attempt entry at our borders then I would think the tie honored definition of "any able bodied person capable of acting" would be what's required.

& I'll beg your forgiveness as the next bit of information I was going to present isn't where I thought it was. It's a case the Supreme Court decided in the early 1900's or possibly the last decade of the 1800'2. The name escapes me but it was a tax case & it more or less held that taxation must not be for any regulatory purpose but solely for raising revenue. I'd kindly ask for anyone who recalls the name of this case to drop me a note as I don't expect anyone to merely rely on my word that such a case exists or that it found what I say it found. So if you'll pardon the lack of citation I'll submit that a taxing measure must not be for regulation: its sole purpose must be to generate revenue.

I must ask, is a $200 tax on a short barreled shotgun (which prior to the NFA sold for between $10 & $40) something that you would do to generate revenue? I could possibly see a tax of 10% or even 50% of certain items, but 200%? & instead of requiring a tax stamp that is transferable without any further oversight, a request for permission for the tax stamp, as well as much paperwork must be delivered to the government & your request could very well be denied. Further in 1968 all weapons in existence that fell under the NFA & that were not registered & taxed were declared contraband & wouldn't be able to be registered after a grace period ended. In 1986 all newly manufactured weapons were prohibited from being added to the registration. I realize these last two things happened long after Miller was decided, but can there be any doubt about the NFA's purpose being one other than taxation?

To further that I offer you this testimony from the congressional debate concerning the NFA in April & May of 1934. In it Mr. Frederick (President of the NRA) discusses his views on the proposed NFA. Several times it is mentioned that the purpose of the bill is a regulatory measure under the guise of a revenue measure & towards the end there is open discussion about the goals of the legislation, which is to target gangsters.

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania it was found that:
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."

So even if on the surface the NFA was a revenue raising measure it would not be applicable to possession of firearms. I would offer that a sales tax as is common to other items similar in value & collectible at the retail purchase of a firearm would not fall under the provision of Murdock, but I cannot see how a $200 tax on items that at the time were as cheap as $2 (sound suppressors) & currently could still be half the value of the tax (single barrel shotguns are commonly available for $100) would not run afoul of Murdock.

The militia is comprised of the people which would include anyone capable of acting in the militia. To preserve that militia the individuals who comprise it must be able to own & train with suitable weapons. Given the wide range of duties the militia may be called up for any weapon may have valid militia use. Short barreled shotguns & all other NFA weapons would have militia use & are in current use with the military & police forces of the U.S. A tax law must be designed with the sole purpose of revenue & not regulation. A Right guaranteed by the Constitution may not be taxed or licensed.

Because of these conclusions the finding of the lower courts that the 2nd amendment relates to a collective, rather than an individual Right & that Congress has the authority to regulate firearms is absurd & is not supported by the facts or the law.

Posted 4:53 PM by Publicola

More about Mr. Lancaster.

The Nashville Files has published a little more on the background of Mr. Lancaster, specifically dealing with the motives behind the ATF & their informants:

"Someone (who I can't name) that works for the Federal government added an interesting perspective to this entire issue. He said that the BATF might be in the hot chair. The BATF spent lots of money going after Lancaster, and if they don't get a good sentence out of it, it will look bad on paper...
When Lancaster was arrested, there were approximately 15 law enforcement people of various capacities at his residence, and there was at least one and possibly two experts flown from D.C. It takes a lot of money to undertake a raid and investigation like this. In fact, the source listed above said it probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars.""

This seems likely because it appears to be a pattern with the ATF. They spend X amount of time & money on an "investigation" & they feel obliged to produce "results" to justify their expenditure & provide arguments for increasing their expenditure. & considering they just asked for another budget increase I can see how important any & every conviction would be for them. Never mind that they don't bother to differentiate between the arrest of violent people & those with no prior criminal records who made some error relating to paperwork or mere possession as that wouldn't endear them to the hearts of congress now would it? Too bad Rep. Ron Paul isn't on the committee that Acting Director Domenech addressed his statement to. Course I can't let that pass: considering this report on the ATF's practices, I'd say they didn't just need an acting director, but acting lessons.

If you're interested in learning more about how the ATF does its thing to the people, look here.

& in answer to a complaint of mine Blake goes on to give some details of what & who started this mess:

"First off, this entire fiasco started because of a church budget. And you thought that your church had rought budget battles. Two associate pastors were going to be getting big raises (we're talking in the 20% range). A large group of members couldn't understand why and they wanted to get answers, and Lancaster took the side of the people wanting answers...
We know for certain the names of two of the Confidential Sources of Information listed in the affidavit for the search warrant. According to the affidavit, an annonymous caller tipped the BATF off (with confirmed lies about Lancaster being a Nazi sympathizer, manic depressive, dangerous, and having explosives). During the supression hearing, it was learned that an associate pastor at the church (James Mason...one of the ones getting a raise in the budget) made that call to the BATF and was also CSI2 in the affidavit (on a side note, Mason was later arrested for beating his wife...his wife has since fled while he is out free)...
CSI3 gave the most information, but he was essentially coerced into talking (because of the coersion, I will not give his name here). The BATF apparently threatened him with jail time if he didn't talk, and James Mason was also present during part of the questioning (CSI3 would have been considered a subordinate of Mason at that time)."

So because of a church budget battle members of that church ratted out Mr. Lancaster to the feds & he's looking at federal time????? Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus to the Romans & Chief Priests for his own profit. You'd have thought that members & especially leaders of a church would have remembered this story. Not that Mr. Lancaster was the equivilent of Jesus, but that Judas' crime would have been just as treacherous no matter the state of his victim: the betrayal of someone who has done you no harm in exchange for your own profit.

Now I grew up in Charlotte, NC back when tele-evangalism was getting popular. I couldn't tell you the number of times my living room was standing-room-only 'cause everyone wanted to watch Billy Graham together. Coming from the same area as Jim & Tammy Baker I know a little something about how vicious conflicts within the church can be. But turning a person over to the feds so you can get a 20% raise? Did James Mason ever bother to read any of the literature inside the church? I'm positive there had to be a New Testament lying around somewhere. & in that New testament the Gospels tell us repeatedly about how Jesus condemned the religious leaders as hypocrites. Ratting someone out who has never harmed anyone while you're slappin' your old lady around would qualify as hypocritical in most people's minds. There are also numerous condemnations of betraying someone in the Gospels, as well as throughout the rest of the Bible.

Turning someone in to the ATF is not drastically different than turning someone in to Tomas de Torquemada. Despite not having caused any harm to any person, they are persecuted with the might of a government & could suffer anything from loss of property to imprisonment to death. We look back on the Spanish Inquisition as a gross injustice that not only harmed innocents but contradicted the goals sought by the Inquisition (a conversion of all to Catholocism). One's only hope in either case was to admit to & repent of acts which you may not have been guilty of or caused no harm to others, or to turn in other people.

& to make it worse on a different level, James Mason & his companions in treachery turned in a good church going fella to the damn revenuers! I know that this events didn't take place in Appalachia, but wouldn't they be close enough to realize how lod down this sort of behavior is? But I guess if you can't expect Christian charity you can't be surpised at a lack of down home ethics.

I'm much obliged to The Nashville Files for posting this information. I can understand how someone would feel that someone who is coerced shouldn't bear the blunt of public disapproval for their actions. However I will point out that what this does is give a free pass to anyone who claims they did it to save their own skins. The ATF routinely theatens people into infroming on others with the promise of dropping some BS charge they claim they have on them. More gun owners inform for the ATF than non gun owners & because of this I'd be more inclined to hold them as accountable as those who inform for some other motive. don't get me wrong - the bastards at the ATF who use this strategy should all be forced to serve out the sentences of those they seek to charge, but unfortunately there's enough blame to go around.

& I'm still disappointed that a very large group of concerned citizens haven't demanded Mr. Lancaster's release & kicked the statist bastards that did this to him out of the state. At the very least I hope James Mason, Special Agent Patrick W. Hand & all others who advocated Mr. Lancaster being punished for violationg an unconstitutional law will be treated as persona non grata wherever they go.

Posted 2:46 PM by Publicola

Angel Shamaya wrote an article about concealed carry that's been published in the Ft.-Wayne News-Sentinel. I understand they contacted Mr. Shamaya & asked him to write a piece for them to print after one of their own reporters admitted to having a concealed carry permit.

So I'll give them credit for trying to display both sides of the issue. Mr. Shamaya tells me that the article is completely unedited so again I must say I they've acted admirably in this instance. Other papers could learn from them.

Give it a read.

Posted 1:39 AM by Publicola

NJ is following NYC's example.

"It is just a big mess,' Bogdan said. 'This is definitely out of the ordinary. He (Garcia) was in the wrong for shooting at him. The other guy was in the wrong for stealing the van and the other guy was in the wrong for having a gun."

That was from NJ Trooper David Bogdan regarding a situation where a man (Horn) stole a van that had another man (Garcia) sleeping in the back seat . Garcia was awakened when his friend (Jimenez) discovered the van missing as he came out of the truck stop & called Garcia on his cell phone. Garcia pulled a gun, made Horn pull over & kicked him out of the van. Then Garcia fired a shot in Horn's direction but didn't hit him. Meanwhile back at the rest stop Jimenez had called the cops to report a stolen van. So when Garcia arrived back at the rest stop the troopers searched the van & arrested Garcia & Jimenez as well as Horn. The charges?

"Horn was charged with carjacking, burglary and theft.
Garcia was charged with possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, aggravated assault and possession of hollow-point bullets.
Jimenez was charged with possession of a weapon and possession of hollow-point bullets.
All three were being held Friday at the Warren County Jail."

I'll agree that barring some circumstances we do not know about from the article that Garcia shouldn't have fired at Horn & should be charged for it. But charging either of them for mere possession of a firearm or a certain kind of ammunition that the state troopers had in their guns is outrageous.

So I would add to Trooper Bogdan's quote above that he (Bogdan) was in the wrong for arresting anyone for mere possession of a weapon or ammo & his fellow troopers were in the wrong for not arresting Bogdan for flagrantly violating at least two people's Right to Arms.

The usual applies: if you see Trooper Bogdan or any other NJ law enforcement agent who you know would arrest someone for mere possession of arms or ammo then explain to him why he can't do business or interact socially with you until he changes his evil ways.

Posted 4:09 PM by Publicola

Kevin of The Smallest Minority has a thoughtful post up regarding the 5th Circuit's decision on the 4th amendment from last week. In case you haven't heard the 5th Circuit decided that a warrant, consent or even probable cause aren't needed to conduct a cursory search of a person's home if done it under the guise of "officer safety". The majority opinion was 32 pages & there are a further 30 pages of dissent. 3 judges dissented & 1 dissented in part from the majority opinion; that's out of 16 judges who heard this case. 3 to 1 odds against protecting a constitutionally enumerated Right. Not heartening is it?

Kevin does a good job of discussing the case & its implications. Go read what he has to say.

Posted 1:05 AM by Publicola

There's been some bad news from the courts this week.

For starters Mark Lancaster had a sentencing hearing on Friday (for some background on Mr. Lancaster's circumstances I refer you to this previous post). The blog Nashville Files provides an account of what happened at the hearing. Bottom line is Mr. Lancaster is facing 30 to 33 months in jail & that will be decided after a ten day wait so the respective attorneys can file arguments for or against a shorter sentence. All this because he didn't have the correct paperwork for the machineguns found in his home. Chief District Judge Robert L. Echols wouldn't allow Mr. Lancaster to change his plea from guilty to not guilty despite the recent 9th Circuit decision where they held that home made firearm were not subject to the NFA.

Another name y'all should remember is that of ATF Special Agent in Charge James Cavanaugh. He was the statist bastard who organized the raid & arrest of Mr. Lancaster. Ditto for BATF Agent Hand who, according to the Nashville Files account, was sitting with the statist bastards persecutor prosecutor during the trial.

What is not mentioned are the names of the "informants" who ratted Mr. Lancaster out to the ATF. All I can tell you is to be careful of whom you trust. The ATF has a long history of "recruiting" informants who are actively looking to save their own hides from a federal weapons charge.

No Quarters tells us that Francis Warin was sentenced to 33 months earlier this week. Mr. Warin is a U.S. citizen that emigrated from France & started challenging federal firearms laws in the 1970's. His latest conviction is for mailing & possessing NFA firearms w/o having the proper permission slips, as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm (his felony conviction came from earlier attempts to challenge the NFA). For more details on Mr. Warin's history please look at this previous post as well as this post from Say Uncle which links to his previous posts on Mr. Warin.

Of note is that Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Weldon thought it was a just sentence according to this article. U.S. District Judge David Katz sentenced Mr. Warin to much less than the maximum he could have, but he also fined Mr. Warin $2,500 & 2 years of supervised probation after he's released. ATF Agent Dennis Bennett testified against Mr. Warin according to this article.

Ravenwood tells us of a raid where the cops confiscated a person's firearms & involuntarily committed him to a mental institution for observation. When he was released (as his sanity wasn't questionable & he'd committed no crime) they refused to return his firearms because he had been involuntarily committed! This was the work of a special "firearms unit" set up to handle the tips from the D.C. Sniper incident in 2002. Yep, the bastards got so many tips they decided to keep the special unit that focused on firearms. Lt. Michael Mancuso and Sgt. Kenneth Berger are two of the thugs & are pictured in this article.

FreedomSight has a post up about the 10th circuit's collective right interpretation of the 2nd amendment as handed down earlier in the week. The case was U.S. v Parker. Paul M. Warner and Diana Hagen were the U.S. Attorneys who argued against an individual interpretation & Kelly, McWilliams and Briscoe were the presiding circuit judges. Judge Kelly dissented in part to their reasoning regarding the 2nd amendment but concurred with them in their decision. It was decided that no oral arguments were necessary & the case was decided purely on the briefs. Mr. Parker accidentally carried a pistol onto a military base & it was found under the seat of his truck. This was an offense under the Assimilative Crimes Act which allows federal prosecution for violating state firearms laws on federal property. It was a misdemeanor & he was fined around $100. He appealed on 2nd & 10th amendment grounds. While they agreed he had standing to bring a 2nd amendment claim they denied his having 10th amendment grounds to argue his case. they then explained why the 2nd amendment confers only a collective right to arms & repeated a 4 part test (originally used in U.S. v Haney) that must be met to have a successful 2nd amendment case. More or less it'd take a note from the governor to have a valid 2nd amendment Right according to those bastards.

I'll try to examine the court decisions more in depth in a later post.

What I do want to stress is this: gun owners don't have many friends apart from other gun owners. There are a few who are on our side on general principles but don't own guns themselves, but the majority of people you will see that believe in an individual having the Right to Arms are gun owners. & hell, even some gun owners aren't our friends. We do have a lot of enemies, both in ideology & fact.
So what I would recommend is if you know anyone who advocates civilian disarmament or who actively advances it (such as those people named above) then politely try to change their minds. Convince them that what they're doing or encouraging hurts not only themselves but everyone in our society. If you honestly attempt to sway them & they still persist in their encouragement of civilian disarmament then politely but firmly tell them that you've got no choice but to take it personally & as such you'll be disassociating yourself from them. Don't do business with them; don't go to social events with them; don't invite them to dinner, etc. Leave an invitation open to discuss their views on civilian disarmament but make it clear that that's it.

A little harsh you might think? No. After all if you're neighbor was actively lobbying for your taxes to be jacked up by 20% more than you're paying now & he was behind organizing special audit teams in the IRSS to check on people like you then you wouldn't think snubbing them socially or professional was too harsh at all, now would ya? If you're neighbor was advocating a Nazi-like "solution" to a minority group that you were a member of then ostracizing them wouldn't even be a question would it?

& I don't see why it should be any different for gun owners. Gun control proponents are in favor of disarming you; they wish to make it illegal for you to have the means to defend yourself & your family. I'd say that is pretty harsh - far harsher than making them find a new golf partner or buying their groceries from another store. & remember that this is a practical decision as well: if a law was passed banning a certain type of firearm & your anti-gun neighbor/co-worker knew you had one of those banned weapons it'd be more consistent for him to rat you out than someone who thought the law was unjust (well, except for those ATF "informants" who are usually given the choice between facing criminal charges or "informing" on someone else to be prosecuted in their place).

So try to convince people that civilian disarmament is a bad thing. But if they still persist then cut them out of your professional & personal life. It's sad that it might be necessary to do this but I'm afraid it is necessary.

Posted 9:43 AM by Nicki

This week on Armed Females of America, I wrote an article called "Turning schools into victim disarmament zones." When I sat down to write, I tried to control my ever rising temper from boiling over and spilling onto my keyboard. But now that I think about it, more needs to be said...

...not just about school victim disarmament zones, but about stupid, worthless, gutless, clueless, tyrannical politicians who breed this atmosphere of paranoid hoplophobia in which we live. So here goes ...

The schools are just the beginning. Schools are a way to indoctrinate the population into the mindset of government dependence, destruction of freedom and mindless obedience from a very young age. Public schools are under the control of the politicians - both local, state and federal. Their funding depends on how well they parrot the political agenda of the moment and how loudly and wetly they kiss the derrieres of the politicians setting the political agenda. They are taught that armed guards in schools are there for their protection, but students themselves are not worthy enough, intelligent enough or responsible enough to also take a modicum of responsibility for their own safety. They are taught that firearms in the hands of the armed police are necessary tools, while firearms their parents may own must be locked away, because in the hands of the "civilians" they aren't. The children are pounded with propaganda about the absolute need to lock up your tool of self defense and encouraged to nag their parents into using government-provided locks (obtained by stealing money from the taxpayers, of course) to disable their firearms. They are taught that water guns, GI Joe guns, small knives to cut their fruit, laser pointers and even rubber bands can be used as weapons and must not be tolerated.

These same children, who are endlessly inundated with hoplophobic, paranoid, bigoted garbage about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, citizen militias, guns and freedom, grow up to be paranoid, bigoted college students who spend their days growing their armpit and leg hair (for women) and facial hair (for men -- and even some women) as long as possible, washing as little as possible and spewing socialist propaganda disguised as "progressive," for the children, for a better world, common good policy for a brighter future and a sunny, green world filled with rare insects, tropical birds, killer cougars and a few unwashed humans.

Is it any wonder, then, that the bureaucrats and government flunkies of today are so indoctrinated into the disarmament mentality? After all, you cannot impose your version of utopia on an unsuspecting public without quelling insurrection, can you? You can't force an entire population to be dependent on the omnipresent, ever-benevolent state, without taking away their means of smacking down or destroying that state should it become tyrannical, can you? And you certainly can't expect the sheep to worship the state without removing the concepts of freedom, of personal responsibility and of individual rights from their minds.

I am convinced that this is the true purpose behind the increasingly absurd zero-tolerance policies of our public schools. This is why they expel gold twinkies from their rectums at the very thought of a kid wearing a shooting sports T-shirt to school. This is the real reason why they force the children and teachers alike to worship at the altar of victimhood, disarmament and government dependence. That's why they lock down schools at the mere thought of an armed intruder, locking every disarmed and helpless body inside with the potentially dangerous criminal and force the frightened, vulnerable students and teachers to wait for the armed police protectors to arrive, compelling them to depend on government guns for their very lives.

Because once they take away every last shred of dignity, personal responsibility and freedom, individuals who have the gall to shake off the tentacles of government control can be easily beaten down by the state without too much protest from the rest of the sheep.

Think about it -- aside from the gun rights community and freedom advocates, who raised an eyebrow when Ron Dixon was prosecuted by NYC for defending his family against a violent repeat offender who broke into his home without getting several-hundred dollar permission from the tyrannical panty wetters of New York? Who was outraged when Hale DeMar was harrassed by the foul, cowardly, statist cops in Wilmette, IL for daring to protect his family with a firearm, instead of cowering in his locked bedroom and waiting for the donut munchers to arrive? Who protested when Melvin Spaulding had to spend time in jail for using a firearm to protect his 63 year old friend from being kicked to death by a band of thugs? And who is raging now, as Edwin Marte, who had the nerve to stop an armed robber from robbing the Ramon Food Market in Queens without getting permission from the nanny state, is being prosecuted for using an "illegal" tool of self defense to protect life and property?

Are the people of America angry? Are they incensed? Are millions of Americans angry at this injustice? No. A few thousand dedicated gun owners and gun rights advocates are. The rest of the indoctrinated American sheep, go about their daily business, watch Friends, gorge on McDonald's burgers and delude themselves into thinking they are free.

Whew! I feel better now.

Posted 8:57 PM by Publicola

In the comments to the post below I found the following from Linda Seebach:

"I am distressed when people I generally agree with behave in a disgraceful manner to advance our shared views.

Threatening the newspaper's staff members, most of whom have nothing to do with the decision, if it publishes something you do not approve of is beneath contempt.

As you probably know, the Rocky supported making Colorado a shall-issue state, so we have no animus toward guns. And as far as I know, no one here has ever contemplated putting the state's list of concealed-carry permit holders online. We have, however, opposed measures to make the permit list secret (in furtherance of the principle that government records should be open whenever possible). And we opposed a bill to end the sharing of permit data between counties (it lost).

You could threaten us with harm for some of our positions, and the anti-gun people could threaten us for the rest. In either case, the tactic would be thuggery. It discredits your views."

There are a few factual discrepancies that keep me from agreeing with her admonition.

For starters the idea that I or any other blogger threatened a newspaper's staff because they were going to publish something I or we didn't like is an oversimplified & inaccurate representation of what happened. I point this out because of the typical negative connotation of ?threat? which I don't believe applies: in the sense that a threat is a warning then it could be used accurately, but I think "ultimatum" better describes what was relayed than to say we "threatened" anyone.

If an ultimatum or threat was offered solely because a newspaper's intended content would offend, then I would agree that using any coercion beyond persuasive logic or consumer retaliation (a boycott) would be unacceptable in that circumstance. A punitive response (other than the boycott) wouldn't be generally acceptable if the issue was only a papers' intellectual content.

But the issue wasn't about publishing an opinion that I don't agree with; it was about publishing a list of names which in a pragmatic sense could be directly harmful to those whose names are published & in a principled sense would cause harm to the people's privacy. That differs greatly from an op-ed that calls for more gun control. One affects everyone who may or may not agree; the other affects a specific group of people who have no choice in the matter.

Put another way: I don't agree with wearing sandals with socks. I also don't agree with unprovoked violence against an elderly person. It would be unacceptable if I smacked down someone just because of a serious lack of judgment in footwear options, but justifiable if I smacked down someone who was beating up their grandmother. What the Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel was about to do was much closer to beating up their grandmother than it was to making a fashion faux pa. & since I don?t think it's "thuggery" to stop someone from beating up their grandmother I have to disagree with that characterization of my actions as well.
Now what was "threatened" would not cause any harm to the newspaper staff if their reasoning about publishing the list of permit holders was valid. After all, if publishing public records is no cause for concern then publishing legally obtainable info on the staff of a paper shouldn't cause a problem right?

But we all know this is not the case. What would be substantive is the loss of privacy suffered by both parties. Now to say that it's acceptable to compromise the privacy of gun owners because the law allows it is bullshit pure & simple. To go further & say that finding legally obtainable info on a newspapers staff is somehow different is also bullshit. There simply is no difference in publishing permit holder's info & publishing newspaper staff info. Neither was accused of any crime or claimed to be a threat to the public & the public can gain no useful insight in finding out how & who doesn't have permission to carry a concealed weapon.

Why would I have done it if the actions in general aren't cool? By publishing names they would have crossed the line from making flawed policy recommendations into causing substantive harm to gun owners. The only way to counter such a direct affront is in kind.
My goal was not to publish the info of the staff out of spite or vindictiveness, but to make the paper aware that if their actions were acceptable then I wouldn't have qualms about stooping to their level. In doing that I hoped the paper would see that if it's wrong for me to publish the info of their staff then it'd be at least equally wrong for them to publish the names of the permit holders.

There simply is no public interest whatsoever in publishing a list of people who have concealed carry permits. The only things such a list could be used for would be to discriminate against people with such a permit & to discourage the more privacy conscience people from applying for a permit. I can see no pragmatic argument which outweighs the privacy & safety concerns of permit holders. & in principle what they were advocating is making a list public of those who would exercise a distortion of a Right. I cannot fathom that a list of library card holders or church members would be seen as "newsworthy" by any paper in this country. Despite at least one reporter missing the point entirely, y'all wouldn't dream of publishing info that's perceived as being available through the Patriot Act, would ya? & despite the name & photo of Kobe Bryant's accuser being widely available on line & in the tabloids the Rocky wouldn't publish it would they? That's cause despite the info being available to the public it would serve no public interest to make that info available in a paper & could possibly cause harm to those whose info was published. So again I come back to an attempt to discourage & demonize permit holders as the only valid reasons for publishing such a list.

Luckily, everybody won: the permit holder's info was not published by the paper & I didn't feel i had to publish the info of their staff. They decided (quite correctly) that their actions would be inappropriate. Whatever the cause I'm glad for all concerned that no info was published.

Now about the Rocky Mountain News:

I'm usually much more severe with their sister publication* the Denver Post. That doesn't mean the Rocky is without fault - not by a longshot.
Now have you or anyone at the Rocky staff really examined the "shall Issue" law we have in Colorado? Have you ever studied the law it replaced? Or did an in depth look at proposals to replace both of them? I have & you're more than welcome to view my conclusions here. The short story is that the "shall issue" CCW is a step backwards from the "may issue" law it replaced. & both were inferior to a proposed but quickly tabled CCW law that was introduced around the same time. & All three are inferior to the Vermont/Alaska style law that was proposed but killed in committee a little over a month ago.

The NRA backed the "Shall Issue" law & opposed the others so to most people they assume that the "Shall Issue" law was a good idea. But as far as the interests of gun owners are concerned the NRA is falling short in a lot of areas. You're welcome to view my previous posts on the NRA here. In fact I'll go so far as to advice you or any other newspaper that if you want to make the NRA look bad in a story you're wasting your time with the anti-gun groups. You'd be far more effective talking to gun owners who are disgruntled with the NRA's tactics & strategy.

But all this is to say that equating support for Colorado's current "Shall Issue" law is not effective proof that the Rocky is not hostile towards guns or gun owners.

You go on further to state your opposition to making the list of permit holders "secret". Now here's the deal: I am not a fan of CCW permit laws. They compromise what should be considered a Right & place undue burdens on those who would simply want to protect themselves w/o having to run afoul of the cops. They're nothing more than prior restraint based laws designed to desensitize a populace as to their Rights. That being said I disagree wholeheartedly that a list of any gun owner who is not a violent habitual felon should be publicly accessible. It's making public a system of gun owner registration & were the objects of said registration exercising any other Right enumerated in the federal & state constitutions respectively then there'd be all kind of hell raised at the idea of it being part of a law.

Let's suppose a law was passed that required all newspaper staff to be licensed. Would you honestly say that this information should be a matter of public record? How about a license to belong to a religious organization? Again, would a public record of whose Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic or Hindu be acceptable? Would there be any valid reason whatsoever for you to be able to look at a record & determine whether your neighbor works for a newspaper & what religion they practice considering the state ran a background check & determined them to be okay people?

& the law you refer to about sharing permit holder information is described inaccurately. I assume you were referring to Rep. Crane's HB1205. The bill would not have ended the "...sharing of permit data between counties...": rather it would have eliminated a statewide gun owner data base. Now in the "Shall Issue" law we now have a sheriff may at his/her discretion share info with another law enforcement agency for the purpose of confirming the validity of a permit. That wouldn't have been changed. What would have changed is that instead of 2007 as originally specified in the law, the date would be moved to 2004 to abolish a statewide database on permit holders.

Now why the hell would you oppose a bill that merely moves the abolishment of a statewide database up 3 years but still allows for confirmation that a permit is valid? Did you or anyone at the Rocky staff actually read the bill & attempt to understand what it means? The language is very plain & fairly simple. It's a two page bill that changes the law by invalidating one sentence in one paragraph & changing the year from 2007 to 2004 in another paragraph.

The only reason for opposition to said bill would be if you were also opposed to the statewide database of law abiding gun owners being done away with in 2007. So in 2006 are we going to argue the merits of gun owner registration all over again, or did the Rocky simply make a knee-jerk reaction to what it perceived to be a pro-gun law?

As I've said the Rocky is by comparison a decent paper as far as gun issues go, but it's by no means perfect & I'd spend more time on the Rocky's errors if the Denver Post weren't as bad as they are.

But I'll make you an offer (don't get all happy I make the offer to any & every paper that will listen) if you wish to discuss the situation with publishing the names of CCW holders, Colorado's gun laws or any & every other firearm related issue I'll be more than happy to accommodate you. I can meet you in person, call you, have you call me, or simply exchange e-mails. It can be on the record, off the record or anything in between. I'll be more than happy to publish anything that we discuss here unedited. This is open to you or anyone at the Rocky or any other newspaper so your anonymity can be preserved. & I'll even go so far as to grant you amnesty if your paper publishes CCW holder names & I respond in kind (well as long as you're not the one pushing for it). & to make the offer even sweeter I'll be more than happy to take you or any other newspaper employee to a range & teach you &/or them about safe firearms handling, marksmanship & perhaps most important to your line of work the actual differences between types of firearms.

& in case you're wondering what's in it for me, it ain't the publicity. The way I see it if I can make some headway into changing the attitudes of one reporter in a (& I'm being generous here) paper that's only moderately biased &/or ignorant about firearms then perhaps it'll cause factual articles to be published at least occasionally instead of the usual gun control organizations press releases being printed as news articles.

Update:

*Ms. Seebach has informed me that I am mistaken in the nature of the relationship between the Rocky Mountain News & the Denver Post:

"...the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post are not 'sister papers.' They are owned by different companies and fiercely competitive in the field of journalism. Only the non-journalism part, advertising, circulation, printing and the like are shared, but all that is outsourced to a third company, the Denver Newspaper Agency, which is in turn jointly owned by the companies that own the papers."

So I stand corrected.

Another thing that was brought up was that my attempts to differentiate between "ultimatum" & "threat" were unconvincing to Ms. Seebach. Hopefully this will make it clearer:

The word "threat" is usually perceived as an unprovoked & unjustifiable preemptive measure (i.e. "I'm gonna kick your ass"). The word "ultimatum" is generally perceived as a retaliatory warning dependent upon another's action (i.e. "if you don't drop the gun I'll shoot you"). I simply feel that because my actions were an attempt to respond in kind to what the paper in question was considering that the word "threat" was an inappropriate description in the context Ms. Seebach meant it. (The dictionary will point out that "threat" can be defined as merely "an indication of something impending" with no other implications, but from her later use of "thuggery" I assume Ms. Seebach was not referring to "threat" in that sense).

Posted 4:16 AM by Publicola

An Indiana newspaper was thinking about publishing a list of CCW permit holders. For some background please see this previous post by Nicki & this previous post by me. The Ft. Wayne News-Sentinel decides to do the right thing.

"After listening to many of you and reading pages and pages of e-mails, as well as consulting experts in ethics and law enforcement, we've decided not to provide easier access to this public record on our Web site. The prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good. Those who want the information will have to request it from the State Police and pay $25 for it."

About 3,000 people contacted them & the vast majority of them opposed making the list public. What they didn't mention was that some bloggers contacted them & said if any CCW permit holders names are published then all the legally obtainable information of the newspapers staff will be posted on the net in blogs, message forums & any other venue that it can be posted in. I have no idea if that had any effect at all on their decision but I'd like to think so.

There were a few disturbing things mentioned in this paragraph towards the end of the article:

"While we reached this conclusion after much thought and discussion, anyone with programming skills could purchase the list from the state and provide searchable access to it online. So, while the debate over what The News-Sentinel does with the list is over, perhaps we've started a useful conversation about who should have easy access to this information. Twenty-one states allow the public at least some access to this data, and 23 close the records, while six states issue no permits, according to research by The Plain Dealer in Cleveland."

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is a paper in Ohio that threatened to do the same thing & bloggers responded appropriately. But that there's contact between the two papers is interesting.

But the first two sentences could be taken as a request from the newspaper for an anonymous individual to post the list on the net. Hell, I'm damn sure it is. If they feel that they shouldn't publish the list because the "...prospect of harm seems to outweigh the potential for public good..." then why are they suggesting that some other person or entity could post the list? It seems to me that they just want to avoid the responsibilty & consequences of publishing the list but they'd still like to see the list published.

They did list some of the more compelling pragmatic arguments for not publishing the list (while ignoring the principled ones) but then they turn around & mention that anyone with some basic computer knowledge could publish the list & perhaps the topic is still open for public discussion.

I'm glad (for a number of reasons) that they decided not to publish the list, but I am disappointed in their veiled plea for someone else to publish it for them.

Posted 3:28 AM by Publicola

NYC is at it again. No, they weren't handing out tickets to people helping with traffic control in an emergency again.They didn't arrest another person & his 1 month old friggin' kitten again. They didn't scare anyone else literally to death in a no-knock raid again. They didn't even suspend a cop because he refused to obey an unlawful order again. They have done this kind of thing before, most notably in the Bronx to Mr. Dixon. This time the bastards in Queens are prosecuting a person solely because he had the means to defend himself.

"Devin Keitt, 26, allegedly tried to rob at gunpoint the Ramon Food Market on 107th Avenue in Ozone Park at 8 p.m., cops said.
But he was foiled by Edwin Marte, 35, who shot Keitt once in the head with an unlicensed gun, police sources said."

So a guy shoots someone that's robbing him at gunpoint. But instead of being lauded or at the least left alone guess what happens to the good citizen:

"Police sources said Marte is facing a weapons charge and Keitt is facing attempted robbery and weapons charges."

WTF??? The guy was defending himself but because he did it without having his papers in order he faces persecution prosecution. I'll grant that NYC isn't as bad as England yet but you have to remember England didn't just morph overnight into a place where exercising a basic human Right was verboten; they got there through incremental policies that eventually culminated into what it is today: a victim disarmament/criminal encouragement zone.

Now I'll grant that there could be more to the story than was reported, but unless the clerk was holding the guy's infant at gunpoint immediately prior to the robbery then I just don't see how it'll make this anything less than a sick & twisted version of what should have happened.

As I was searching for contact info I happened upon this page from the NYPD site. If you'll note at the bottom they have a banner ad offering a $1000 reward for anyone who rats out a person with an "illegal" handgun. The phrase "self-serving, elitist, statist bastards" comes to mind but more importantly it probably guarantees they'll be less than sympathetic. In fact, here's an interview Angel Shamaya had with a NYPD officer about this bounty on unlicensed self defense tools. Now to shed some more light on this I refer you to this page which is nothing more than an advertisement for the NYPD's rent-a-cop program! Those elitist bastards have a vested financial interest in making sure the populace is disarmed: $30 per hour for the cop plus an additional 10% of the total to NYC.

& on top of that, the NYPD gets the cash from the handgun licenses:

"$255.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order.
$99.00 - Made payable to the New York City Police Department, must be paid by certified check or money order."

Capone wished he had it so good.

In NYC you're forced by law to obtain a permit to have a handgun in your own home or place of business. The permit process is expensive, invasion & time consuming. I can't speak for most of New Yorkers but if I was paying damn near $8 a pack for smokes I sure as hell couldn't afford the $400 for a permit. & that's even if you find some way of justifying licensing a Right. This previous post on concealed carry permits explains some of the reasons why permits in general are violative of our Rights. Though it's focus is concealed carry I don't see much difference between the situation with NYC's handgun possession permits.

But if you won't believe me then perhaps you'll believe SCOTUS:

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)

What should happen is for the officers making the arrest & subsequent theft of Mr. Marte's property be arrested themselves for the violation of Mr. Marte's Right to Arms. And any DA who gave the word to press charges against anyone for exercising their Right to Arms without the required government permission slip should likewise be arrested along with any of their inferiors who carried out their orders. But at the very least Mr. Marte's property should be returned to him & all charges dropped immediately.

I encourage each & every one of you to take a few minutes & let the statist bastards government officials of NYC know that you, as a potential tourist, aren't making any plans to visit as long as they disrespect the Rights of U.S. citizens.

Now I'm not exactly sure how things work in NYC so if anyone has any advice on how to streamline the following list to be more effective feel free to let me know.

What I can give you is the following info:

Queens Police Dept contact page

Queens DA Richard Brown's contact page
E-mail: pbclark@queensda.org
(718) 286-6000

Mayor Bloomberg's contact page
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
City Hall
New York, NY 10007
PHONE 311 (or 212-NEW-YORK outside NYC)
FAX (212) 788-2460
E-MAIL:
http://nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html

NYPD Police Commissioner Kelly's site (Kelly is a Vietnam vet Col. USMCR)

I would assume that the mayor & the Queens DA would be the people who could potentially get things done, but I could be mistaken.

Call them & demand that A: Mr. Marte's weapon be returned (as I assume they've stolen confiscated it) & B: they drop all charges based on any weapons possession laws. Then tell them that you & your family (remember they'll probably think we're all inbred interrelated so let's use it to our advantage) will not set foot or spend any cash in NYC until flagrant infringements of a person's Right to Arms are stopped.

Update: I received the following from a fellow over at Brutal Hugs

"One person you might want to add to the list of people to contact is City Council Speaker Gifford Miller - he's planning on running for mayor. As for somebody that might actually
do something to help this guy, I'd suggest Helen Marshall, Queens Borough
President. Intervention in situations like these is pretty much the kind of thing she's in office for."

If anyone has contact info for these people lemme know & I'll post it here. & much thanks to the guys at Brutal Hugs for dropping the info to me.

Further Update:

Brutal Hugs is on the ball again. Here's the contact info they sent.

Helen Marshall is at 718-286-3000 Her website is
http://www.queensbp.org/

Miller's contact info:
District Office
336 East 73rd Street (Suite C)
New York, New York 10021
Tel: (212) 535-5554
Fax: (212) 535-6098

e-mail: miller@council.nyc.ny.us

City Hall Office
City Hall
New York, New York 10007
Tel: (212) 788-7210
Fax: (212) 788-7207

Posted 1:21 AM by Publicola

Well I can finally say that I've heard "Ready on the right; ready on the left; all ready on the firing line" shouted over Camp Perry as the National Matches begin. Granted it was said something close to 60 years ago & I've never actually been to Camp Perry, Ohio but beggars can't be choosers.

From this post at No Quarters I found a site that has thousands of downloadable & streaming movies. (No - not those kind of movies!) The majority of them aren't feature films but if you dig a little you can find soem that are entertaining.

For example I stumbled across a movie that shows kids using guns.< sarcasm > Kids, I tell you! < /sarcasm > It features a boy named Jimmy & his sister Mary. I'd assume Mary is about 16 or 17 but Jimmy is at most 15. < sarcasm > It was made around 1946 by those evil gunmakers. Imagine, even way back then subjecting a porr innocent teen to the horrors of firearms! < / sarcasm >

In truth it was made by SAAMI & shows a boy whose father sends him to various shooting tournaments to gain instruction from some of the top shooters of the day & then the father takes the kid hunting. It's called Making of a Shooter. The journey includes (but is not limited to) the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio where his sister Mary is shooting in the rimfire class. ( sweet little innocent Mary - forced to hold & use one of those evil objects! have they no shame? < /sarcasm > The main focus of the film is gun safety but seeing the matches back then was what made it worth it to watch.

There's another one that looks interesting called Bird Dogs. I haven't watched it yet But I definitely will after I get done posting. I had some cousins back home who raised bird dogs & as a result have a weakness for watching bird dogs in action. To give you an idea how bad I am I have watched Biscuit Eater every time I've seen it was playing.

There's another oen I have yet to see called Man to Man. It was made by Remington Arms Company Inc. & Peters Cartridge Company in 1947 & is supposed to be about "Salesmanship and psychology instruction for gun dealers".

There's a section which has newsreel-type films of the Korean War & both World War 1 & World War 2 as well as actual newsreels.

There are also sections about the military, the atomic bomb tests, patriotism, political campaigns & elections, political science, & propaganda (mainly U.S. WW2 era films).

The ones that look most interesting to me are The Truth About Taxes which is described as "Republican party campaign film on behalf of Wendell Willkie for U.S. president in the 1940 elections"; Despotism, which measures where a society stands between democracy & despotism; The Powers of Congress in which "Mr. Williams drops off to sleep for a few minutes to find himself confronted with a world in which Congress has been suspended and federal authority dissolved"; & a Newsreel film that's listed as [Knife-Thrower and Children] where a Texas knife thrower gets his kids into the act - well sort of. The last one seems interesting just because it should give a massive coronary to any of those people who think anything less of complete nannyism is child endangerment. < sarcasm > Ya think ya know about child endangerment? well we got your child endangerment right here & it ain't got nothing to do with their "feelings" < /sarcasm >

But hit the main site & browse around if you want to see some rather interesting old flicks without turning off the PC.

Posted 8:37 PM by Publicola

SCOTUS heard oral arguments today on Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada. I posted previously about Mr. Hiibel's case but the short version is that a cop asked him for his I.D. & he refused to give it. He & his daughter were subsequently arrested. Her charges were dismissed when it was brought up that her resisting arrest was legally impossible since she committed no offence to be arrested on in the first place. Mr. Hiibel however was found guilty of "delaying a piece officer". Through the wonders of modern technology you don't have to take my or anyone else's word for what happened; Mr. Hiibel has a site that has video, audio & a transcript of the arrest as well as copies of the legal documents involved.

Now let's look at some of the things reported from the oral arguments:

"Nevada senior deputy attorney general Conrad Hafen told justices that 'identifying yourself is a neutral act' that helps police in their investigations and doesn't - by itself - incriminate anyone."

The smart ass in me would be quick to point out that prostrating yourself while chanting, "Hail ye blue defender of the state for you are armed" is a neutral act, yet I'd love to see a judge foolish enough to uphold a law requiring it in this country.

But the more reasoned approach is to point out that identifying yourself is not a neutral act. Hell, the statement he made contradicts itself. How can an act be neutral if it helps an investigation? & suppose the cops have an outstanding warrant for you: identifying yourself would lead to incrimination now wouldn't it? Going a little further let's say you're a gun owner who has a CCW permit in a state where the CCW records are available to the cops. By identifying yourself you're letting the cop know you have more than a reasonable chance of being armed. Now if you're in a school zone or other safehaven for criminals where being armed is a no-no, then you've just provided Officer Friendly with probable cause for a search. So by identifying yourself you are giving the state a leg up if it decides it wants to prosecute you.

Also let's be clear: the 5th amendment to the U.S. Constitution says in it's relevant part "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

This is erroneously referred to as the clause against self incrimination. While the purpose of the clause may be to prevent compelled testimony which may be used against a person in a court of law it's a misnomer to use "incrimination" in the description. Here's why:

If we assume the protection to be solely concerned with preventing compelled testimony that will incriminate a person, then we have to have a presumption of wrongdoing on the person's part. In effect no one would use this unless they were guilty & it would be taken as an admission of guilt. But the wording is clear in that it simply refers to testimony without making any distinction between incriminating testimony & general testimony.

The whole idea is that you may testify about yourself & by doing so give the state justification for prosecuting you even if you were not aware you could be prosecuted. A perfect example is if you're asked to testify about your whereabouts on a particular day at a particular time. If you respond that you were in a certain area alone around a certain time then you could be made a suspect in the investigation of a crime committed by a person that meets your general physical description. Now you would not have to be aware that the crime happened at all but by providing testimony you could have given the state enough cause to prosecute you for that crime despite your being innocent.

If "self incrimination" were taken to heart then you could be compelled to testify because you would not (in the example above) be aware that your testimony could incriminate you & you wouldn't think you could assert the 5th amendment as a reason to not testify.

& any use of the clause against "self incrimination" would render any pleadings of "not guilty" irrelevant: if only those guilty of the stated charge could refuse to answer, then what juror wouldn't see this as anything less than an admission of guilt to that act?

So it's more appropriate to understand that a clause preventing compelled self incrimination would be a self defeating clause since only those that are actually guilty may use its protection & by consequence it would offer no protection at all for anyone.

Findlaw.com has a much more in depth examination of the clause against self testimony & you should give it a read if you want to know more about its history & the way the courts currently treat it.

Responses in a different vein were supplied to the deputy attorney generals statements:

"But if that is allowed, several justices asked, what will be next? A fingerprint? Telephone number? E-mail address? What about a national identification card?
'The government could require name tags, color codes,' Hiibel's lawyer, Robert Dolan, told the court. "

Now Dolan's response was good simply because of its subtlety: he didn't come right out & say that this was the tip of a slippery slope that would led America to resemble Nazi Germany, but I have little doubt that visions of a yellow star with the word "Jude" written on them didn't pop in the minds of all who were present.

Unfortunately the deputy attorney general from Nevada wasn't the only one making arguments for compelled self identification:

"Justice Antonin Scalia, however, expressed doubts. He said officers faced with suspicious people need authority to get the facts.
'I cannot imagine any responsible citizen would have objected to giving the name,' Scalia said."

Justice Scalia probably can't imagine a lot of things. I'm sure he can't imagine that despite his being a constructionist & openly opposed to the arguments in favor of a "living constitution" that a lot of freedom loving people would question his judgment because of statements like the one above. Justice Scalia is probably the best friend that gun owners have in SCOTUS right now, but that is more because of the assumed anti-gun/pro-government make-up of the court rather than his purity when it comes to the Right to Arms. It would have been interesting to hear if he wanted to grant cert to Silveira or not & the reasons why, but odds are that won't happen anytime soon.

"Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out the court never has given police the authority to demand someone's identification, without probable cause they have done something wrong. But she also acknowledged police might want to run someone's name through computers to check for a criminal history."

Though her statements seem cool on the surface (at least the first one) if you look closer you'll see that she sees no problem with compelling identification if there is probable cause of a crime or for a general records search. In can be inferred that she does not view self identification as being protected by the 5th amendment, since the 5th would apply even in the face of probable cause. Her last statement assures us that she feels compelled identification can be justified. But if the court were to apply a probable cause standard for compelled self identification then I assume identification would still fall under the 4th amendment's protection.

Needless to say I disagree with Justice O'Conner's statements. Identifying yourself is a form of testimony & falls under the 5th amendment's protection against self testimony. To attempt to nullify the 5th amendment arguments yet support the 4th amendment arguments is simply inconsistent with the nature of providing I.D. One could argue that a warrant could be issued in accordance with the 4th amendment that requires a person to I.D. themselves but compelled self testimony concerning identity would do an end run around that. Then again the courts have ruled that giving fingerprints aren't a form of self testimony so this isn't a big surprise. (Needless to say I disagree with that as well). The only way an argument based on the 4th but negating the 5th could work is if an I.D. is not a form of testimony & to arrive at that conclusion we'd have to simply ignore the arguments where a data base error leads to prosecution, or a list of warrants leads to an arrest, or where a license of some sort in that person's name (such as an occupational license or a firearms license) gives probable cause.

Oh, lest I forget, guess who was on Nevada's side in this case:

"Nevada is supported by the Bush administration and two criminal justice groups..."

Bush opposed Haney, Bean & Emerson but supports a case that penalizes those who don't have their papers in order. Wait, that's a common thread, not a distinction isn't it?

I don't really want to make any predictions in this case. I'll leave that to the various lawyer-bloggers who care to comment on this. But I will say that I don't have much more faith in the courts to respect our Rights than I do in the legislature. So let's just leave it at my being more than a bit concerned about the outcome.

Posted 6:39 PM by Publicola

Why is it that everytime I think I can leave the NRA alone for a while they go & say something "ig'nent"?

Chuck Mikel is an attorney & member of the California Rifle & Pistol Association. The CRPA is the state affiliate for the NRA. In a story about the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors considering a ban on the sale of .50 rifles we find this gem from Mr. Michel:

"The message that legitimate hunters and target shooters get from this is that 'you don't count and that we don't care about your sport,' he said"

First of all, what exactly constitutes a "legitimate" hunter? Is it simply someone who is not a poacher? Is it someone who hunts for meat instead of a trophy? I assume he intends to insult millions of children here & abroad by insinuating that Robin of Locksley was not a "legitimate" hunter. (if you've forgotten, re-read almost any Robin Hood story & you'll see he became an outlaw for poaching the King's deer.)

But the bigger picture is that Michel only attempts to justify "sporting" use of firearms. Self defense isn't something anyone could legitimately call "sporting" & resisting a tyrannical government through force of arms is definitely not "sporting". (although it's better to have a "sporting" chance than an unsporting one.)

& if you look closely, most gun control laws claim to protect arms for "sporting" use. The other side of that is that any arms which don't have a "sporting" use are fair targets for licensing, registration or outright prohibitons. Does anyone wish to look through the records & count how many times someone said that "assault weapons" have no "sporting use" back in the early 1990's? Legitimizing a "sporting use" ideaology is just throwing the door open a little wider for gun control laws.

Now hopefully this next part will scare the hell out of you: go through your house & list every firearm you own that does not have a specific sporting use. Most of your shotguns & .22 rifles will be okay, as will any single shot, lever action, double barreled or pump action rifles. Some bolt action rifles & possible a semi-automatic rifle like the Remington 7400 or Browning BAR (definitely not to be confused with the 1918A1 or A2 BAR) will be okay. (note: is it just me or does the autoloaders that are likely to have a "sporting use" look more like air rifles than real firearms?) Certain revolvers will probably make the grade as well as long as they have a barrel that's over 5" &/or have special features such as a thumb rest for use in pistol matches (think bullseye competition).

But any military surplus rifles (even bolt actions), most semi-automatic rifles (except the Remington & Browing mentioned above), all pistol caliber carbines (with the sole exception of Ruger's carbine in .44 magnum), all semi-automatic pistols & any concealable revolvers not chambered for .44 magnum or some other appropriate hunting cartridge will not have any legitimate sporting purpose. & don't come whining to me about High Power Rifle or IDPA matches - they won't care. If you cannot hunt with it or shoot in a recognized target compeititon (& remember the ones who write the laws don't even realize that High Power matches have used military arms since their inception 100 years ago or that handguns can be used for hunting) then it won't be protected under the "sporting use" doctrine & will be subject ot bans at the whim of the legislature. Self defense &/or defense against a tyrannical government won't be considered "sporting use".

When The NRA & its state affiliates start arguing that "sporting" is a secondary defense of the Right to Arms while the main one is simply defense then I'll consider joining them.

a big deal has been made about another quote from Mr. Michel in the same article:

"A .50-caliber rifle is a pea shooter for a terrorist," he said. "The real problem is not the gun, it's the ammunition. If you use explosive ammunition, it doesn't matter what the caliber is."

The next paragraph includes the following:

"Such explosive, armor-piercing ammunition is already illegal, he noted."

So taken altogether I don't see this as being incorrect. However while technically he may be correct this has got to be one of the worst examples of a quote in defense of gun ownership.

First of all he admits there is a problem. He then attempts to shift the focus from the firearm to the ammunition. Then he attempts reassurance by pointing out that explosive ammo is already illegal.

He takes the defensive & gets tangled up in doing so. If I were a gun control advocate I could teach any 7th grader how to pick apart his statement. It's a shame when both sides are able to use your own statements against you isn't it?

I don't know how many times this must be repeated, but there is no "problem" with .50 caliber rifles. Hell, there's no problem with any firearm. I have yet to see one isntance where a .50 caliber rifle has been used by a criminal or a terrorist (government agents excluded) against a civilian target in the U.S. Now potentially it could happen, but potentially covers a lot of ground. The potential is there for a person to hijack a bus (another mobile civilian disarmament zone I might point out) & run it into some sensitive structure such as "...(t)elecommunications towers, industrial plants such as oil refineries, and railroad cars..." to name a few examples that were listed by proponents of the .50 caliber ban. But we don't go around banning buses do we? Hell, we haven't banned airplanes & they were the instrument used in a terrorist act that resulted in the murder of 3,000+ people in NYC! So banning something that has the potential for use by terrorists makes no sense especially considering that we don't ban things that have actually been used by terrorists.

But Mr. Michel took the low ground & consented that there is a "problem" to be dealt with. He shifts the blame to the ammunition that could be used in a terrorist attack. Now would you like to know the biggest "problem" we have with ammunition in this country? Mil-Surp .30-06: sure, it's $0.20 someodd a round now but the supply is drying up. That's what I consider a "problem". Again I have seen no examples of "...explosive, armor-piercing ammunition..." being used by a criminal or terrorist in this country (government agents excluded). I haven't even seen any meaningful examples of armor piercing ammunition being used by a criminal or terroist (government agents excluded). Any armor piercing ammo that has been used in any way did not affect the outcome any differently than non-armor piercing ammunition would have. I don't want to repeat myself so I'll refer you to this previous post. Scroll down a bit & you'll see where armor piercing ammo is discussed. The gist of it is that almost any rifle, including those chambered for cartridges that are over 100 years old, can pierce armor with ordinary hunting ammo. In the post I'm mainly discussing bullet proof vests, but any light armor can be pierced by a common hunting rifle using common hunting ammo at certain ranges. It's simple physics that a projectile with a certain amount of momentum has a certain amount of energy & if sufficient it will cause the projectile to penetrate a certain material such as steel. Now of course there is ammo made specifically to penetrate armored targets. But no civilian target in the U.S. has ever been attacked succesfully with armor piercing ammo when regular hunting ammo would have failed.

So there is no ammunition "problem" unless you feel that all ammunition should be banned. (well of course there is that faction of gun owners who think that ammo prices should be lower than they are, but that's another topic altogether).

But the final mistake he made was in stating that explosive, armor piercing ammo was already illegal. In doing so he knowingly or unknowlignly gives credence to the idea that prohibitons work. He simply cannot argue that prior restraint based gun control is ineffective after saying that.

Not to mention he's incorrect unless he's simply referring to California. It doesn't include an "in California" qualifier to his statement about the laws concerning ammo so if one assumes he meant a Federal law then he'd be incorrect. API, or Armor Piercing Incendiary ammo is still available through legal channels in most states. There's not much of it left but API rounds are available except in states which have banned it. Now before you get all upset let me reiterate that there has never been an instance of API ammo being used in any violent criminal action by a criminal or terrorist (government agents excluded). I do believe that California bans any ammo that can start a fire & if so that would include incendiary ammo. If there is a California law banning explosive &/or incedniary ammo (like I seem to recall) then Mr. Michel would be correct in his statement, although it'd have been helpful if the reporter made it clear he was referring to a California context & not a national one.

But Mr. Michel did not help as much as he thinks he might have. His statements could easily be used against him & gun owners in general. In a single article he's legitimized the "sporting use" mindset of moderate gun control laws; he's admitted there's a problem concerning ammunition (when there isn't one) & he's claimed that gun control has solved that problem (the explosive ammo ban).

I admit I'm pretty hard on the NRA. I don't approve of their actions concerning gun control & their actions lead me to believe that through ignorance or malice they are more of a hinderance than an asset to the Right to Arms. I really wish this wasn't the case. I wish the NRA would turn themselves around & start fighting the good fight. But with statements like those of Mr. Michel my belief is reinforced that the NRA management (both state & national) is out of touch with the gun owners they claim to represent.

Posted 4:59 PM by Publicola

I've been discussing Bush, Kerry & the election with some friends as of late. Aside from trying to figure out who in the Democratic Party thought Kerry was a better contender than Edwards or Dean (& more importantly why they thought so) the question of whether to vote against Kerry or to vote against Bush has been at the forefront of the conversations.

There are many arguments for & against voting for Bush which I won't go into yet. I will say that I'm not a one issue voter - at least not in the traditional sense. However I have one issue which is a litmus test & that's the Right to Arms. My reasoning is that if a person isn't going to respect the Right to Arms, then odds are he won't respect any other Rights unless it's to his/her advantage. If they pass the Right to Arms test then I'll look deeper to see if they're acceptable to me.

Kerry definitely isn't a "Right to Arms" kinda guy. But then again neither is Bush. Angel Shamaya of KABA.com published his response to a fund raising letter for the Bush/Cheney campaign which hits some of the highlights of Bush's unfriendliness towards gun owners.

All that being said is to explain why I find the following amusing:

"Ireland Lawmakers Want Unarmed Bush Visit"

Leftist lawmakers in Ireland don't want Bush's Secret Service agents to be armed while he's in their country. They said Ireland's police will protect him.

Why do I find it amusing? Well, cause when Bush was Governor of Texas he supported the idea of requiring prior government permission to carry a weapon for self defense (yes I know most people view Shall Issue CCW laws as an improvement, but it's still gun control & it's not ther best solution available). Then there's the statement made by Ashcroft that is supposed to reflect the White House policy on the 2nd amendment. Ashcroft said that the 2nd amendment protects an individual Right to arms, but that it's subject to "reasonable" government regulation. The qualifier makes the new policy different from the old one only in the means: the end is still the same. Then there's Project Exile & its variants which strictly enforce every unconstitutional federal gun law on the books. Bush was oppossed to arming pilots & now even though the pilots are "Federal Flight Deck Officers" as oppossed to ordinary peasants subjects citizens the Justice Department is still dragging its feet & making it difficult for a pilot to carry arms. Add onto that the Iraqi constitution which says arms can only be had with government permission & Bush's support of the "assault weapons" ban & I find it funny that Bush is being faced with the same kind of gun control that he thinks is reasonable: prior government approval required for owning &/or carrying weapons.

After all, what's good for the goose etc...

So the big question is will Bush submit himself to "reasonable" gun cuntrol as imposed by a duly authorized government, or will he take the stance he took when he said that America doesn't need a permission slip to defend itself?

He could gain a lot of votes from gun owners who aren't happy with his stance by refusing to go unarmed & using that as a basis for turning around his domestic policies regarding guns. Hell, if ol' Dubya came out & said that he'd leave the Secret Service agents at home if that's what they wanted, but if they wanted him to attend that he'd just strap on a pistol his damn self. After that if he turned around & demanded that congress & the states repeal any & all laws which make carying a weapon for defense subject to government approval I see no reason why he'd have to campaign any further to make it to '08 in the White House.

The odds of him pursuing that course of action approach zero, so he'll have to hti the campaign trail hard & spend a lot of cash if he wants to squeak by in November.

Let me be clear in case any of you have any contacts with anyone in the Republican Party who might be able to get a message to Bush: if he wants to win this upcoming election there's nothing he could do better than to repent of his views on gun control & actively pursue the repeal of (redundancy alert) every unconstitutional federal gun control law on the books. Unless he does that he's going to lose far more gun owner votes than he'll ever hope to gain in gun control advocate votes. & if any - I repeat any - more federal gun control laws are passed then in 2005 he'll be looking for work.

Bush the Elder made two mistakes that cost him the election in 1992: he reneged on his "no new taxes" promise & he alienated gun owners by signing an executive order that banned the import of "assault weapons". Ruby Ridge didn't help a bit either. So gun owners & a lot of people who didn't care for increased extortion Government sponsored theft taxation sat that one out. The result was Clinton.

In '94 there were some major changes in Congress cause a lot of gun owners were upset about the Brady Bill & the "assault weapons" ban.

In 2000 Bush won because Gore was seen as being a gun owners' nightmare. The Republicans also gained control congress in no small part because gun owners felt the Republicans would do a better job of not passing gun control laws than the Democrats would.

So now it's 2004 & things are gonna be close. There are quite a few Senate races that are going to be decided by how the incumbent voted on the renewal of the "assault weapons" ban a month ago. I wouldn't want to be a PR man on the campaign staff of any Republican Senator who voted for adding the renewal of the AWB to the Lawful Commerce in Arms bill. That'd be doubly true if he/she also voted to add McCain's gun show "loophole" amendment to it.

So we have Bush on one hand & Kerry on the other. I have no doubts that Kerry would be the worst choice for a president we've had in a while as fas as international affairs are concerned. Domestically though I see very little difference between the two. & other issues aside they both fail my litmus test.

Kerry is unlikely to see the light. Bush however has a chance. A slim one but a chance nonetheless. That chance is solely dependent on his supporting the Right to Arms. Flowery cmpaign promises or pics of him hunting ducks won't fool anybody: he would have to become an actual defender of the Right to Arms. He'd have to make some efforts at progress - not just saying the words but acting on them. & he'd have to do some things that would contradict his current & earlier views & statements. But he could pull himself up by the bootstraps & be a two term president - the first two term president whose name starts with "B". (Note: it would be incorrect to say that G.W. would be the first two term president in his family. Althugh the relation is distant, the Bush family is connected [several cousins down the list & several removals] to the Lincoln & Roosevelt families).

& he could pull it off by the proper handling of Ireland's request that he comes to their country defensless & following through on it domestically. It'd be interesting to see if he does the correct thing but to my skeptical mind it'd be interesting to find out if he even is aware of the concerns of gun owners.

Posted 3:24 PM by Publicola

There are two new posts over at The Shooter's Carnival which may be of particular interest to those of you who prefer Mil-Surp rifles.

One is about the correct ammo for the M1 Garand & the other attempts to explain the differences between 308 Winchester & 7.62x51mm NATO.

Other articles of interest to Mil-Surp lovers out there would include:

Shootin Cheap: Surplus Guns In General by James Rummel

Assault Weapons Ban Primer by Say Uncle

Build An AR15 by Say Uncle

To Be Alive Under A Perfect Sky by James Rummel (about the .30-40 Krag-Jorgenson rifles)

Range Report: Bulgarian Makarov by The Smallest Minority

The Proper Use of the Rifle Sling by Publicola

The 5 Main Firing Positions For Rifle by Publicola

Plus a host of other articles covering everything from gun safety to economical purchasing to maintenence to range reports. Go give it a read.

Posted 2:55 PM by Publicola

Not only do we have a winner in the trivia contest, but we have a winner who provides links to substantiate his answers!

Gunner of No Quarters correctly answered the following questions:

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?

Gunner: DL-44 (was the) German model 1896 "Broomhandle" Mauser

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?

Gunner: E-11 (was the) British Sterling Mk4/L2A3 submachine guns

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?

Gunner: DLT-19 (was the) MG-34

Unfortunately we have no prize for the winner which is a shame cause he provided the correct answers (& links) in record time (especially considering these were the first trivia questions I've had on here) but I will encourage everyone to hop on over to his blog & not only read his further thoughts on the freedom to travel, but check out his spirited defense of Homer Simpson against the health food police as well.

Posted 4:26 PM by Publicola

For those of you who don't have a lot of time & must choose between gun pics & girlie pics I have some solutions for you:

Courtesy of Rocket Jones we have Babes & Guns.

On a more serious note there's Armed Females of America (no pics but great articles)

The Liberty Belles site does have a pics section.

The Gun Zone offers us Racy Firearms Images.

For actual gun & girl porn (membership required) you can always visit Guns-and-Girls.com

This has been your weekly public service announcement (like anyone's still on this page.)

Posted 4:03 PM by Publicola

The lovely (& talented) Annika has some gun trivia up this morning.

Seeing her post has inspired me to post some trivia here. But there'll be a slight departure. Some people like gun trivia. Others like movie trivia. So I thought I'd try to cater to both tastes.

Break out your VHS copies of Star Wars. (for you Star Wars geeks that'd be Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope)

George Lucas essentially took all the elements of a classic action/adventure story & melded them into his 1977 space fantasy. But that's not all he borrowed.

There are 3 weapons I'm thinking of that appear in Star Wars Ep. IV - ANH. In the movie they were "blasters" which fired a bolt of energy, but they were based on real world firearms.

One was the Blas-Tech DL-44. Han Solo carried a modified version of this blaster. For the helluvit here's a pic of Han Solo's rig.

Another was the carbine used by Imperial Stormtroopers which I believe (though I could be mistaken) was called the Blas Tech E-11 Trooper Rifle. Here's a schematic of it that shows its configurations.

The final one is not as common as the previous blasters. I am not sure of it's nomenclature (I think it's either the Blas Tech DLT-19 or the Blas Tech A-280) but I have seen it simply referred to as an Imperial Repeater Gun. For simplicity?s sake I'll just call it the Blas Tech DLT-19. The places where it's clearly shown are in the scenes where the Imperial Stormtroopers are searching for the escape pod on Tatooine (although this pic was the best I could find & it only shows the Stormtrooper in the background as having one), the scenes where they are searching for the droids in the Mos Eisley space port & aboard the Death Star when Han Solo & Luke Skywalker are masquerading as Stormtroopers with Chewbacca as their prisoner (Han is carrying the Blas Tech DLT-19).

As I've said all three blasters are based on actual firearms. So here are the questions (like you didn't see them coming already).

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DL-44?

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech E-11?

Which firearm was used as the basis for the Blas Tech DLT-19?

I'll post the correct ones when I see them appear in the comments (or if more than a few days elapse without anyone participating).

Posted 7:25 AM by Publicola

There are some new articles up at The Shooter's Carnival. Go check 'em out.

Posted 12:46 AM by Publicola

Triggerfinger has a page up that deals with Silveira v Lockyer. It provides links to about 23 documents of relevence to that case. So if you're interested in reading almost all there is to read about Silveira this would be the place to go.

Posted 12:13 AM by Publicola

No Quarters has a post up which should be of interest to anyone who travels.

Go give it a read.

Posted 12:08 AM by Publicola

As Say Uncle & Geek With A .45 have already mentioned, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Self Defense Gun Violence along with the Dozen Million Mom March has filed a lawsuit against the Attorney General & the BATF.

In essence the lawsuit boils down to this: because the ATF & by extension the AG have allowed manufacturers to replace &/or repair pre- "assault ban" firearms they have thus allowed new manufacture in "assault weapons" & have violated the ban.

From the Brady Campaign's press release:

"The documents obtained through FOIA included private correspondence between ATF and Bushmaster Firearms of Windham, Maine in which ATF repeatedly gave Bushmaster permission to manufacture new "receivers" to replace damaged receivers for semiautomatic assault weapons that were possessed before the Assault Weapon Act went into effect in 1994 and thus were protected by the Act's 'grandfather' clause."

Now if you follow the link in the Brady Campaign's press release you'll note (as Geek With a .45 so aptly pointed out) that the correspondence in question occurred in 1996 & 1997. That would mean that Reno would have been the Ag at the time - not Ashcroft. Lord knows I'm not happy with our current AG but it'd have been much more appropriate if they dragged Reno's name into the suit since this happened under her watch.

& the above paragraph is merely a non-relevant aside, as nothing illegal was done! There have been procedures in place since unique serial numbers were required on firearms to deal with replacing damaged firearms. It's simply a way of repairing &/or replacing a firearm while maintaining records required by law.

Now firearms will perhaps always contain a unique serial number. This is as much for inventory control on the part of the company as anything. If all federal firearms laws were wiped off the books tomorrow (hey - a guy can dream can't he?) manufacturers would still stamp a serial number on some main component of the firearm just so they can keep track of production, sales, & other accounting concerns.

But the practice decried here by the Brady Campaign is simply a way of doing business in firearms that is mandated by federal law: if a damaged receiver is replaced then it must be replaced with a receiver that contains the serial number of the original, damaged receiver (or for some reason barring that much paperwork must be filled out & approval granted to use a different serial number).

I must stress that the damaged receiver is not used again in manufacturing. So it's not like a person trades in one receiver for a new one & the gun manufacturer turns around & sells the damaged receiver again. It's an exchange which does not add to the number of pre-ban "assault weapons" currently on the market.

"When Congress 'grandfathered' assault weapons legally possessed when the assault weapon ban was passed, it expected that over time the number of grandfathered assault weapons in circulation would gradually decline, as the guns became nonfunctional due to wear and tear. According to the lawsuit, the Justice Department's enforcement policy ensures, instead, that thousands of grandfathered assault weapons will remain functional into the foreseeable future. At the time the statute was enacted in 1994, ATF estimated there were approximately two million assault weapons in circulation."

Note the scare quotes around grandfathered.

But here's the underlying reason why the Brady campaign filed the suit: it hoped that attrition would reduce the number of grandfathered "assault weapons". When they discovered that it was perfectly legal to replace a pre-ban receiver, they started to have visions of loopholes dance in their heads & did what they usually do when the legislation they demanded fails to ban each & every firearm in civilian possession: they take it to court.

Now if it was the intent of Congress to not allow for the repair &/or replacement of the grandfathered "assault weapons" then I would assume that someone would have introduced language in the "assault weapons" ban to that effect. But considering that they didn't & that the ban was destined from the outset to expire in ten years I'd have to say that Congress did not intend to prevent replacement of worn or damaged pre-ban receivers.

& this makes me wonder how many bank robbers, gang bangers & other people with harmful, criminal intent are sending in their damaged pre-ban receivers to the gun manufacturers to be replaced? After all the whole premise of the Brady Campaign is that these pre-ban "assault weapons" are used extensively by criminals to gun down innocent citizens & cops alike, so do any of you know if the Cryps or any other criminal organization is sending in their pre-ban AR-15's because they're shooting them so much that the receiver's are wearing out? I'd imagine worn &/or damaged parts would happen much more frequently on the full auto firearms they got through the black market, but perhaps the Brady Campaign has more info on this than I do.

The fact of the matter is that firearms that are built & designed properly & cared for appropriately do not wear out major components in anything close to a short amount of time. Barring neglect &/or misuse (using improper ammo or inadequate maintenance) a firearm that was built when your grandparents were youngin's will still perform as designed today. Just off the top of my head I can point to two firearms that I own as examples of this: one was made in 1917 & the other in 1943. They both fire cartridges far more powerful than the typical "assault weapon"; both have been used in war (which is usually a bit harsher on a firearm - or any piece of machinery - than monthly trips to the local range & the occasional hunt) & both still put 5 shots into a space less than two inches at 100 yards. & one of them is a semi-automatic which functions identically to most of the banned “assault weapons”.

So for Congress to assume that a firearm manufactured a decade or two before the ban would cease to be operative prior to the expiration of the ban (again - ten years from enactment) they would have had to have less knowledge about metallurgy & firearms design than the average 16 year old in rural North Carolina. (This is purely anecdotal but when I was growing up in NC I heard many an adult tell their kids that if they took care of their rifles that they’d be able to pass them on to their children. Many of the rifles in question were passed on by the grandparent to the father to the son.)

So again, the practice of replacing worn &/or damaged receivers does not add to the number of "assault weapons" available on the market & it cannot be reasonably said that Congress intended in the space of ten years for the number of grandfathered firearms to be reduced through normal wear & tear.

Now would you like to know what type of person does require a periodic replacement of a receiver on an AR-15 type firearm? Competitive shooters. The AR-15 style firearms (which are mainly what Bushmaster manufactures) are by far the most popular type of firearm found in High Power matches. High Power matches have a few variations, but the mainstay is the Service Rifle competition. That particular discipline is limited to using rifles identical in form & function to rifles the U.S. military uses (with exceptions to cover civilian versions of military weapons). I'm a bit old fashioned as I shoot the M1 Garand in these matches. A few others still use the M1A (which is the semi-automatic version of the M14). But most people use an AR-15 type rifle. The only differences between the AR-15 used in these matches & the M16 issued by Uncle Sam are that the AR-15’s are semi-automatic only & since 1994 can be used in post-"assault weapons" ban configuration (i.e. not having a bayonet lug or flash hider is permissible). Other than making it possible to compete with firearms that don’t have certain banned features the rules of Service Rifle matches dictate that the firearm be identical to the firearms issued by the military.

Now depending upon where you live the season for High Power Rifle can last from 6 months to 9 months. Here in Colorado there are 3 clubs that hold High Power Matches. In January, February & March only one club holds matches & that's one match per month. Likewise that same club has a monthly match into November whereas the other clubs usually stop having matches in September or October. But let's say 6 months have 3 clubs holding one match per month, with one club holding 4 other matches in 4 other months. That's 22 matches per year excluding state, regional or national championships. Each match consists of 80 shots being fired for record, with the possibility of 8 rounds fired to adjust your sights. 88 rounds x 22 matches = 1936 rounds fired in matches alone. Double that to account for practice & we arrive at 3872 rounds fired per year. Over 5 years that'd be 19,360 rounds & over a decade it'd equate to 38,720 rounds fired.

Now some people won't fire that many rounds through the same firearm (either because they use different firearms for different matches or they don't compete in all available matches) but then again some people will fire many more rounds than that. Now if you're serious about competing you'll change the barrel every 6,000 to 8,000 rounds or so (sometimes more often or less often than that depending upon the level of accuracy you expect). So let's say you change the barrel out at the 8,000 round mark. That'd mean you'd be close to buying your 5th barrel in a ten year period of competing. Now to be honest I do not know what the typical AR-15 type receiver is capable of withstanding in terms of rounds fired through it. But I'd say the possibility of a receiver becoming worn through almost 40,000 rounds & 4 barrel changes in a decade is not unreasonable (of course if any AR-15 shooters wish to correct me I'd appreciate it). & it is possible to damage the receiver during a barrel change (not very likely, but it is possible), so perhaps in much less time a receiver replacement or repair would be necessary.

All this is to demonstrate that those with the most potential for having a damaged or worn receiver (barring a manufacturing defect of course) are competition shooters. The very same "sportsmen" that gun control groups such as the Brady Campaign claim to not be the targets of their disarmament efforts.

BTW, have y'all forgotten that the "assault weapons" ban has a name that immediately screams of hypocrisy? Its title as a bill was The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994. Funny isn't it how the main use for the most popular "assault weapon" is in legitimate sporting competition. High Power matches have been around since the early 1900's & an act of Congress created the first national championships in the early 1900's. Its purpose (then as now) was to encourage the practice of marksmanship with rifles & pistols identical to those issued by the U.S. armed forces. Yet in 1994 they banned the new manufacture & sale of the AR-15 because it had a bayonet lug, flash hider, pistol grip & could accept a magazine with a capacity over ten rounds. Never mind the rules of a 90+ year old sport had to be altered to accommodate this new law & the main affect it had was on making the people who participated in this sport spend more money on pre-ban rifles or make adjustments to their technique (as removing the bayonet lug & flash hider, while minor things by themselves, do have an effect on the point of impact as it changes the harmonics of the barrel), they figured that having something in the title about protection sports shooting would make everything okay.

In any event, here's a copy of the complaint the Brady Campaign filed. In it you'll find the usual allegations about "assault weapons" being the weapon of choice of criminals & their mere presence (the "assault weapons" - not the criminals) increasing the danger for everyone, especially cops. There is an anecdote about a cop in Detroit who was killed while wearing a bullet proof vest, but they did have the decency to point out that the projectiles entered gaps in his bullet proof vest (although odds are his vest wasn't rated to stop rifle fire, so if a rifle was used the point of impact wouldn't have mattered).

Aside from the statements about various members of the Brady campaign that live in bad neighborhoods & have to lock their doors at night as well as supervise their children while they play (all because of "assault weapons") there is one factual error I must point out.

From the complaint:

"24. The Assault Weapons Act makes it unlawful “to manufacture, transfer or possess a
semiautomatic assault weapon” or to transfer or possess a “large capacity ammunition feeding
device.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(1)."

Now this is taken out of context. While in & of itself it is factual its meaning is misconstrued if one fails to include 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(2) which states:

"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection."

& further in 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(3)(A)

"any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;"

& further if we look in 18 U.S.C. § 922(w) we will find the following:

"(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection."

But if you doubt me you're more than welcome - nay, you're encouraged to look at 18 U.S.C. § 922 for yourself. Just scroll down to the appropriate sections.

Now the complaint does finally make this clear at Item 29 & I would hope any sitting judge would be able to make the connection between Item 29 & Item 24 but it could have been written a little more clearly: rather than reading item 24 & thinking the "assault weapons" ban dealt with possession only to find out at Item 29 that the ban was solely on new manufacture for the non-LE0 market (yes there are exemptions for retired LEO's in the "assault weapons" ban - you'll find them at 18 U.S.C. § 922(v)(4)(c) & 18 U.S.C. § 922(w)(3)(c) respectively) it could have been included in the same item to make the law clear, both for the convenience of judges who aren't familiar with the law in question & for the laypeople who might read the complaint.

Now further in the complaint it reveals the exchange between the ATF & the Brady Campaign. The Brady Campaign contacted the ATF in 2003 & told them they must not only stop the practice of allowing damaged receivers to be replaced by the manufacturer, but must order all the replacement receivers made & distributed since 1994 be deemed contraband & confiscated.

What follows is more or less the ATF saying they won't do that & they're complying with the law & the Brady Campaign saying that they aren't. But here's the gist of the Brady Campaign's argument with the ATF:

They feel that since a receiver made after the effective date is an "assault weapon" all by itself then the ATF is allowing the law to be violated.

Now the ATF counters with the idea that a receiver in & of itself is not an "assault weapon". It's only a completed rifle that qualifies as an "assault weapon". Now if receivers were considered "assault weapons" all by their lonesome, then no AR-15 type rifles or AK-47 type rifles or Ruger 10/22's would have been made since 1994 as all three examples can be easily made into an "assault weapon" by adding certain features (such as a flash hider & folding stock)

Now if we look at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30) we'll find the definition of "assault weapon" as it is to be applied to 18 U.S.C. § 922(v).

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A)(i) through (ix) lists specific firearms by name. Among the notables are the Colt AR-15 as well as the Steyr AUG & Fabrique National FN/FAL. It says copies or duplicates of the named firearms are included. But what's lacking is a description of what is considered a copy or a duplicate. One would assume that if FN Herstal manufactured an FN/FAL but called it Model X1094 it would be considered a copy or duplicate. So how is it that AR-15 or FN/FAL type rifles are being manufactured legally?

In 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) we find a description of proscribed items:

"a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of -
(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher; "

Now if they manufactured an FN/FAL but made some significant change, such as omitting the flash hider, bayonet lug & giving it a thumbhole stock then you couldn't really call it a copy or a duplicate since it differs enough from the original to be considered a variant based on the original, but not a copy or duplicate thereof. & since it doesn't include the features specified in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) we can make a reasonable inference that the objections to the rifles specified in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A) were that they possessed the specifically mentioned features. Since the post-ban rifles are not duplicates or copies, but variations of the named firearms, & since they do no contain the objectionable features they simply don't violate the law.

& the key thing is 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B) since it mentions features which are common to all the rifles mentioned in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(A).

So a post ban receiver could be used to make either a post ban "assault weapon" or a post-ban firearm. The law simply does not confuse potential use with actual use in this case, therefore it would be erroneous to say the law prevents the manufacture of any receiver which could be used to assemble a post-ban "assault weapon".

To further illustrate this point anyone who is eligible to purchase a firearm could go to Wal-Mart & spend $160 on a Ruger 10/22. Through a little judicious shopping one could then spend $80 or so for a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22. Mating the Ruger 10/22 to a folding stock would be creating a post-ban "assault weapon" & thus violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(v) as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B). So to follow the Brady Campaign's logic the ATF would be forced to deem all Ruger 10/22 receiver's as contraband & start confiscating them since the receivers are capable of being used in an “assault weapon” & are not marked in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 923(i) which reads in its relevant part:

"...The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured..."

I just checked mine & Ruger does not have the date stamped on the receiver, even though according to the Brady Campaign's argument my Ruger 10/22 is an "assault weapon" since the receiver has the potential to be assembled into a complete firearm that violates the ban.

Only rifles that are assembled can qualify as an "assault weapon". Further if you were to remove the features that made a rifle into an "assault weapon" then you would clearly not have an "assault weapon" as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B).

Now another flaw with the Brady Campaign's logic is that all the replaced receivers will be used for assembling an "assault weapon". For example let's look at the AR-15 type rifles which Bushmaster primarily manufactures.

By their design they come with a pistol grip & the ability to accept a detachable magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds so one more proscribed feature would make this into an "assault weapon". But let's assume that the owner of said rifle is a High Power Rifle shooter. Let's further assume that he has been using custom made barrels which do no utilize a flash hider or a bayonet lug. & since he's shooting in competitions the odds of him having a collapsible or folding stock are nil (I believe they're not legal in match use according to the rules of the game, but I could be mistaken). Now despite his having a pre-ban receiver that was originally used on an "assault weapon" his replacement receiver may in fact be used to assemble a firearm that would not violate the "assault weapons" ban even if he had used a brand new receiver instead of a pre-ban receiver. He merely has the option of assembling it as an "assault weapon". So it's entirely possible that the bulk of these replaced receivers are being used to facilitate the continued use of firearms that do not meet the definition of an “assault weapon”.

The Brady Campaign's argument, if taken to its logical conclusion, would cause virtually every semi-automatic firearm manufactured since 1994 to be deemed contraband & become subject to confiscation. Hell, if we apply this reasoning across the board then ever firearm ever made (excluding muzzle loading firearms) would be in violation of the NFA of ’34 as they could be made to have a barrel less than 16” (or less than 18” for shotguns); be fitted with a sound suppressor or in the case of handguns be fitted with a detachable shoulder stock. Now this result wouldn’t bother the Brady Campaign as it would expedite their main goal which is to disarm everyone except those who work for the government, but I guaran-damn-teeya it would not be a popular concept amongst most Americans.

Now at Item 64 we find the following:

"Despite the fact that the Assault Weapons Act defines a frame or receiver as the 'firearm' for purposes of the ban, see 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(B), ATF stated in its October 30, 2003, letter that '[t]he definition of a SAW necessarily involves a complete firearm, with specified parts. Until the frame or receiver is assembled with all the component parts necessary to make a complete weapon, it cannot be determined whether the weapon is a SAW or a sporting firearm.”

Now 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3) has the following definitions:

"(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; "

But those definitions were in 18 U.S.C. § 921 long before the “assault weapons” ban was drafted. So it is incorrect to say that the “assault weapons” ban defined a receiver as a firearm since the definition of “firearm” already existed in 18 U.S.C. § 921. The reason a receiver was defined as a firearm had nothing to do with the “assault weapons” ban; it was simply to clarify which part of a firearm would carry the serial number & be subject to (unconstitutional) federal regulations such as the NFA of ’34 & the GCA of ’68 to name a few.

As I pointed out earlier the Brady Campaign is using flawed logic to claim that a receiver by itself constitutes an “assault weapon” since a receiver that can be used to make an “assault weapon” can be made into a firearm that does not fit the definition of “assault weapon” as found in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(30)(B).

The Brady Campaign doesn’t seem to understand that a receiver manufactured before the effective date of the “assault weapons” ban can be made into an “assault weapon” or a firearm that isn’t considered an “assault weapon”, just as they can’t seem to understand a receiver made after the effective date of the “assault weapons” ban cannot legally be made into an “assault weapon” for civilian use. They seem to be reasoning that since receivers are identified as “pre” or “post” ban that this supports their theory that the receiver itself is subject to the “assault weapons” ban no matter what type of firearm it is actually assembled into. Or at least that’s what their arguments would have us believe.

At Item 70 the Brady Campaign alleges that the ATF violated the law by allowing Bushmaster to issue replacement receivers that did not have the exact same serial number as the damaged receiver. But if we look at 27 C.F.R. § 478.22 we find that there are alternative & emergency measures which may be applied for & granted under certain circumstances when dealing with administrative issues. So for their claim to be valid in this regard they’d have to demonstrate exactly how the variance that was granted Bushmaster was not in accord with 27 C.F.R. § 478.22(a) which states:

"(1) Good cause is shown for the use of the alternate method or procedure;
(2) The alternate method or procedure is within the purpose of, and consistent with the effect intended by, the specifically prescribed method or procedure and that the alternate method or procedure is substantially equivalent to that specifically prescribed method or procedure; and
(3) The alternate method or procedure will not be contrary to any provision of law and will not result in an increase in cost to the Government or hinder the effective administration of this part. Where the licensee desires to employ an alternate method or procedure, a written application shall be submitted to the appropriate Director of Industry Operations, for transmittal to the Director. The application shall specifically describe the proposed alternate method or procedure and shall set forth the reasons for it. Alternate methods or procedures may not be employed until the application is approved by the Director. The licensee shall, during the period of authorization of an alternate method or procedure, comply with the terms of the approved application. Authorization of any alternate method or procedure may be withdrawn whenever, in the judgment of the Director, the effective administration of this part is hindered by the continuation of the authorization."

They do not seem to make any case other than the ATF granted variances from the usual procedure therefore it violated the law.

In Item 76 they cite 27 C.F.R. § 478.92 as having been violated as Bushmaster was not told they had to stamp the replacement receivers with either the date of manufacture or “Restricted Law Enforcement/Government Use Only” or “For Export Only”. But if we look at 27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(3) we find the following:

"Special markings for semiautomatic assault weapons, effective
July 5, 1995. In the case of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after September 13, 1994, you must mark the frame or receiver ``RESTRICTED LAW ENFORCEMENT/GOVERNMENT USE ONLY'' or, in the case of weapons manufactured for export, ``FOR EXPORT ONLY,'' in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed. For weapons manufactured or imported on and after January 30, 2002, the engraving, casting, or stamping (impressing) of the special markings prescribed in this paragraph (a)(3) must be to a minimum depth of .003 inch."

Please note that it speaks of marking the receiver when an “assault weapon” is made. Now if the receiver itself is an “assault weapon’ under the law then why would the regulations state that when an “assault weapon” is made the receiver must be stamped? Wouldn’t it have said that when a receiver is manufactured that is defined as an “assault weapon” it must be treated in the described manner? By implication the regulation itself differentiates between a receiver & an “assault weapon”.

But the most substantive rebuttal to the Brady Campaign’s argument concerning how the receiver is to be marked can be found in 27 C.F.R. § 478.92(a)(4)(i):

"Exceptions. (i) Alternate means of identification. The Director may authorize other means of identification upon receipt of a letter application from you, submitted in duplicate, showing that such other identification is reasonable and will not hinder the effective administration of this part."

If they would have just bothered reading the paragraph below the one they claimed was violated, they might have seen that it wasn’t violated as there is a provision that allows exceptions.

But I sincerely doubt that the Brady Campaign filed this due to a misreading of the law. Their complaint is simply an attempt to expand the scope of the “assault weapons” ban through the judiciary & I’m a firm believer in never attributing to ignorance what can be explained by malice.

The lawsuit filed by the Brady Campaign & the Dozen Million Mom March stand a fair chance of proceeding to trial if they can get it before the right judge. & filing in the District of Columbia won’t hurt the odds of that happening one bit.

Now I hope that this will be dismissed with prejudice as it’s based on some fairly obvious misreading of the law. Then again all of the gun control laws on the federal level are based upon blatant misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment & few if any judges seem to recognize that. If this case did make it to trial & was presided over by a fair & competent judge I wouldn’t doubt for a minute that I could argue against it & win decisively even though I’m not a lawyer. But considering the difficulty in finding a fair & competent judge in that particular district (especially when it comes to firearms related issues) then I’d say that the case has a chance of being successful.

Posted 10:56 AM by Nicki

"Fort Wayne Outs the Gun Nuts"

Here's a bit of a follow-up to that Indiana story by ChronWatch's Doc Farmer.

As Publicola mentioned below, this podunk, fish wrap of a newspaper decided that since the list of people with concealed carry permits is public domain, they'd dig it up and publish their information for all the world to read. I kept wondering why they would do a thing like this.

Why would they lump those who choose to carry concealed with rapists and murderers - the types of people you would definitely want to know about if they decided to move into your neighborhood.

Why would they publish personal information about people whose only "crime" is that they had to ask the government permission to exercise their constitutional rights?

Why would they subject law-abiding citizens to unnecessary scrutiny, bigotry, possible employment problems at the hands of gun bigots, etc.?

Doc Farmer finally got the editor, Linda Austin, to admit that the reason they did it "to foment debate." That's right, folks! They didn't threaten to expose thousands of gun owners out of any misguided sense of duty or even paranoia. They planned to put lawful, peaceable citizens on the same platform as perverts and murderers to get people talking about their podunk, fish wrap of a newspaper.

Farmer has another viable theory about why these gun bigots would pull this stunt:

However, I think it’s much simpler than that. The News-Sentinel, as I said earlier, is not quite as left leaning as the morning paper here. Moreover, since both newspapers work in the same building, this must be the cause of much embarrassment for the evening paper staff. The Doonsbury crowd from the Journal Gazette must pelt their News-Sentinel counterparts with croissants and tease them mercilessly for not being rabidly left-wing enough. The News-Sentinel journalists, tired of using the same ''Aw, your mother wears Birkenstocks'' retort, decided they were going to regain their lib/dem/soc/commie ''street cred'' and call some much-needed attention to themselves. I’m sure they’ll get all kinds of plaudits in leftist ''journalism'' reviews and magazines like the CJR and AJR, and they won’t be so lonely at newspaper awards ceremonies.

Possible. Very very possible.

In any case, you might want to contact the Fort Wayne News Sentinel and inform Linda that you aren't impressed with her little paper-selling ploy.

Linda Austin
laustin@news-sentinel.com

Posted 10:42 PM by Publicola

I may need some help from any & all of y'all in Indiana. It seems that Fort Wayne.com is thinking about publishing the names of concealed carry permit holders. They have received some negative responses after they mentioned they intended to make the names available online so now they're going to think about it some more.

Quite honestly the idea of publishing the names of gun owners because they were forced to aquire a license is adding insult to injury. The violent criminals don't usually apply for licenses yet they carry when & where they wish. But peaceful citizens have to grovel & bribe their government to let them have permission to exercise what should be respected as a Right in the first place: having the means of defense.

From the second article linked above written by Miss Austin:

"...They said by putting the information online or in the paper, we're just making it more convenient for people to exercise a right they already have to examine the records."

I do not recall any philisophical, legal or moral theory that lists knowing which peacable people have arms is a Right. I do know of several theories as to why carrying & owning a weapon - even if concealed - is a Right & not subject to licensing or registration requirements.

"Another argument advanced for posting the list is that the state has determined that there's a public good in licensing people to carry handguns and making such information accessible to others."

There is no public good in licensing gun owners & there is no public good in publishing their names. The only - I repeat only reason for licensing & registration is to make confiscation easier. Now it may well be viewed as good for the state, but what's good for the state is often bad for the people.

But I would be curious as to how they think it is good for the public. As a journalist shouldn't Miss Austin have made some effort to explain why making those names available to the public is good rather than just relying on the generalization that the state made it so therefore it is good?

"The information has the potential to warn people about others who may be carrying a gun. If you're sending your child to my house to play, perhaps you'd like to know if I have a permit to carry a gun."

Here we have a logical disconnect. How would a list of concealed firearm permit holders clue anyone in to who has & doesn't have a firearm in their home? I don't recall Indiana requiring a Firearm Owner Identification Card & even if they did that's not the permit in question: it's concealed carry permits that are being discussed.

So it is very possible that if a hoplophobe wishes his or her child to play at a neighbors house who has no effective way of protecting their kids then they still would be allowing their kid to play at a house with firearms if the owner simply decided that they didn't need a permit to exercise a Right. To put it more plainly - not every gun owner applies for a concealed carry permit so the argument is flawed (to put it kindly).

"Or maybe you're curious about whether a potential business associate, or a neighbor or new acquaintance has a permit.
'There is danger for children when there is a gun present, and that is a strong point,' said Gregory E. Favre, distinguished fellow in journalism values at The Poynter Institute for journalism training in Florida.
'There are too many cases when youngsters have been killed or when parents' guns are used to kill others, as has happened in the school shootings. Will knowing about the gun permits completely stop this? No, but it might prevent some. Even one would be worth it.
'And while I am a strong advocate that people have a right to a private life, these folks have interjected themselves into the public by purchasing a gun permit,' said Favre, former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors."

I'm sure a lot of people are curious about how people exercise other Rights, such as religion, speech, procreation, etc... but that does not mean I or anyone else is justified in satisfying our curiousity against another person's wishes.

& as to the danger to children when guns are present that is nonsense.Millions of children are around millions of firearms every day yet there are less than 1,00 accidental shootings & only a small precentage of those involve children under 14. Where the danger comes from is hoplophobic parents who fail to teach their children the proper & safe handling & use of firearms. Those kids who have never been exposed to firearms are naturally more curious & tend to be the ones who figure out how to acidentally discharge one.

& if applying for a permit to exercise what should be considered a natural & inherent Right thrusts a person into the public eye, then perhaps Mr. Favre wouldn't be upset if his home phone number & address were published since he has thrust himself into the public eye by exercise Rights that fall under the First Amendment? Of course I tend to think he would raise hell about that if it happened & perhaps rightly so. But considering his statement about gun owners that would make him little more than a misinformed hypocrit if his personal info was published & he objected to it.

"The list doesn't include everyone who has a gun. Plenty of people carry guns illegally. No permit is required for rifles and shotguns. And just because you have a permit doesn't mean you have a gun."

Why didn't they mkae the connection between that & their foolish argument about knowing who has a firearm at home in case they didn't want their kids around a means of defense?

"Some argued that because the list is a public record available to everyone, we should post it."

If that is how they truly feel then they shouldn't say nary a damn word when I & other bloggers publish all the information we can find on the staff of this publication.

Which is where any & all readers from Indiana come in. I need you to e-mail me at publicola_rd@yahoo.com with any & all legally obtainable information you can find on any & all of the staff at the Fort Wayne News-Sentinal.

Next I need you to call the appropriate numbers below & politely inform them that if they start indiscriminantly publishing the info of gun owners without each individual gun owners consent then I & other bloggers will post any & all information we can legally obtain on the staff of that publication.

I really would rather not publish anybody's info as I know damn skippy I wouldn't like mine published, but if they want to abuse their position by violating the privacy Rights of gun owners then I'll have no qualms about retalliating in kind.

Currently they're solicting feedback on the idea. Call 423-4646 if you want the list of permit holders published or 423-4793 if you don't want the list published.
I also found the following contact info which I believe is for the parent company which owns a few other publications:

Phone: 1-800-324-0505
Address:
Fort Wayne Newspapers
600 W. Main St.
Fort Wayne, IN 46802

Here is a list of links to contact various members of the staff:

Melody Schmitt-Foreman - Assistant Online Manager

Mary Jacobus - Publisher

Linda Austin - Executive Editor (The author of the above fisked piece where they ask for feedback as to whether they should publish the names or not)

Kerry Hubartt - Senior Editor

Mike Dooley - Metro Writer (who wrote the first piece on publishing the names of permit holders)

Posted 6:51 PM by Publicola

Eugene Volokh has pointed out some factual errors in the State Department's publication entitled Rights of the People: Individual Freedom & The Bill of Rights. As you might have guessed the errors Prof. Volokh discusses occur in the chapter entitled The Right to Bear Arms.

Now to be fair there was a government publication that did a better job of discussing the Second Amendment & the Right to Arms. It was published a while back & is known as The Right to Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate 97th Congress Second Sessions February 1982. Unfortunately no one in government has been able to find & read a copy of it since it was written.

But go read Prof. Volokh's post to see what kind of quality work you can expect for your tax dollars.

Posted 12:05 PM by Publicola

For you legal types out there I have two items of interest. The first is a copy of a search warrant & the second is the SCOTUS decision concerning the legality of said warrant & the accountability of those who served it.

The short story is that SCOTUS decided that the warrant was no good & therefore the search executed was illegal, & further that the agent in charge of the search was not protected by the (overly broad) immunity given to most agents of the government when acting on the government's behalf.

I'd like to do a detailed post on the decision (particularly the dissents) but I'm just not sure if I'll get around to it anytime soon. So in case I don't you have the decision as well as the warrant in question if this type of thing interests you.

I will point out that the warrant was served by a joint force of local & federal agents with the ATF leading the search. Also the search turned up nothing. Seems the "reliable informant" that the ATF got its info from wasn't that reliable after all. Typically the ATF will threaten someone with prosecution over a bogus & trivial matter (then again all federal firearms laws are bogus & trivial) but offer him/her a deal: they'll graciously not prosecute if he/she will just rat out his/her friends "inform" on other gun owners. As you might imagine this can lead to a person making up something about an innocent person to get him/herself off the hook, which I suspect is what happened in this case.

But as I said, I'll try to get around to a more in depth post on this if I can. In the meantime thanks to KABA.com for obtaining the documents & making them linkable.

Posted 10:40 AM by Publicola

As reported over at Say Uncle & at this thread at The High Road a 16 year old kid killed a deputy & after a lengthy stand off killed himself. From what I gather the kid had gotten drunk the night before, & attacked his mother with a pipe when she refused to let him take her car to school. She called the cops & the kid shot the first deputy out of the car 4 times. That deputy died. SWAT teams from a few different counties converged on the house. They exchanged gunfire with the kid & then shot tear gas & sent in robots but had no luck. Turns out the kid was probably dead a few hours after this whole thing started. The kid had a history of mental problems. The kid was also the son of an Assistant District Attorney for the county.

The deputy's death is sad & my condolensces go out to his wife & family.

But there is another troubling aspect to this: most reports I've seen aledge the kid was using an AK-47 with 30 round magazines. Add to that the fact that he was a minor who had access to it & used it to shoot a cop & the anti's have a lot of ammo in one package.

Gun lock laws will be pushed since they'll claim that if the AK-47 in question was locked up then none of this would have happened.

AP ammo bans will be pushed since a cop was killed. Never mind that the cop probably wasn't wearing a vest & even if he was it most likely wasn't rated to stop rifle ammo, or that the bullets that killed him may not have been armor piercing: facts will not get in the way of exploting this to the greatest extent possible.

& of course the "assault weapons" ban will be pushed. At minimum they'll use this case to justify an extension of the current ban, but I wouldn't doubt for a minute that they'll try to strengthen the ban as well, esepcially if the AK-47 in question was a post-ban model.

So out of one tragic event they'll try to get 3 gun control laws passed.

If you go to the Violence Policy Center you can see on their front page that renewing &/or strengthening the "assault weapons" ban is a priority for them. Same with the Brady Campaign to Disarm Potential Victims to Prevent Gun Violence. They haven't picked up on the story about the kid yet (at leats they haven't printed anything about it) but expect to hear about it in depth over the next few months.

The facts are the kid (or anyone else) could have killed the deputy with any repeating weapon: a semi-automatic with a high normal capacity magazine was not a requirement. A pump action, lever action, or even a bolt action could have been used.

& any rifle ammo will penetrate all but the heaviest & bulkiest vest that are designed specifically to protect against rifle fire (& even those won't protect against all rifle fire as rifle ammo can generate tremendous power depending on the catridge used). So unless they think that banning all rifle ammo is acceptable then any type of AP or bullet proof vest pentrating ammo bans would have been ineffectucal.

& if the firearm in question would have been locked up it could have prevented the kid from gaining immediete access to it. However no lock or safe is immune to the efforts of anyone with determination. With the right tools it takes a few minutes to defeat all but the heaviest gun safes. With the wrong tools it takes a minute or two more. Assuming that the response time (from the time the mother called the cops to the time the deputy showed up) was 4 mintes or longer (which 5 to 10 minutes is very reasonable) then the kid could have defeated all but the heaviest of locking measures. So a simple trigger lock or even a wooden gun cabinet that was locked wouldn't have prevented this.

Now there should be some inquiry into the kid having access to any weapons. I presume the AK-47 was his fathers' firearm but it's not for certain that this is the case. If it did belong to his parents then I would question their judgement in allowing access to any weapons to a kid with a history of mental problems. However a mandatory gun lock law is not the right solution.

If a person is of the mind that locking up his arms is the prudent thing to do then a law will not make it any easier for him. Conversely if a person is not of a mind to lock up their arms (even when there is a reasonable justification to do so) then a law will not compel them to act. All you accomplish with gun lock laws is creating a prosecutable offense. It puishes rather than prevents. Also depnding upon the wording it can create liability for those who have done nothign criminal or negligent: it could open up to prosecution a person whose house was broken into & his arms stolen.

Now I have no kids & there are no people in my home who I do not explicitly trust, so as a consequence I don't see the need to lock anything other than my front door. But if a gun lock laws is passed (again, depending on the wording) then if someone breaks into my house when I'm not home & steals any or all of my arms then I could be charged with violating the gun lock law (again, I stress that this scenario is dependent upon the wording).

The other downside is that people who comply with the law will in essence give any criminal intruders a 60 second (minimum) head start. & in at least one case a gun lock law prevented a kid from having access to a weapon that she could have used to prevent her siblings from being killed.

& as I've said gun lock laws only offer prosecution after the fact - unless of course random unannounced inspections are mandated. & I heartily second the statement of Sen. Craig (R-Idaho) on this subject:

"I would hope that Americans would rebel at the possibility of the police entering their home to determine if they were fit to excercise what I believe is a Constitutional right..."

As to banning ammo that will penetrate a bullet proof vest: they'd literally have to ban all but the weakest rifle cartridges that exist. Even muzzle loading firearms can penetrate the majority of bullet proof vests. It's very simple physics: the ability to stop a projectile from penetrating is limited by the strength of the material when pitted against the energy, shape & composition of a projectile.

The vast majority of bullet proof vests are designed to stop handgun cartridges such as the 9x19mm & .38 Special from penetrating. Now if we look at the 10mm (which is more powerful than the two cartrdiges aforementioned) we find that a 150 grain bullet traveling at 1325 feet per second produces about 585 foot-pounds of energy. Now if we assume the vest is designed to stop cartridges with an energy level of around 700 foot-pounds then we can reasonably assume that it will stop a 10mm loaded to the specifications listed above. (well, barring any other factors such as projectile shape &/or bullet alloy that increase its penetrative potential).
However if we look at two rifle cartridges from the late 1800's & one from the 1940's we find that the bullet proof vest is outclassed:

The .30 Carbine that fires a 110 grain bullet at 1990 feet per second generates 967 foot-pounds of energy.
The .32 Winchester Special firing a 170 grain bullet at 2250 feet per second develops 1911 foot-pounds of energy.
The .45-70 cartridge that launches a 300 grain projectile at 1810 feet per second will have 2182 foot-pounds of energy.

The .45-70 was introduced in 1873. That's 13 years prior to the introduction of the first smokeless powder cartridge: the 8mm Lebel. The .32 Winchester Special was introduced in the late 1890's. The .30 Carbine was introduced in 1941 & its intended role was as a substitute for the 1911 pistol.

So a cartridge designed for blackpowder; a cartridge designed very early in the smokeless powder days & a cartridge intended to replace a handgun cartridge all produce energy in excess of what a bullet proof vest (designed for handgun cartridges) can handle.

I will note that other factors aside from kinetic energy come into play: projectile shape & construction will affect the ability of a projectile to pentrate a vest. But this is only relevant when dealing with a projectile with an energy level below what the vest was designed for. Here's a chart of cartridges that the two most popular levels of bullet proof vests are designed to stop.

Also according to my rough estimates the most powerful ammo that a Level IIIA vest will handle is the .44 magnum with a 240 grain bullet at 1400 feet per second which produces around 1,044 foot-pounds of energy. So it's entriely possible that a Level IIIA vest would stop the .30 Carbine cartridge (if projectile shape & construction don't come into play) but it would still be ineffective against the two other rifle rounds that are each over 100 years old.

Now it should be noted that bullet proof vests are rated according to the National Institute of Justice standards which have been called into question in the past. The gist of it is that the NIJ tests were based on faulty science suspect criteria & has led to bulkier vests than necessary to stop pentration of a projectile. This led to the vest being more unconfortable than necessary & thus not worn as often. While the theory about the NIJ standards being less than ideal makes sense to me I admit I am not as knowledgable as I should be to firmly support or refute this theory.

What remains though is that bullet proof vests which are designed to stop rifle cartridges are simply impractical for everyday wear - well, unless you know that everday there's a significant chance that someone will fire a rifle at you. A NIJ rated Level IV vest will in theory stop a single .30-06 cartridge but you're looking at a minimum of 6 pounds per plate. So a front & back plate with the carrier vest will mean your "shirt" now weighs around 14 pounds or so. Not something you'd want to wear 8 hours a day is it?

So again I would submit that the more common bullet proofs vests are simply incapable of stopping 100+ year old black powder rifle cartridges & it is unreasonable to justify an ammo ban of any sort on a vest not stopping a projectile it was never intended to stop.

& just to be clear I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates the deputy who was killed was wearing a bullet proof vest of any sort. But facts haven't stopped gun control advocates yet & i don't expect this to be an exception. At the most you can expect to hear that "even if he was wearing a vest it wouldn't have stopped these dangerous armor piercing rounds". Which to be fair is almost true - if he'd have been wearing a vest rated for handgun rounds as most vests are then it wouldn't have prevented his death. But if he was wearing a vest designed to stop rifle rounds then it would have. They'll rely on the assumption by most people that a bullet proof vest is actually bullet proof under all circumstances - well, except when special "cop killer amror piercing ammo" is used.

But consider this a warning: the gun control advocates will use this tragic event in an effort to justify more gun control laws. It'd behoove us all to learn what actually happened & be prepared to counter the flawed arguments in support of gun control that will come from this.

Posted 7:09 AM by Publicola

No Quarters is a blog run by Gunner. Gunner was a reader here & probably the most frequent commenter we had; then he figured out how easy it was to blog. So I don't think of it as losing a reader (as I hope he still has time to check us out every now & then) but gaining a valuable (& most important) linkable source of info & insights.

That being said he has a post up about Australlians not going far enough in their victim disarmament weapons prohibition efforts.

Give it a read & then check out the rest of his blog as it'll be more than worth your time.

Posted 6:45 AM by Publicola

Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up.

Posted 6:44 AM by Publicola

End The War on Freedom has this post which links to a Vin Suprynowicz article that calls for the repeal of every federal law passed since 1912. He estimates we could cut our prison population by about two thirds which would make more room for violent offenders.

"Was murder illegal by 1912? Of course. Rape? Of course. Kidnapping, armed robbery, bunko fraud? All serious criminal behaviors had been outlawed by 1912. So why have the number of lawbooks on the shelf multiplied tenfold in the past 92 years?
Release everyone jailed on a drug law (unknown before 1916), for income tax evasion (impossible before 1913), for any kind of illegal possession of or commerce in firearms (laws unimagined a century ago), or for violating any kind of regulatory scheme or edict erected since 1912, and the federal prisons would be virtually empty, while even the state pens would probably see their populations cut in half.
Now declare that -- instead of having their guns taken away and being considered for prosecution -- any law-abiding citizen who shoots and kills (or at least permanently cripples) a felon during his commission of a felony will be given a free Browning Automatic Rifle and a $30,000 government reward (the current cost of jailing the culprit for a year while he awaits trial), be declared immune from any civil lawsuit, and will additionally be given a tickertape parade and a medal."

Give it a read.

Posted 9:34 PM by Publicola

Joey B. King has some thoughts on the Free State Project as well as an interesting alternative. Give it a read.

Posted 9:29 PM by Publicola

I have heard some talk of supporting Colin Powell should he venture into the '08 presidential race. Here's a good reason to re-think that:

"Powell next talked positively about arms control in a new Iraq, followed by mention of "rights" and 'liberty.'
'Read what it says about arms not being allowed within the society except under the control of civilian authorities,' he said. 'Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty, and what the new Iraq will look like. ?…"

One sentence talks favorably about the restriction of an inherent, natural Right (the means of self defense) & the very next goes on to speak of liberty & Rights. & the most troubling part is that he probably doesn't realize that his views are self-contradictory.

& the Iraqi Constitution that Powell referred to? Here's what it says about arms in Article 17:

"It shall not be permitted to possess, bear, buy, or sell arms except on licensure issued in accordance with the law."

Hell, that's all Sarah Brady, DiFi, Schumer & Boxer could ever ask for.

But there'ssomeonee else we should give credit for the Iraqi Constitution's views on arms:

"The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority under the leadership of Paul Bremer has had significant input into the drafting of the new law. The preamble mentions the United Nations, saying the Iraqis are 'working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations."

Paul Bremer. The same Paul Bremer who announced the partial civilian arms confiscation program in Iraq just last May. & lest you think he's just the messenger I offer the following from the post I just linked to on the attempts at civilian disarmament in Iraq:

"The new weapons policy appears to be the outcome of a debate among top military officials in Iraq. Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, commander of U.S. and British land forces in Iraq, told reporters two weeks ago that he was skeptical about simply trying to disarm Iraqi civilians.
'For one thing, I don't think it would be enforceable,' McKiernan said at the time.
But Bremer, keenly aware that his political priority in Iraq is to restore law and order, strongly suggested that he wanted to prohibit most weapons in civilian hands." (emphasis mine)

The bright side is that this Constitution is temporary. A new one is supposed to be in the works as we speak & will replace this interim one when Iraq is ready to govern itself.

Of course there's no guarantee that Bremer, Powell &/or other gun control advocates won't influence the next constitution as well. I'm reminded of one of the most puzzling things I learned in my youth: Gen. Douglas MacArthur wrote Japan's Constitution in 1945. In it he included almost all of the U.S. Constitution's Bill or Rights. Can you guess which amendment he left out? Now you'd think that as a military man with hisexperiencee he'd be in favor of an armed citizenry. If everyFilipinoo had a rifle, ammo & some training in 1942 MacArthur probably wouldn't have had to take his unwanted detour inAustraliaa. But perhaps he feared a covert re-militarization of Japan. Maybe he just thought how badly it could go for him as an occupier if all the citizens had arms & decided they didn't like his presence there. Perhaps he had a fear that another Bonus Army scenario would happen but this time with deliberate & effective resistance to his troops. (in 1932 Gen. MacArthur & his aides Maj. Eisenhower & Maj. Patton were ordered to break up a group of WW1 veterans that were protesting in D.C. Their orders were to clear an area of the veterans as the protests were turning violent. MacArthur one upped his superiors & not only forced the veterans to move to their make-shift camp across the Anacostia River & burned them out. This played no small part in getting that socialist bastard FDR elected. For more look here, & here as well as here.)

But at least our government is consistent: they try to ignore the 2nd amendment here as well as abroad.

Posted 4:34 PM by Nicki

Australia: SWORDS TO BECOME PROHIBITED WEAPONS

And just when you thought things couldn't get any more absurd down under, the Australian government presents.....

SWORD CONTROL!

Yes, folks! Not satisfied with their ban on virtually every gun...

...thinking that having jack booted thuggies knocking on gun owners' doors to check if their firearms are stored properly is just not enough to keep the kiddies in Australia safe, dependent on government and virtually catatonic...

...the petty insane tyrants have decided that swords are a no-no!

All for the children, of course.

I'm thinking maybe the next step is to ban knives, scissors, nail files, razors and some keys that are just too sharp. After all, food can be pre-cut before sale, also creating the favorable side effect of manufacturing low-paying, taxpayer-footed jobs for those who are too stupid to get a job scraping up road kill from the nation's highways. After all, who wouldn't want an exciting career as a food pre-cutter, right? Body hair can remain long. Who cares if the entire population of Australia begins to look like Cousin It? It's for the children, after all! And people don't need keys anyway. They can just leave their homes unlocked to make it easier for the burglars to make a living. Nails can be bitten off - chewed to the quick. Oooh - wait a minute. Can't have that. Better ban teeth while you're at it. Who cares if a few thousand dentists are out of a job! They can obtain gainful employment as food pre-cutters.

Absurd? Perhaps. But not any more absurd than this sword ban.

Posted 3:48 PM by Nicki

UK: MP faces calls to resign over gun speech

Can the Brits get anymore charmingly stalinist?

After one of their conservative government officials had the brass hemorrhoids to speak the truth about the ineffectiveness and downright absurdity of their gun ban, the sheeple, hanky-wringing mommies and idiot bureaucrats are now calling for his resignation.

For the record, here's what Patrick Mercer said:

"It is clearly highly undesirable that people get killed on the roads by motor cars. But we don't ban motor cars. People need to learn how to drive a motor car safely and have respect for it."

Mercer also stated that instead of teaching children to be afraid of guns and banning them, the British should be teaching kids to have a respect for firearms and giving them the knowledge of how to use them safely.

He described the ban on handguns in the wake of the 1996 Dunblane massacre as "nonsense" and "a kneejerk reaction."

Well.................... That just set off the British panty-wetters in an uproar! The British equivalent of the "Thousand or so posing as million Moron Mommies" - something called "Mothers Against Murder and Agression" - called Mr. Mercer's comments "crass" and "appalling." As if giving children the knowledge about how to properly use the most effective tool of self defense on the market was an insult. As if teaching personal responsibility rather than using government force to impose ignorance is horrifying.

So in response to the few vocal sheeple who got their panties in a wad because of his comments, Patrick Mercer backpedaled faster than a circus clown on a unicycle.

"Mr Mercer responded to criticism yesterday by saying that his comments had been taken out of context. The politician claimed he had said that only children in rural communities should be taught how to use 'non-lethal' weapons such as air rifles as a prelude to using shotguns in later life.

He said: 'I made no mention of children being taught to use handguns. The only thing I said was that in rural areas it made sense for things like airguns and BB guns to be handled by children so that in later life, when they have access to shotguns, they knew how to handle them safely and with respect.' "

It's so sad to see how far the British have slid into the mire of ignorance, cowardice and general lack of decency. Their insistence on closing their eyes to the blood running in the streets caused by their government's unilateral victim disarmament and insistence on further pushing government dependence despite their government's very pronounced failure to protect the citizenry just stresses how absolutely crucial our battle for our rights is.

Lest we wind up like the Brits, cowering, wallowing in our own pathetic inadequacy and impotence and relying upon government bureaucrats and their armed thug agents for our very lives.

Posted 10:21 AM by Nicki

The NRA's management made the 1994 AW ban possible

Well, the NRA apologists can spin this all they want. They can claim that the NRA is the biggest dog in the fight. They can attack the writer, KeepAndBearArms.com Executive Director Angel Shamaya, as being divisive, which they most likely will. But they cannot dodge the truth. The truth is that either through incompetence or deception, the NRA allowed the 1994 AW ban to pass. And they almost did it again this year with last week's S.1805 fiasco.

According to three U.S. Senate staffers — who worked on The Hill during the original 1993/94 semi-auto rifle and magazine ban and still work as Senate staffers today — in November of 1993 the NRA asked their bosses not to object to a unanimous consent agreement on the crime bill. (The unanimous consent agreement happened on November 19, 1993. The bill had had the Feinstein semi-auto ban amendment attached to it two days earlier, by a vote of 56 to 43.) No objection meant that no filibuster would be possible. An objection to the unanimous consent agreement would have delayed the crime bill at least through the holidays and into the next year, giving the grassroots critical time to mobilize against the bill.

According to these Senate staffers, the NRA explained that they did not mind the gun ban passing the Senate and going to a conference committee — where NRA officials felt the gun ban could be killed. (Of course, this strategy failed.) NRA officials' strategy was to keep the legislative process moving so they could get to the Brady Bill and make sure the instant background check was nailed down in it.

The House Committee assigned to “clean” the bill had an NRA Director on it back then — and it clearly did not get “cleaned” of the gun ban. In fact, when the bill left that committee, that same NRA Director even voted for the final passage of the gun ban, too.

Fact is the NRA's strategy of "pass the bill, and clean it up in committee" didn't work with the 1994 AW ban, but some, like Neal Knox, promoted this strategy almost to the very end, despite it being a historically BAD strategy.

Fact is that the NRA does give good grades to those who support gun control, and even supports them many times over more pro-freedom candidates.

Fact is, that despite NRA attorney Stephen Halbrook's protestations to the contrary, he did proudly voice his support for the registration of handgun owners in DC during the Seegars battle. And while Mr. Halbrook may claim that this is a necessary step in his gradualist model of regaining our rights, I vehemently disagree with this particular aspect of his strategy. And while Mr. Halbrook compared his strategy to the NAACP's gradual approach to the fight for equal rights for African Americans, I do point out AGAIN, that at no time in their gradual fight did the NAACP admit that any portion of the onerous laws that kept blacks inferior for so long were desirable or acceptable.

And fact is that while Larry Craig did a superb job fighting for S.1805 in the Senate last week, he came to the floor prepared to make concessions, having already developed a way to demonize one type of ammunition over others, and voted to create an elite class of citizens, whose only qualification for legally carrying a concealed weapon nationwide would have been a badge.

Those facts are unfortunate, but they are irrefutable. The NRA's allowing the unanimous consent agreement, so they could ensure background checks for Americans wishing to make a constitutionally protected purchase led to the passage of the Clinton AW ban. Their strategy of allowing a committee to clean up the bill cost us our freedoms then, and history almost repeated itself last week.

Posted 8:49 PM by Publicola

If you're in Colorado or willing to travel you might want to make sure you have May 14th, 15th & 16th free. That's when the Rocky Mountain Fifty Caliber Shooters Association is holding their machine gun shoot. It'll take place in Cheyenee Wells, Colorado which is about 185 miles east of Denver.

Now the cool thing is you not only get to watch other people sending vast amounts of lead & copper downrange, but most people on the firing line will let you shoot their firearms for a small price. This may not be exact but you're looking at $10 for 30 rounds of a 9mm subgun, $5 for 3 rounds of .50 BMG (either through a rifle or a Browning M2) & if I recall the 20mm (Soluthurn or Lahti) was around $5 per round. Thye also have mortars that shoot bowling balls, a musket that shoots bowling pins (as in the bowling pin is the projectile - not the target) & last year a fellow brought out his 25mm & 37.5mm (the show off - wonder how much factory ammo costs for him?).

Plus military vehicles & people dressed up in varous period uniforms.

Did I mention the reactionary targets (dynamite, propane cylinders & a gas filled wrecked car) & the Saturday night tracer shoot (imagine a horizontal 4th of July)?

If you need more encouragement click here for pics from previous shoots.

& holler at me if you plan on attending.

Posted 8:33 PM by Publicola

Robert of Backroad Blog finally gets around to answering my five questions.

Go read & learn a little bit more about Robert.

Posted 8:30 PM by Publicola

Alphecca's Weekly Check on the Bias is up.It's the
Postmortem Edition. Go read.

Posted 10:12 PM by Publicola

A Nazi - a friggin' Nazi - is serving a life sentence because he killed a few hundred civilians & some Italians are protesting it.

"To his supporters, Erich Priebke is an old man who paid for his mistakes and should be pardoned. To his foes, the 90-year-old convicted Nazi war criminal, who is serving a life sentence under house arrest, should never be free again."

House arrest???? The bastard should be serving his sentence under a house not in one.

"Priebke, a former SS captain, was convicted in 1997 for a wartime massacre in which 335 civilians were killed. He says he was only following orders.
'This execution was a tragedy for us,' Priebke said in an interview published Thursday in the right-wing daily Il Giornale. 'I don't feel the responsibility to repent for something I didn't want to do. I was against it. I had to obey like every soldier must do."

I bet the execution was a tragedy for the civilian victims & their families. & didn't anyone clue him in that the "just following orders" excuse was ruled bullshit a long time ago?

"Priebke's supporters insist the German national should be pardoned because of his age and because his crimes date to 60 years ago. They say his human rights are being violated. "

They want to pardon a convicted mass murderer. A convicted Nazi mass murderer. A convicted Nazi SS Captain who admits to mass murder. His age? Have they thought of how old any of hsi victims would be? They claim his human rights are being violated. These people would see someone swing for carrying an unregistaered pistol yet they're worried about a convicted Nazi/mass murderer's human rights being encroached because he's living under house arrest?

"Priebke's detention is against the Italian constitution and all principles of civilization,' Giachini said in an interview Thursday, referring to a constitutional provision saying penalties cannot be contrary to a sense of humanity."

Well if the first part of the sentence is true then it's bloody friggin' obvious that they need a new constitution in Italy & we need new principles of civilization. But didn't it strike anyone of these Nazi defenders that a murderer under house arrest for life only offends a sense of humanity because it implies he's still comfortable & alive?

"The March 24, 1944, massacre was ordered in retaliation for a bomb attack by Italian resistance fighters that killed 33 German soldiers. The victims, who included old men, young boys, Jews and Roman Catholic priests, were led one-by-one into the Ardeatine Caves outside Rome and shot to death.
Priebke has admitted to shooting two people and helping round up the victims. He has said he would have faced a firing squad had he refused."

He should face a firing squad for his compliance with an order to murder civilians. & since he pbviously has no problem killing old men then he shouldn't have any objections when they blindfold him.

this bastard lived in Argentina until he was extradicted in 1994. That's 50 years longer than any of the old men & boys he killed lived.

Now I might feel a little different about all this if there was some question as to his guilt: if there wasn't a positive I.D. of him or if he swore he was innocent - but the friggin' bastard admits to commanding the troops that did it as well as pulling the trigger twice himself! He's trying to claim that he was juts following orders & therefore isn't responsible for his crimes.

I can understand how he thought that would work - cops here do all sorts of unconstituional & vile things because they follow orders. So it's natural that in a country such as Italy he thought correctly that it would work.

Which is why we must nip this in the bud. Any & all Italians who happen to read this could do us all a big favor: get the death penalty re-instated in Italy, review his sentence & have this bastard shot. Have him shot in the arms & legs a few times before you gut shoot him & leave him to die. & then soundly bitch-slap all those who protested his inhumane treatment under house arrest. Take them to the victims' graves & then to their surviing relatives. & after hearing stories from eyewitnesses about what the bastard did then have them try to reason with them & convince them why the bastard should be freed from the inhumane treatment of house arrest. Then let the victims' relatives bitch-slap them.

Hopefully Kim du Toit will be back soon as he's much better at these kinds of rants than I am. Then again he is in Germany. Maybe he could make a day trip & straighten these misguided Italians out. Besides, that give our Ambassodor to Italy something to do for the next few weeks. Well, after the U.S. Marines save Italy from Kim.

Posted 6:30 AM by Publicola

KABA.com has outdone itself. They've done some digging, found & posted the testimony from the president of the NRA during the debates over the National Firearms Act of 1934.

I'll give you this question & answer to whet your appetite:

"The following question was asked by Congressman CLEMENT C. DICKINSON, Missouri, of the Committee on Ways and Means:

'Mr. DICKINSON. I will ask you whether or not this bill interferes in any way with the right of a person to keep and bear arms or his right to be secure in his person against unreasonable search; in other words, do you believe this bill is unconstitutional or that it violates any constitutional provision?'

...'Mr. FREDERICK. I have not given it any study from that point of view. I will be glad to submit in writing my views on that subject, but I do think it is a subject which deserves serious thought."

Read the whole thing. & please keep in mind the NFA of '34 originally included pistols but they were excluded from the final draft of the bill as there was concern that the people may not particularly stand for it.

Posted 6:11 PM by Publicola

Damn. Helluva week wasn't it?

I'll have more in a day or two but just wanted to jot down a few thoughts in no particular order:

The NRA actually did the right thing. Of course they waited till right before the vote to make up their mind to do the right thing, & odds are that they acted out of self preservation as many people would have left them in a heartbeat if their gamble had backfired. But still they did the right thing in the end.

Something screwy was going on. There were enough votes in the Senate to pass the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. A filibuster might have been attempted but then again considering how many voted for cloture it's not certain it would have succeeded. So what do they do? They get the motion for cloture passed & then announce a deal at 11 p.m. EST that instead of 30 hours with limited amendments & Frist being able to shoot down an amendment all by his lonesome, they're gonna chat about things for 4 days & allow damn near any & all amendments to be proposed. WTF?!?!?!? I don't know who's coming up with the strategies for our side, but I'd love to play some poker with them.

It may not be over. DiFi wants the AWB extended & expanded. She thinks (& she's probably right) that she has enough votes in the Senate to pass it & it very well could pass the House. Bush hasn't vetoed anything yet & I doubt he'd veto something he promised to sign. So don't be surprised if DiFi soemhow gets the AWB on the table again. I doubt it would be on its own as offering it to a bill that everyone wants would be the way to do it, but then again proposing it by itself might happen. Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade but unless I'm missing something in the Senate rules we have to accept that it's possible it'll be voted on again.

The AWBextension didn't pass. I've heard Senators, gun control advocates & even a news story on some AM radio station say that it passed (actually the AM radio station was real screwed up - it claimed the AWB extension was passed as in it was now law & the AWB itself wasn't going to sunset in September). What passed was the AWB extension being added onto a bill that was yet to be voted on. Not that we shouldn't punish those who voted to add it on at the polls this &/or any November or that it doesn't have support in the Senate, but adding something onto a bill you want to see voted down is not the same thing as passing a bill outright.

Y'all made a difference. You called your senators & you called the NRA. It got the NRA to address accusations of treachery for the first time ever & it pressured them into doing the right thing. With the Senators we may or may not have been as influential as some were lost causes. But we let them know that we were not only watching, but we were reacting.

Blogs, internet message borads, Forums, non-mainstream news sites & C-Span2's streaming feed = a whole new world.

10 years ago we wouldn't have known what was going on unless we were in DC watching the Senate in person or had a friend who was a lobbyist &/or Senator. Now we can cuss the bastards out in real time & call "bullshit" as they lie - not merely afterwards. whent hey figure this out I'm sure they'll try to figure out a way to shut us down: politicians don't like being watched in action. But for now we have the most useful tool weapon that we've ever had that doesn't spit lead: connectibility. we can watch what's being said & done while looking up the Senate rules ot make sure it's legal & then e-mail each other & post on Forums & Message Boards to let eveyone know something's wrong (or right).

10 years ago you needed a full time lobbyist to know what was going on & why. Now a lobbyist is still a good asset to have, but a lot of the info we'd have been missing is now right here on our screens.

Schumer is an irreversible ass.

So what will happen? Who knows? But it's much easier to keep track of things & much, much easier to organize & carry out actions that could sway things.

Go read SayUncle & GeekWithA.45. The Countertop Chronicles & Triggerfinger have some interesting stuff as well. KABA.com was & is an irreplaceble source of news. The High Road had play by play posts & really helped spread the word. Alphecca was doing his best a susual making sure we knew not to trust everything we read in the papers, as well as spreading the idea that action beats inaction everytime. & for their (& many others') efforts to keep us all informed hit their tip jars &/or wish lists. If they don't have them, write them & tell them to get one or the other if not both.

I'll have more in the next few days. Right now I need to catch up (& clean up) with the mess I left untended while I was watching what was going on in the Senate.

Posted 2:41 PM by Nicki

It looks like S.1805 is dead. R.I.P.

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to kill it. I'm assuming most supporters voted it down because it was laden down with too much gun control. Most gun banners simply wanted it to go away, but saw its popularity a convenient way to force yet more unconstitutional gun control down our collective gullets.

Posted 12:25 PM by Publicola

I'm in a rush so forgive the brevity...


This bill has an extension of the assault weapons ban & the McCain-Reed gun show amendments attached to it. Cleaning it up in ther House is too risky & there's not anything solid that would guarantee we can kill it in the House. we have to stop it in the Senate.

Do not believe that it can be worked out later on. Stripping amendemnts in the Hous eis a very tricky process & our support in the House is not nearly as solid as the NRA would have you believe.

Call your Senators - call not e-mail - & let them know you want this damned thing killed. Ask them to withdraw it from the table if that's still possible or to vote against it.

800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121. That'll put you in touch with the Senate - just ask for your Senator. Go here if you need to find out who they are.

Again it is imperative that we stop this bill from passing the Senate. Call your Senators now!

Posted 11:45 AM by Nicki

Gun Ban Amendment Passes in U.S. Senate

And here you have a list of the Senators who voted in favor of including the so-called "assault" weapons ban along with S.1805.

Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Nay
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Miller (D-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Nay Dayton (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay Talent (R-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Nay Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Dole (R-NC), Nay Edwards (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Nay Hollings (D-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Frist (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Nay Thomas (R-WY), Nay

Posted 11:36 AM by Nicki

More details on the McCain Anti-Gunshow Amendment

Here's a list of how your Senators voted. I, personally, have contacted George Allen and thanked him for listening to gun owners' voices. My next call will be to John Warner telling him I'm making it my personal mission in life to see his old, shrivelled rear end defeated in the next election and sent home humiliated.

Grouped by Home State
Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea
California: Boxer (D-CA), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Graham (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Miller (D-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Breaux (D-LA), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Nay Dayton (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay Talent (R-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Burns (R-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Corzine (D-NJ), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Yea Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Dole (R-NC), Nay Edwards (D-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Ohio: DeWine (R-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Inhofe (R-OK), Nay Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Santorum (R-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Nay
Rhode Island: Chafee (R-RI), Yea Reed (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: Graham (R-SC), Nay Hollings (D-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Daschle (D-SD), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Frist (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Jeffords (I-VT), Yea Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Virginia: Allen (R-VA), Nay Warner (R-VA), Yea
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Nay Thomas (R-WY), Nay

Posted 10:33 AM by Nicki

ANOTHER UPDATE

Looks like our pals in the Senate also voted in favor of attaching John McCain's gunshow "loophole" amendment to S.1805 as well. Final vote 53-46. This cow of a bill is now so laden with anti-Second Amendment garbage, that it's absurd to even think about passing it through the Senate in hopes of it being reconciled later. Again, this is the time to call your Senators and urge them to kill this bill. Sending this legislation and depending on it being "cleaned up" is sending the wrong message that gun control is in any form an acceptable compromise!

Again, start calling and writing now!

Posted 10:18 AM by Nicki

Well, it's official, boys and girls. The AW ban renewal is part of the NRA bill that would provide some protection from frivolous lawsuits to the gun industry. The vote in favor of attaching this onerous legislation was 52-47. Now is the time to call and urge the Senate to kill S.1805. We must not rely on the House to clean it up, as some have urged. No amount of frivolous lawsuit protection is worth the renewal of an unconstitutional gun ban.

Start calling and writing now!

Posted 6:36 AM by Publicola

things should start in the Senate at around 9:30 a.m. EST. Go to the Geek & Uncle for updates.

& be prepared to change the message to your senators to "vote against the bill" should the "assault weapons" ban or gun show amendments be added on. If either of those gun control laws are succefully added to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act we won't have long to call & try to sawy Senators to kill it in the Senate, so have ye olde speed dial ready.

But watch the Geek & Uncle as they'll let you know what's happening.

Posted 10:15 PM by Publicola

There have been many many arguments over the past week. Most of which were betwixt gun owners about what startegy is best & who is working in our interests.

Later on this week we'll know more & be able to hash things out again. There'll be plenty of time for the squabbling that is so unfortunately neccesary.

Right now we don't have time for that. The Senate will vote tomorrow morning on amendments to the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Those amendments will include an extension of the "assault weapons" ban & a bill that will negatively affect gun shows. There may be more. I wouldn't be surprised if another amendment was proposed that could arguably do more damage to the Right to Arms than the two previously mentioned.

It is not certain that all the amendments will be attached but it is likely that at least one of them will be. Then comes the vote on the entire package - the Lawful Protection in Arms Act as amended.

Some of y'all have been here before & have a pretty good idea about my views. & Some will agree with me, others won't. That's part of life. Disagreements happen even between the closest of friends.

All the info that's available on the issue has been laid out for your dissemination between here, GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle. Between the three of us I doubt there's much we missed.

Now some of you may believe that an amended bill can be cleaned up in the House. I don't & I think I've made the case that our support in the House is not nearly as strong as some would like to believe.

The only chance we have is to stop these gun control amendments from being added in the Senate & barring that to kill the entire legislative package in the Senate. If it goes to the House with gun control on it then we will lose.

So I ask that you call your Senators & deliver a very simple message:

I want a clean bill or no bill from the Senate. If any gun control laws are passed I'll withdraw my support for you & your party. I will not accept excuses, even that you voted against them. If you & your party want my vote in November of '04, '06 or '08 then you'll chat with your fellow Senators & convince them to not pass any gun control laws. If you vote for gun control you'll lose my support, but if any gun control laws are passed you & your entire party will lose my support no matter how you vote.

Make this known to your Senators. You can reach them at (800) 648-3516 or (202) 224-3121.


As well as to VP Dick Cheney
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
(202) 456-9000

& make sure the NRA knows you don't want them taking any risks. Tell them if any gun control laws are passed you're dropping your membership &/or support of them & their state affiliates.

Now if you wish to sit around & tell yourself that the NRA knows what it's doing (that the Senate will do the right thing & if not then the House will sort it out) then fine. I cannot convince you if I haven't already.

But if you'd at least want to attempt to do something to protect your Right to Arms then call & tell them what you want & what you will & will not accept.

The choice is yours. But if in October I still cannot buy brand new factory fresh 11 round magazines or a folding stock for a Ruger 10/22 then don't you dare come bitchin' to me when someone wants to ban your wabbit gun.

Posted 7:13 PM by Publicola

I just saw this from RMGO & thought I would pass it on. I'll paste it below in it's entirety.


"Rocky Mountain Gun Owners

Oppose Gun Control -- Kill S.1805

March 1, 2004, 1700 hrs Mountain - Please read the following communication and then call your US Senators.

Senator Wayne Allard can be reached at (202) 224-5941.

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell can be reached at (202) 224-5852.

Also call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment), and, according to former NRA muckety muck Neal Knox, "Let me assure you: S. 1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any more gun control on it. Tell them to STOP approving anti-gun amendments like Kohl's gun lock-up law.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More and more it's looking like S.1805 is a turkey that can't be saved.

We are already facing the ridiculous reality that the "gun liability" bill, which was supposed to PROTECT dealers and manufacturers from baseless lawsuits, now has a brand new liability built into it; penalties if handguns are not provided with gun locks.

As you know, we have fought and defeated similar proposals that would require that you render your guns useless, here in Colorado.

Though we've defeated this kind of law in the Colorado legislature, we are having this irrational requirement shoved down our throats by the Feds. What's worse, it seems like the NRA has bought off on this crackpot scheme.

In an alert dated Feb 27 '04 the NRA describes the Kohl amendment which mandates this new intrusion into your rights this way:

"The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners."

But that "protection" is only for people who lock up their guns and render them useless!

If you read the amendment, it only provides liability protection IF YOU LOCK UP YOUR GUNS. In other words, the NRA is buying into the argument of the gun-grabbers -- that locking up your gun makes you safer.

According to Professor John Lott (in "More Guns, Less Crime", page 199):

"Safe storage rules also seem to cause some real problems. Passage of these laws is significantly related to almost 9 percent more rapes and robberies and 5.6 percent more burglaries. In terms of total crime in 1996, the presence of the law in just these fifteen states was associated with 3,600 more rapes, 22,500 more robberies, and 64,000 more burglaries."

Page 201 of the same book says "We find no support for the theory that safe storage laws reduce either juvenile accidental gun deaths or suicides. Instead, these storage requirements appear to impair people's ability to use guns defensively."

As more people are forced to get these "locking devices" the anti-gun politicians will take the next step: a law making you use them to lock up your guns or else you'll be a criminal. Then they can arrest you and confiscate your guns, which is what they wanted all along.

Later in the NRA-ILA alert they state :

"The Senate then debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S.1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) was defeated, 56-40. A so-called "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments."

Why then, we must wonder, didn't the NRA oppose the horrible Kohl amendment? Is it because the two amendments "seeking to gut S.1805" were defeated and the Kohl amendment, which they don't even criticize, passed? Is this the strategy of the NRA, to claim, after the fact, opposition to bad amendments that fail, while giving tacit approval to bad amendments that pass?

Many of you have no doubt seen the internet traffic where some have accused the NRA of having cut a deal going into this bill. You may have also seen the strongly worded denials from NRA. But now we must say our concern is greater than ever. If there is no deal, as NRA has repeatedly stated, why the approval of Kohl's gun lock-up amendment? What are they willing to compromise next?

In the NRA alert described above, the NRA states :

> "NRA-ILA stands committed to enacting into law, a "clean" (without any
> anti-gun amendments) S. 1805. And, as we have from Day One, we will
> continue to vigorously oppose any anti-gun amendments to S. 1805,
> specifically, reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban in any way,
> shape, or form, and imposing restrictions on gun shows."

But the bill ALREADY HAS AN ANTI-GUN AMENDMENT AND THE NRA HAS NOT OPPOSED IT!!!

Already today (Monday, March 1) an amendment to reauthorize the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban was made (and will be voted upon on Tuesday). Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell voted for that inital ban. We also know that NRA endorsed- and- supported George Bush has promised he would sign a renewal of the semi-auto ban. Yet not one word has been written by NRA distancing themselves from Campbell and in same alert referenced above they state:

> Using the bully pulpit of the White House, President Bush offered the
> following statement highlighting his support for the lawsuit bill
> without
> any anti-gun amendments: "The Administration strongly supports Senate
> passage of S. 1805. The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean
> bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any
> amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is
> unacceptable.

But Bush NEVER says he won't sign it. Why would a new semi-auto ban "delay enactment" if he's already promised to sign it?

As NRA muckety muck Neal Knox wrote, "Let me assure you: S.1805 WILL CONTAIN A LOT MORE GUN CONTROL."

Much has been made of the promise that this bill will be "fixed" when it goes back to a conference committee with the House. That is pure speculation and wishful thinking. We were made similar promises about other bills like "campaign finance reform" and now we face penalties if we dare discuss candidates in the months before an election!

Please call:

Senator Wayne Allard (202) 224-5941

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (202) 224-5852

Also please call the NRA -- tell them that S.1805 already has gun control attached to it (the Kohl Trigger Locks amendment) and urge them to kill S.1805 in the Senate.

NRA insiders are now privately whispering that NRA leadership is nervous, and the grumblings are that this bill is out of control and growing its own legs.

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

Urge the NRA to pull the plug and kill S.1805 in the Senate, before it has any MORE gun control on it.

The standard (public) NRA response is that they're working hard to pass a clean bill. Tell the NRA that the bill is already dirty, and needs to be defeated NOW -- before it gets even worse."

Posted 5:59 PM by Publicola

okay - nothing passed today but tomorrow is the big one.

The "assault weapons" ban renewal & the McCain-Reed gunshow bill will be voted on.

This is bad. If they would have been voted on today then there would have been enough time to get people to call their Senators & demand that they kill the bill. Now if the AWB or the gunshow amendment (or both) get tacked on then will have an hour or so (maybe less) to let our Senators know we don't want the bill to pass.

From what I read & saw (I caught the last hour or so of it on C-Span2) it was the same ol' same ol' - anti-gun Senators lying their asses off (& that was quite a feat considering the last time some of them saw a treadmill was in a bad dream) & urging other Senators to vote for the AWB & gunshow amendments. Kerry & Edwards will both make a special guets appearance in the Senate to add their votes for the AWB & any other anti-gun BS that gets voted on. & there was much talk urging Bush to stand by his campaign promise fo supporting the AWB & more urging of Cheney to be on hand in case there's a tie. (Yes - it's that close)

Craig would step up every now & then & call them liars without using the word "liar", correct some of their "facts", reiterate on the Right to Arms & then let them have at it again.

Folks, the anti's think it'll be a close vote. I think they're right, but whereas they're thinking they're one or two votes shy I'm thinking that a few will defect from our side & send them over the top. My own Sen. Campbell is a likely candidate for this & I must apologize in advance because if he does then it's my fault for not having a long chat with him when I moved into his state.

There's been a lot of talk about cleaning the bill up in the House or killing it in the House. That's like trying to rescue the hostage after the bad guys have got in the getaway car - sure it's possible but hell anything's possible. It's not probable & it damn sure ain't preferable.

There's also been talk that the Lawful Commerce in Firearms act is the "killer bill" that gun control folks won't vote for. That's incorrect. I don't know any anti-gunner alive who wouldn't trade protection for gun makers in the courts for a renewal of an actual gun ban &/or a prohibition concerning gun shows. Either one is much higher up in the deck than being able to sue the gun makers. & hell, they might have figured a way around its language that'll allow most of the lawsuits to proceed anyway. Judges have been misinterpreting the constitution for how long now? Think they'll all of a sudden become stand up guys because of a mere law?

So i'm not ready to urge it's killing just yet. I'm not happy about the gun lock thing but if we could slip in a pro-gun amendment - like a repeal of the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '84 - then I could live with it. But let me be clear: the second (& I mean the very second) that an AWB renewal or the gunshow amendment get added on then Cmapbell & Allard will get a phone call from me demanding that they vote against the entire bill. The AWB &/or the gun show amendment are too high a price to pay for legislative protection from erroneous tort actions.

Anyway, go read Geek & Uncle if you haven't already.

Also Alphecca has his weekly check on the bias up. I was shocked at the way they treated the gun stories this week, what with the Senate debates & all,

Countertop Chronicles has also been keeping up with the Senate - go give him a read.

Triggerfinger is another place y'all should check out.

& call your Senators if you haven't already. New or renewed gun control laws = withdrawal of votes & support for them & their party. No excuses!

Posted 4:45 PM by Publicola

I'm just getting in & I'm not caught up. Just had to mention that Schumer is a lying bastard.

More in a bit.

Posted 6:42 AM by Publicola

As per usual I'll pass thing off to SayUncle & GeekWithA.45 until later this afternoon. Go check them out for coverage of the Senate today.

Posted 6:40 AM by Publicola

Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com has a few questions for the NRA.

Go read.

Posted 9:03 PM by Publicola

It's not as cool as the TFP* kit, but at least they have the right idea.

Nicki Fellenzer writes about the plan hatched over at The High Road to mail gun locks (minus the keys & combinations of course) to Sen. Boxer.

Gotta love the internet.




* Tar, Feathers & Politicians kit - some assembly required.

Posted 8:11 PM by Publicola

In Colorado the heads of law enforcement in 7 respective cities have urged Sen. Campbell & Sen. Allard to vote for extending the "assault weapons" ban & to place federal restrictions on gun shows.

"In a recent letter, the chiefs of police in Louisville, Gunnison, Sheridan, Arvada, Colorado Springs and Denver, and the Boulder County sheriff urge Republican Sens. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Wayne Allard to vote for the measures."

Bastards. Make sure to let them know how you feel about their disrespect for your Rights.

Now I could be mistaken but I thought I saw where Sen. Campbell was planning to propose a natiowide cops only CCW amendment. If so that would seem to indicate that law enforcement groups have some influence with Sen. Campbell which means it's very important to let him know how we feel.

Sen. Campbell is up for re-election this year. Call his office & let him know that if any gun control is passed into law that he not only lost your vote in his race, but your vote for his party. & don't neglect Sen. Allard; in fact don'
t neglect any of your Senators. They need all the guidance they can get.

Oh, lest I forget Amercians for Gun Safety is behind this particular push.

"Our nation's top law enforcement officers know better than anyone the importance of passing these bipartisan gun safety bills,' said Jon Cowan, president of Americans for Gun Safety, a group that says it supports gun-ownership for law-abiding citizens and tougher laws aimed at the use of guns in crimes.
'Keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals has helped to ensure that our nation's law enforcement officers are not outgunned on our streets,' he said. 'Likewise, closing the gun show loophole is one of the most important steps Congress can take to stop the illegal trafficking of firearms."

Bastards. (Yes - I'll be using that word a lot over the next few days) Lying bastards. (that phrase too) But let any doubts be removed from your mind that Americans for Gun Safety is anything other than a gun control group who tries to fool the unknowing.

Posted 7:57 PM by Publicola

Here's a list of Senators that are up for re-election this year. Make sure they know that your support for them & their party depends on no gun control laws being passed.

Here's GOA's legislative Action page. Use it to find & contact your Senator.

Posted 4:23 PM by Publicola

Pejmanesque has a very relvant question that we all should ponder:

"What good is a Republican Senate on Second Amendment and gun use issues if it keeps falling for the peddled myths of the gun control movement?"

Now Pejman confuses the issue of "smart guns" & safety locks a bit, but I don't think so much that it invalidates any points being made.

It's my opinion that if the safety lock amendment gets passed into law then it will take us one step closer to a "msart gun" law on the national level. The idea is that once Congress extablishes the authority to regulate something it won't stop at the initial thing. So this year it might be safety locks required with the purchase of a handgun. Next year when the accidental death rate of children under 12 doesn't shrink considerably they'll extend it to long guns, then when that fails to produce results they'll have some precedent to justify their intent of requiring "smart gun" techinology in all new firearms.

Now the reason the accidental death rate won't be affected by any of these measures is that trigger locks are currently available relatively cheap in all gun stores. Any place you buy a firearm will have a gun lock that will work on it. But possessing a lock does not mean that it will be used. & a lot of times a lock isn't necessary.

The only thing that will reduce the accidental death rate in children (from the 80 or so a year it is now) is education. The Eddie Eagle program from the NRA is a good start, but the best solution is to have the parents teach their children (starting at a very young age - like 4 or 5) about the dangers of careless gun handling. For the kids under 14 or so make it clear that they're never to touch a firearm without an adult present, & most importantly have an adult preent every so often who will watch & instruct the child as he/she handls the weapon.

Most accidental shootings are simply the result of ignorance on the part of the kid as to how the firearm works. whether the kid just wants to examine the gun & inadvertently pulls the trigger or if the kid is playing with the gun & pulls the trigger the motivation is usually the same: curiousity.

Kids love seeing how machines work. They like learning how to operate a toll that seems complex & myusterious & this curiousity is increased dramatically when the kid is denied even supervised access to said tool.

think about it - most homes in America have an assortment of knives & other cutting implements. They're not locked up & the kid frequently knows exactly where they are. But the kid is not completely denied access to them & at some point the parent even teaches the kid how to use it & the dangers of its misuse.

If parents would take the same steps with firearms as they do with knives then we could probably cut the accidental death rate in half. But as long as "gun" is a dirty word & kids are forbidden from learning about them then simple curiousity combined with ignorance is going to result in accidental shootings.

Now I'm not a proponent of government schools. I feel it'd be in everyone's best interest if we privatized education across the board & let the market do its thing. But as long as we have government schools we should try to make them work to our benefit. One thing would be to have a class held once or twice a year with age appropriate curriculum dealing with the proper use, handling & storage of firearms. In elementery schools start off with the basic safety rules & by the time they get to the high school level have them take a clas similar to the state required CCW classes - including the range training & testing.

This would knock out two things at once: it would increase a child's knowledge about how to safely handle & be around firearms & it would negate the requirement for classes in order to get a CCW (& if we can elimate the class requirement as being redundant we're one step closer to getting people to understand that CCW permits are mainly a form of gun owner registration).

So if the Senators who voted for the safety lock requirement are serious about safety, then let them pass a law requirig firearms education in the public schools, & let them pass laws which make it easier for a responisble adult to take a kid shooting, & let the state legislators eliminate the class requirements for CCW permits.

But the fact is they won't. No matter how much they blather about safety & it being "for the children" their real goal is civilian disarmament. Don't believe me? bring up my suggestions th enext time someone supports mandatory locks with purchase or "safe storage" requirements. You'll find it's only "for the children" if it fits their other goals.

Posted 3:06 PM by Publicola

The Geek has "ammo" for us. Go over there & load up.

Posted 2:45 PM by Publicola

Here's RMGO's after action report on the no-permit required concealed carry bill in Colorado.

Here's the deal: The NRA had promised not to push any pro-gun legislation this year. Their justification was that pro-gun votes hurt Republicans in elections. Now, call me crazy, but I had for some reason always assumed that pro-gun voters made up a large part of the Republican base. In any event that's the lie explanation the NRA offered.

In steps RMGO, who gets Rep. Brophy (R-District 63) to sponsor a pro-gun bill that would eliminate the permit requirement for carrying concealed as long as you'd be qualified to get a permit. It leaves the permit system in place for those who want a permit to travel to other states that recognize Colorado's permits, but for in-state carry it's no longer required. This means you could carry immediately & much less expensively if you'd meet the other requirements. Here's the text of HB 1281.

The bill was sent to the Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs. It was made up of 7 Republicans & 4 Democrats, with Rep. Sinclair (R-District 16) chairing the committee.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Two members of the committee were absent. Rep. Fairbank (R-District 22) was out of the country & Rep. Mitchell (R-District 33) was ill. That left the committee with 5 Republicans & 4 Democrats.

Speaker of the House Spradley (R-District 60) appointed Rep. Briggs (R-District 29) to take Rep. Fairbank's place. Rep. Brigg's is considered by RMGO as a left leaning big government type Republican: in other words a RINO. Speaker of the House Spradley appointed him despite this. Her running for governor may have something to do with it. The RINO we have in office now would have approved of her actions & it?s possible she sees this in the same light he does: a way to appeal to the moderate & left leaning voters.

Rep. Sinclair had signed a pledge to support a no-permit required concealed carry law as well as telling the bill's sponsor Rep. Brophy that he would support it, but keep in mind he is term limited & cannot run for election again.

As for testimony on the bill, Arvada's Chief of Police Ron Sloan testified against it on behalf of the Chiefs of Police, the County Sheriffs of Colorado and the Denver Police Department. He even went so far as to quote Handgun Control Inc. The League of Women Voters testified against it, as did the Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

Rep. May (R-District 44) gave a spirited defense of the bill, as did a few unnamed pro-gun committee members. Dudley Brown of RMGO & some private citizens testified on behalf of the bill.

& what about the NRA &/or its state affiliate the CSSA?

Dave Gill, VP of the CSSA was contacted by Rep. Brophy & when asked about the CSSA's stance on the bill said he would support it next year, but not this year. This would seem to confirm the notion that the NRA did promise not to push any pro-gun bills this year.

Dudley Brown reports that Speaker of the House Spradley was seen talking to Rep. Sinclair minutes before the vote, leading him to believe that the outcome of the bill was fixed.

& how did the vote turn out? Rep. Sinclair, Rep. May, Rep. Schultheis (R-District 14), Rep. Lundberg (R-District 49), Rep. Cadmen (R-District 15) voted for the bill.

Rep. Briggs, Rep. Frangas (D-District 4), Rep. Ragsdale (D-District 35), Rep. Weddig (D-District 36), & Rep. Weismann (D-District 12) voted against the bill.

That left us with a tie vote. Now what is normally done in such a situation is the bill is held over for a week or two until the absent committee member(s) can return, but Rep. Frangas moved to indefinitely postpone the bill with Rep. Weddig seconding it. "Postpone indefinitely" is legislative language for killing the bill. Rep. Sinclair voted to "P.I." the bill & the motion to "P.I." was passed 6-4-1. Thus the bill to stop the infringement of the exercise of a Right was killed.

According to this story from the Denver Post, Rep. Brophy doesn't think it was simply a policy disagreement that killed his bill.

"Brophy said after the vote that he doesn't think the bill died on its merits. He said House leaders don't think the gun issue is good for Republicans, a position he disagrees with.
'Republicans shouldn't run from this issue,' Brophy said. Votes on loosening gun rules can energize the party's conservative base, he added."

More from the article:

"House Speaker Lola Spradley, R-Beulah, would not say whether she wanted the bill killed."

Odds are she thought openly opposing the bill would adversely affect her chance of getting moderate & left leaning support for her gubernatorial campaign, but openly supporting it would have eroded support from her conservative base.

"However, she did appoint Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, to fill a temporary committee vacancy Tuesday, and he cast the deciding vote that killed the bill. Had Spradley left the seat open, the bill would have survived the committee and been debated on the floor."

Which shows that even though she would not speak the words publicly, her actions clearly show where she stands on the matter of Rights.

"The bottom line was that the bill was not going to make it through the Senate - it's an extremely controversial bill, and it died in committee,' Spradley said."

Sounds familiar doesn't it? The outcome of the bill was already decided thus there was no point in opposing the outcome. I believe that's from page 17 of the NRA lies Excuses Manual, under the section entitled Why We Sold You Out Why We Opposed Or Didn't Support Pro-Gun Legislation.

"Committee Chairman William Sinclair, R-Colorado Springs, said he supported the bill and would have liked to see it pass.
'It's no question if it got out on the floor it would have been one (heck) of a fight because the Democrats would have lined up against it and some Republicans, but that's not what happened,' he said."

Nope. That's not what happened. & the reason why that's not what happened is because Rep. Sinclair bowed to political pressure & voted to "P.I." the bill. After all, he voted for it the first time around, thereby fulfilling his promise, so he obviously felt free to vote to kill it.

Rep. Rose (R-District 58) has pulled a bill he introduced that would have corrected some infringements of contract Rights in Colorado's gun show law. His reasoning was equally questionable:

"Why should I put all my fellow representatives on record on a very contentious vote in an election year when I don't have to - when I know the bill is going to die?' he asked."

I guess "because it's the right thing to do" wouldn't be a valid reason for taking risks according to Rep. Rose's philosophy.

Senate President John Andrews hedged on this year's gun bills.
'I feel as though we accomplished a great deal with our carry bill and pre-emption bill last year. I think the general mood of both the House and Senate is to digest both those bills,' he said."

What all this means is that the NRA has talked Colorado legislators into not pushing any pro-gun bills on the misguided belief that it will make the elections tougher. Here's RMGO's Billwatch page which shows the legislation, both alive & dead, in Colorado this year.

(Of note is that the bill to increase hunting & fishing license extortion fees has passed the house & is currently in a committee in the Senate.)

& from this story in the Rocky Mountain News we find out what Rep. Briggs thought son the matter were.

"...Republican leaders don't want legislators voting for controversial bills for fear that their voting records will be used by challengers in the November election.
'That concern was expressed to me,' said Rep. Bob Briggs, R-Westminster, who was a last-minute appointment to the House State Affairs Committee and voted against the bill"

I wonder in what manner that concern was expressed to him. & by whom?

Now according to this post by Billll at the High Road, we find an equally absurd line of justification for not supporting pro-gun bills;

"Bill, Be careful what you ask for. I think the passage of this bill will
only excite the anti-gun people who will then go to the ballot with an
imitative banning all forms of concealed carry. Just look at what they
accomplished with Amendment 22, remember they have the numbers. It will only take a bill like this to really get them energized. "

That was from Rep. Stengall (R-District 38). Rep. Stengall is also the sponsor of the bill that would increase hunting & fishing license extortion fees from between 50% to 100% (depending upon the specific license) that's already been passed in the House & is in a Senate committee.


Here's my take on things:

The Republicans either bought some BS from the NRA or convinced the NRA to go along with some BS they thought of on their own about pro-gun votes hurting Republican re-election efforts. In either case the NRA & CSSA decided to take a break from pretending to fight for your Rights. The Republicans did as well.

So when pro-gun bills crop up, they get sent to committees which will kill them w/o having to have the entire House vote one way or the other. Speaker of the House Spradley has ambitions for the governorship & obviously doing favors for her now is akin to career advancement in some legislators eyes. Rep. Briggs would be one of them, & I suspect that it caused him no grief to put a political favor above the Rights of the people who allegedly represents.

Now I agree that a vote on a gun bill could be bad for Republicans seeking re-election, but that would be a ?no? vote on a pro-gun bill or a "yes" vote on an anti-gun bill. Sad when a political party thinks a vote for freedom or against an infringement of a Right would hurt them politically isn't it?

So if you live in Colorado & won't subject yourself to groveling for permission & paying a fee to exercise a Right, thank Speaker of the House Spradley, Rep. Sinclair, Rep. Briggs, the NRA & the CSSA for ensuring you'll be arrested & charged if you?re caught.

In fact, here?s the contact info for all concerned.

Be sure to thank those who were
Pro-Rights

Rep. Brophy
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2906
E-Mail: greg@gregbrophy.net

Rep. Cadman
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-5525
Email: bill.cadman.house@state.co.us

Rep. Lundberg
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2907
E-Mail: kevin@kevinlundberg.com

Rep. May
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2933
E-Mail: mike.may.house@state.co.us

Rep. Schultheis
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2937
E-Mail: dave.schultheis.house@state.co.us



& be sure to expres your disappointment in those that were
Anti-Rights

Rep. Briggs
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2950
E-Mail: bob.briggs.house@state.co.us

Rep. Frangas
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2954
E-Mail: kjerry.frangas.house@state.co.us

Rep. Ragsdale
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2843
E-Mail: ann.ragsdale.house@state.co.us

Rep. Sinclair
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2965
E-Mail: bill.sinclair.house@state.co.us

Speaker of the House Spradley
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2346
E-Mail: spradley@fone.net

Rep. Stengall
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2953
E-mail: joe.stengel.house@state.co.us

Rep. Weddig
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Capitol Phone: (303)866-2942
E-Mail: frankweddig@coloradohouse.org

Rep. Weismann
Office Location: 200 E. Colfax, Room 271
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: (303)866-2920
E-Mail: reppaul@aol.com

In addition to the legislators, The Denver Post was opposed to the bill as they?re opposed to most pro-gun bills & supportive of most anti-gun bills. Here's the link to The Denver Posts contact page.

The CSSA declined to support the bill & seems to have been in league with Lucifer the NRA in having it killed. Here?s the link to the CSSA's Directory page CSSA Vice President Dave Gill can be reached at vice_president@cssa.org
CSSA President can be reached at president@cssa.org.
CSSA Legislative Director Tim Brown can be reached at legislative@cssa.org

The NRA seems to have been a major force in getting pro-gun bills such as the Colorado Freedom to Carry Act killed. The contact info for their Field Rep. for Colorado is:
David Lee
P.O. Box 458
Fort Morgan, CO 80701-0458
970-867-1916 (office)
970-867-1917 (fax)

I urge you to withdraw any & all financial, emotional, spiritual &/or material support from the people & organizations listed until such time as they have proven they're not going to sell you out for their own agenda. If you have 1 day to go before your membership expires, call them up, cancel & explain why.

Rep. Sinclair is term limited, so threatening to not vote for him won't do much good. However there is always the traditional approach; ostracize him. Don?t engage in any social interaction with him, except to express your disappointment in his betrayal of Colorado?s people. Similarly don't do business with him. If he comes to you offering to purchase a service tell him you don't do business with people who betray you. If you need a service & find out he's selling, then tell him you don?t trader with people who betray you.

Speaker of the House Spradley is in a different position. She's running for governor. So in her case by all means inform her of why you won't vote for her, & why you're planning to ostracize her, but give her an out: if she'll apologize for her betrayal & make up for it (as in actively, if not downright viciously promoting & supporting pro-gun & pro-individual Rights legislation) then you'll not actively support her opponent & you'll consider doing business with her.

I?m not hip to the situation of the other anti-Rights legislators, but depending upon their situation I'd recommend applying either the first or second tactic. & yes, even to the Democrats. Traditionally the Democrats are an anti-gun party & odds are they don't count on many Republican votes, but it never hurts to try. Besides, the look on their face when you tell them to get the hell out of your store (or whatever equivalent is appropriate to your line of work) because they disrespected your Rights will be at least some consolation until the election comes around.

& spread the word to your friends & neighbors, especially about Speaker of the House Spradley. I know many who think she's the best choice for governor, but odds are their view would change if they knew she had part in the killing of a pro-gun bill.

& by all means, this November remember who was supportive of your Rights & who sold them out. Even if it means having a Democrat in office it's important to politically punish those who betray you. Until you & a bunch of others are willing to do that the Republicans will continue to be a party that is a little less anti-gun than the Democrats. Vote Libertarian, or Constitution Party, or any other political party whose candidate in that race promises to support your Rights. If you think it's wasting your vote then get off your ass & try to drum up support for the pro-gun candidate that the third party offers. But remember that the lesser of two evils is still evil, & if you let any party betray you once they'll damn skippy do it again.

Addendum:

The situation in the U.S. Senate concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act makes what happened in Colorado seem a bit more odd than it initially did.

For those of you who haven't been paying attention to the U.S. Senate, last week a bill was introduced to provide immunity for firearms manufacturers & dealers from what are best described as frivolous lawsuits. The short version of it is if a manufacturer or dealer was criminally negligent or violated the law then they could still be sued for damages that resulted from their actions. If the manufacturer or dealer was not criminally negligent & they did not violate any laws then they could not be sued for damages resulting from the use of their products. In other words if you are hurt because a dealer was selling guns illegally & one of those guns was used by a criminal to harm you or if you suffer injury because the firearm blew up through no fault of your own you could still sue the manufacturer &/or dealer. If a person legally buys a gun & that gun is used by him or anyone else to harm you, then you couldn't sue the manufacturer or dealer.

Now the bill is a good idea & would be beneficial to the firearms manufacturers, dealers & those who purchase firearms. It would stop lawsuits that are intended to bankrupt the industry & wouldn't effect any suits with merit. But it is not so important as to justify an extension of the "assault weapons" ban or any other attachment to it that would further restrict our Right to Arms.

Anyway, the bill was introduced & there was strong bi-partisan support of it. They voted for cloture (which prevents a filibuster & limits debate & amendments) & it passed easily. However a deal was struck between the majority & minority that negated all the benefits of cloture & allowed many more amendments to be proposed & debated with a final vote on the bill as amended on Tuesday.

Now what strikes me as odd is that some Colorado Republicans have said that the gun control issue is to be avoided in an election year & it's alleged that the NRA either gave them or strongly agreed with that idea. Yet on the national level they're actively pushing a pro-gun bill despite any election risks.

Further it's been alleged that the NRA cut a deal so the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act could get a vote at the risk of having gun control measures attached. The details of the alleged deal itself aren't known but the two possibilities are that they agreed to have a lot of gun control measures proposed & voted on if the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act got a vote or that they agreed to let some gun control measures be added on in exchange for passing the bill. They deny this but they've cut deals in the past that have been harmful to gun owners & everything I've seen seems to back the conclusion that the most recent one was right here in Colorado.

So the NRA is pushing a pro-gun bill at the national level, but it's alledged they are behind the lack of support for pro-gun bills in Colorado.

Also they are alleged to have cut a deal on the national level which could be harmful to the pro-gun movement (which they deny) but evidence seems to suggest that they've cut just such a deal here in Colorado.

On the national level we'll have a better idea of what did & didn't happen after the vote on Tuesday. It's my belief that if any serious gun control is passed along with the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that it will be a result of the NRA's efforts to get this bill passed. Whether their intent was good but negligent or malicious would be debated for some time.

Whether or not you agree with my assessment of the NRA that should not stop you from urging them (as well as your legislators on the federal & state levels) to do the right thing & not give in to the urge to compromise.

For further reading, analysis & updates as they happen on the U.S. Senate debates concerning the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act check back here & also visit GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle.

Posted 1:45 PM by Publicola

For those of you who haven't seen it, here's the NRA letter sent out in response to allegations that a deal was cut to get the Lawful Commerce in Arms act passed.

"February 26, 2004

Recent internet alerts from some 'pro-Second Amendment' groups have suggested that the National Rifle Association has either accepted a compromise that would include reenactment of the 1994 Clinton Gun ban and/or the McCain-Reed gun show restrictions, or will not actively fight against their passage in the Senate. Not only are these claims completely false and ridiculous but they are also extremely counterproductive to our legislative strategy and agenda. Gun control groups are spreading the same rumors in hopes of confusing pro-gun senators as to our position in hopes of gaining their support."

Actually it's not ridiculous considering their behavior over the last 70 years or so. & I think it's amusing that they use quotes when they describe the groups who published these allegations as pro-second amendment.

As to gun control groups using it to confuse our position to the Senators I simply don't agree. By getting people to call & tell their Senators that they want a clean Lawful Commerce in Arms Act without any gun control amendments this helps, not hinders the position the NRA claims to have. But there's a matter of distinction that I'll touch on in a bit.

Nevertheless it's good, for whatever reason, to see the NRA responding to the allegations & stating that they will fight against gun control amendments.

"The National Rifle Association led the fight in opposition to this ill-conceived ban in 1994, led the efforts to repeal the ban two years later, and is leading the fight to ensure the Clinton gun ban expires on time on September 13. From public speeches, articles in NRA publications, communications to lawmakers and the development of a website (www.ClintonGunBan.com), the National Rifle Association has been vocal and unambiguous about our position on this issue."

That's misleading. The NRA said it opposed the AWB but it did not act on that statement. They had the opportunity to get their Senators to initiate a filibuster, but they chose to not actively oppose the AWB so they could get it out of the way & get the Brady Bill (which they wrote a part of & supported) passed. They may have talked a good game, but when it came down to doing something they were more anxious to get the Brady Bill voted on than to actively oppose the AWB. So while technically they may have been vocal in opposing the AWB before & since I wouldn't say they led the fight when they put up little if any fight at all.

Further Rep. Dingell at the time of the vote for the AWB was an NRA director. He voted for the AWB. He resigned from the NRA position the following day, but a few years later the NRA gave Rep. Dingell an award for being a supporter of the 2nd amendment.

"It is our hope that supposed 'friends of the Second Amendment' will cease to provide ammunition to the enemy by disseminating this false information. Unfortunately, some of these groups seem intent on finding or creating any excuse to defeat S. 1805, perhaps because its passage has been a priority of the NRA for four years. The anti-gunners are seeking to undermine the Second Amendment and the legislative process by seeking to bankrupt firearms and ammunition manufacturers or get gun control restrictions through the courts through dozens of pending municipal lawsuits -- blaming the gun industry for the acts of criminals -- initiated by anti-gun big city mayors and greedy trial lawyers. A single judgment by a rogue judge or jury could wipe out the entire firearms industry making our gun rights worthless. Passage of S. 1805 is critical -- but not worth allowing legislation going to the President including either an extension of the Clinton gun ban or restrictions at gun shows. There will be no compromise. The only choice is a 'clean' bill or no bill."

Again they have the nerve to use quotes considering their track record.
Ammunition to the enemy? I still fail to see how encouraging your Senators & even the NRA to do the right thing is helping the enemy.

Now what is of an immediate concern is the emphasis they place on getting the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed. They make it sound as if the entire firearms industry will shut their doors permanently if one lawsuit is lost. Now depending on the size of the award it could most definitely hurt a company or several companies & the aftershocks would seriously damage the industry as far as civilian sales are concerned. & don't get me wrong - I don't want to see that happen. My concern is over the way they paint a very dramatic picture (which may or may not be an accurate assessment of things) but then turn around & say it's not worth an extension of the assault weapons ban with no elaboration on why.

In a practical sense I could actually understand an argument that the Lawful Commerce in Arms act would be more important than letting the AWB sunset. I wouldn't agree with it at all for a number of reasons but I could understand how some would think that it was more critical to keep the industry from going under than repealing a law that we've lived with for the last ten years or so. & of course if I was a gun company I could easily come to the conclusion that preventing baseless lawsuits is more important than being able to throw a bayonet lug on a barrel.

But to then turn around & say that it's not worth extending the AWB after the build up on the critical nature of preventing these lawsuits leaves me a little cold. It could just be that the NRA didn't feel they had to elaborate, or that the person writing this letter for them overlooked the explanation.

One thing I did get a kick out of was seeing the words "no compromise" in an NRA letter. Now that's funny.

"The legislative process in Congress is complex and far from perfect. Fortunately, Congress is a bicameral (two house) legislative body and both the House and Senate must agree on the same bill before enactment. While we are uncertain of the outcome of several pending anti-gun amendments in the Senate, the House is strongly pro-gun and it (or a conference committee) will not accept any anti-gun Senate-passed amendment as part of the final product to be sent to the President."

Now this is BS. In effect they seem to be saying that the ways in which laws are made are real tricky & implying that we can't or don't understand it & they?re asking us to blindly trust their judgment.

But the main thing is that they seem to be relying on the House to get rid of any gun control attachments & that is either foolish or intentionally deceptive. Hastert is no friend of gun owners & he, not Delay is the one who decides what gets voted on & what doesn't. Add to that the high number of "F" & "D? & "Not Rated" Representatives & we're looking at being shy of 13 or so votes to pass an AWB extension. & there's over 50 "C" rated Representatives to choose from. That's based on GOA's rating system as I have found them much more accurate than the NRA's system of grading congress critters.

What it seems the NRA is counting on is that they can clean up a bill in the House & that is just not the case. It's possible but not very likely considering the nature of the House & the rules that must be followed to clean up such a bill.

"Pro-gun grassroots activists who want to advance our cause should not be distracted by misinformation and disinformation by our 'friends.' Instead, gun owners and sportsmen must keep our focus on the real action and contact -- by calls, e-mails, and faxes -- their two U.S. Senators urging them to vote for S. 1805 and against any and all anti-gun 'poison pill' killer amendments including, but not limited to, the Clinton gun ban and gun shows. Use the 'Write Your Representatives' (www.capwiz.com/nra/home) tool at www.NRAILA.org to contact your Senators and call them at 202-224-3121. We appreciate your active support in our cause to defend the Second Amendment and freedom itself."

I can't speak for any of the major groups but I for one have never implied that I was a "friend" of the NRA. They've screwed me over too much to even feign friendship. Now if they repented & changed their evil ways I would be, but as it stands now they're the gun owners? equivalent of having France as an ally in a war.

But it was not "misinformation" or "disinformation"; it was an allegation.

Also I would have liked it if instead of referring to "poison pill" amendments they would have said gun control amendments. But seeing as how they didn't & how they did say that other gun control besides the AWB extension & the McCain gun show amendment wouldn't be acceptable I'm wondering exactly where they'll draw the line.

Also they should have stressed that calling as opposed to writing is the best & possibly only way to get a message to your Senators in time. Odds are by the time a Senator's staff gets around to reading your e-mail it'll be a week after the vote has happened. Much better to call as the message is delivered to the Senator's staff immediately.

Now about that fine distinction I mentioned earlier: the NRA implies that it will be counterproductive to call your Senator &/or the NRA & express your concerns on the alleged deal that was cut. The claim is that it will hurt their legislative strategy.

But how can you hurt a legislative strategy that opposes gun control attachments to a pro-gun bill by telling your Senators that you don't want any gun control attachments added on & you'd rather see the bill fail than be passed with such attachments?

So that leads me to believe that there is a distinction between what they say & what they want you to believe they say. That distinction is between actively fighting against gun control attachments & stopping gun control attachments.

The NRA carries a lot of influence in Congress & if it chose it could ask the Senators who introduced the bill to withdraw it. The Senators would more likely than not do as the NRA asked.

What I think the NRA is doing is it's planning on actively (& more important publicly) fighting against passage of most gun control amendments. Some gun control they find acceptable as will bear out by amendments offered by Craig & Frist over the next few days - but that's another discussion. However their plan is not to stop the gun control amendments in the Senate but to attempt to strip them off in the House.

So they're going to play a very risky game with amendments that if passed will violate the Constitution & your Rights. They imply that they will fight for it, but they never directly state how hard. Now you can chalk this up to a risky strategy or malicious intent or anything else, but for our purposes the motive doesn't matter right now. What matters is their actions & while I have no doubt that they will publicly & openly oppose any gun control amendments on the scale of continuing the AWB or shutting down gun shows across the nation, I doubt seriously if they will withdraw the underlying bill to keep gun control from passing.

The distinction is between trying & doing. They're saying they'll try but not saying that they'll do.

Now on the whole I'm glad the NRA has answered the allegations. I'm not inclined to trust them but them stating something publicly obviously means they're aware of our concerns for a change.

But the proof will be whether or not they withdraw the bill if any major gun control provisions are attached. I'm thinking they'll claim they can clean it up in the House, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong & see them withdraw the bill if it's amended with gun control provisions.

Posted 11:01 PM by Publicola

Hopefully y'all have been tuning in to Geek & Uncle. If not go there now & catch up.

Short version is that nothing was voted on today. At least nothing gun related. A few amendments were introduced but no votes.

Monday will be a big day & I expect Tuesday is when they'll pull out the amendments we're all dreading. And as usual Geek & Uncle will be on top of things during the day & I'll try to spell them at night.

The NRA released a statement that says they want the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but won't accept an assault weapons ban renewal or expansion, or a gun show bill.

Over the weekend I'll try to address some concerns about the statement but if they stick to it then it's definitely a good thing.

Now here's something to think about: what would have happened if the net was as widespread ten years ago as it is today?

Senators are getting flooded with calss & e-mails, coverage of the Senate is taxing C-Span's system & pro-gun blogs, message boards & other internet medium are all getting much much more traffic than they usually do.

Ten years ago all we could do was read the papers account of how the new laws were passed (unless you lived in D.C.) & cuss. Now you get to cuss the Senators in real time as they're putting the knife in your back. (hey- at least it's progress!)

Ten years ago the NRA could cut any deal they wanted & issue a statement telling us how they tried but just couldn't do anything about it. Now they're issuing statements addrssing our concerns.

So with all the attention this has been getting, & all the feedback (positive & negative) it has generated I'm thinking that if the net was as prevelant ten years ago as it is today we wouldn't have an assault weapons ban to worry about.

Course I could be wrong & the only benefit is merely for us to see what's happening, but I think that at least to a small degree we are influencing things instead of just commenting after the fact.

For that I can't thanks Geek & Uncle enough - both for their on-line coverage & keeping me up to date whilst I'm away from electricity. The pro-gun Forums & websites deserve gratitude as well everyone who has e-mailed a blogger, commented on a blog, or posted on a Forum.

Another thing about the NRA - a few people are claiming that the "deal" they alledgedly cut was just a nasty internet rumor spread by those biased against the NRA & possibly by anti-gunners attempting to drai the NRA's resources.

Here's the thing: whether or not the NRA has or had plans to sell us out they are concerned that so many are watching & questioning them. Now it is entirely possible that they did not have plans to sell us out & were trying to do what they thought was best. As I've said before (though I can't remember if it was here or on a message forum - the last few days have been hectic) we can sort out the details later. I'll be more than happy to admit I was wrong for believing the allegations that the NRA was selling us out again. (in this instance that is). Likewise I'll not be timid about calling them on anything they tried to pull.

But what matters right nwo is that we make sure they know our thoughts. If they weren't cutting a deal to betray us then their members letting them know that they won't accept an extension of the assault weapons ban will be redundant, but certainly not draining. & if they were attempting to sell us out, then perhaps the members letting them know how they felt prevented that from happening or at least diminished its intensity. Other than the NRA feeling offended that anyone would think they'd support gun control there is no harm in making your feelings clear to the NRA. Ditto with Senators: if they're pro-gun to begin with then hearing from those who want them to be pro-gun should be an encouragement, not a hinderence. If they're anti-gun then perhaps it will help steer them back towards the light.

So when this is over one way or another we can discuss what the NRA did, didn't. was going to & wasn't going to do in depth. Right now we need to focus on keeping them on the straight & narrow. The hardest days are yet to come & who the hell knows what will happen.

I'll try to summarize things more in depth over the weekend. Right now I'm gonna shut down the PC for a while & hope they don't convene all secret like & pass a bunch of bad things.

I do thank all y'all for coming here & hope something made it worth your time.

Posted 6:49 AM by Publicola

It's possible that I could have missed something overnight but far as I can tell all was quiet on the eastern front.
From what I understood from last night they said there wouldn't be a roll call vote today. I could be wrong but this would lead me to believe that the debates today will not be followed by a vote - at least not first thing. But they resume at 9:30 a.m. EST & being the cautious fellow I am I'd urge everyone who can to watch them & make sure they don't try to slip anything by us.

I now send you over to the GeekWithA.45 for any word on anything important that happens in the Senate today.

Posted 11:58 PM by Publicola

several things bother me about what's happened in the Senate. The first is that, unless it was part of a prior agreement, there needn't have been any votes at all on any gun control amendments. They got cloture which limited the debate to 30 hours & limited amendments that could be offered as well as giving Sen. Frist the power to deny an amendment out of hand. But now we're having amendment after amendment offered up & it'll be Tuesday before a vote happens on the bill as its amended.

If a deal was necessary to bring it to a vote, I'd have reconsidered pushing it through the Senate. However at the least they could have set a limit on the number of amendments offered up. They let our bill get a vote, in turn we let one amendment of theirs get a vote. But offer as many as they want?

Another thing is the Boxer trigger lock amendment: most people will say it's an aggrevation but practically it's harmless. However the danger lies not in paying $10 to $10 more for the trigger lock (you didn't think the gun industry was gonna give them away as a thank you for risking our rights like this did ya?) but in the precedent it sets. This is a perfect set up for a smart gun bill. The Boxer amendment was passed under the guise of safety & that's the same BS they'll use to push a smart gun law. This Boxer amendment if made into law will establish firmly congressional authority over this area & they'll use it. Now it's not like they wouldn't use any number of other excuses to do what ever the hell they want, but this makes things a little more legit; a little easier & most important less startling.

The main danger in this amendment is that it conditions us yet further to accept government regulation of our Rights in the name of safety.

& for what it's worth Frist voted for the Boxer amendment. Makes ya feel all comfy about our "pro-gun" leadership doesn't it?

The other two gun related amendments were basically nothing. they identified two groups of people & said they were excepted from the provisions of the underlying bill if they met the requirements for exception in the underlying bill. Just a little political word play to legislatively shout down two very bad amendments that would have made the underlying bill worthless.

Now here's something from the AP.

I'll just give you some higlights from it:

"Kohl said the bill 'is not a panacea. It will not prevent every single avoidable firearm-related accident. But the fact is that all parents want to protect their children. This legislation will ensure that people purchase child-safety locks when they buy guns. Those who buy locks are more likely to use them. That much we know is certain."

True - those who buy locks are more likely to use the locks they buy than those who don't buy locks, who aren't terribly likely to use the locks they didn't buy.

Sadly that was probably the thing from the anti's that made the most sense.

"A test vote earlier this week garnered 75 votes for the measure, with Democrats agreeing to vote for the measure after the GOP agreed that firearms makers and distributors would not be immune to suits involving defective products or illegal sales."

Now if that's accurate then why the hell did we need to work a "deal" where every gun control idea under the sun gets to be offered as an amendment to our 1 pro-gun bill?

"For example, leaders in the GOP-controlled House already have said they do not plan to approve an extension of the expiring assault weapons ban. But Senate Democrats say they are close to getting enough votes to add that measure to the gunmaker bill."


lemme repeat the key part in case ya missed it:

"...Senate Democrats say they are close to getting enough votes to add that measure to the gunmaker bill."

'nuff said.

"The Senate's overwhelming approval of the gun lock amendment shows that senators are not listening to that advice and could be convinced that the assault weapons ban and other Democratic legislation should be added to the package, Boxer said. 'Senators are not buying the argument that the bill should be clean."

More than enough said.

"Democrats are very close to having enough support to reauthorize the assault weapons ban for 10 more years, she said. The ban expires in September.
'We believe we can get to 51,' said Boxer, referring to the number of votes needed to add the measure to the gunmaker immunity bill."

Is the message getting through yet?

So the way things are looking an assault weapons amendment is likely to be added to this bill, in which case I urge you to call your Senators & the NRA & demand they oppose any bill so amended.


But tell ya the truth I'd rather they just went ahead & pulle dthe thing right now. Whiel the anti's are offering up everything under the sun, all our side is pushing for is getting the underlying bill passed w/o too many objectionable amendments. This epitomoizes our strategy as gun owners & why we're int he shape we're in: we go for one thing that's beneficial but on the periphery while our opponents are allowed to make a wish list & see what they can get away with in exchange for considering our 1 thing.

If they want to make things interesting, then why don't they propose an amendment to eliminate the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA? Or to repeal the GCA of 68? Or dismiss the NFA of '34? No. Our bold move is to use wordplay to defeat anti-gun amendments (it is a cute strategy I'll admit). We're playing defense yet again & no matter how good the defense is (should be great since that's all we ever practice) a few are always gonna slip by.


The Senate picks thing up again at 9:30 a.m. EST. Head over to GeekWithA.45's place & SayUncle for the latest on what'll be going on tomorrow.

Posted 7:04 PM by Publicola

Not entirely sure what happened - they adjourned for the day & it looks as if the cop exception was rejected.

Will post more in a bit - mainly it'll be trying to sum up & dissect what has been passed so far. You cna probably beat me to soem major points by going here & reading the summaries of what was passed & what was rejected. & click on the number under the "vote" column for any bill to see who voted yea or nay on it. Then call your Senators & either congradulate them & remind them that their entire party has to keep up the good work or you'll bail on them or remind your Senators that you're not bluffing & if they keep screwing up their party can kiss your vote & your donations good-bye.

Correction:

There was a law enforcement amendment passed. Frist was its author. No idea what it contained. I'll post more as I find out.

Update:

Word on the street is that the Frist cop exception amendment is similar to the frist victims of the DC sniper exception: am leo is excepted if they can meet the requirements of the Lawful Commerce in FireArms Act. Haven't seen any copy of it floating on the net as of yet though, so it could be something else. We'll have to wait for a copy to hit the net to see for sure.

Posted 6:47 PM by Publicola

For those of you who have never watched the Senate in action before now, let me just relate that I always thought a good analogy was that it's just like a pacifistic vegetarian with a nervous stomach watching a pack of coyotes start in on what's left of the fawn that the mountain lion just took down.

There's a quorom call going on then they'll vote for I beleive the third time on the law enforcement officer exception. I'll let y'all know what's up when I find out.

Posted 6:33 PM by Publicola

Here's a link to the amendments voted on in the Senate today.

It seems there was a mistake & that the Craig AP ammo bill was not passed as of yet.

However a Frist amendment that looks eerily similar to the Mikulski amendment was passed.


Agreed to
Frist Amdt. No. 2628; To exempt any lawsuit involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or John Lee Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action that meets certain requirements.

compare that to this:

Rejected
Mikulski Amdt. No. 2627; To exempt lawsuits involving a shooting victim of John Allen Muhammad or Lee Boyd Malvo from the definition of qualified civil liability action.

Matter o' fact, fresh from KABA.com here's the Frist amendment that passed. Page 1 & Page 2

For comparison here's the Mikulski amendment. Page 1 & Page 2.

Y'all can read right? Looks similar right? More or less there's only one difference - The Frist amendment says that vicitims of the DC snipers are excepted if they can meet the requirements of the Lawful Commerce In Firearms Act.

Look at the text of the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act (as proposed) here. Note the requirements specified in the Frist amendment - "...meets 1 of the requirements under clauses (i) through (iv)" Now look at Section 4 (5) (A) i through iv. Any case that meet those requirements would not be prohibited from filing a lawsuit - so if my take is right they just said the DC snipr victims are excepted as long as they meet the requirements that anyone else has to meet to be excepted.

Good news don't last long though - they're voting on an exception for law enforcement which again would gut a substantial part of the bill. Two NJ cops are suing some gun makers because they were shot by a criminal a while back. If this gets through then the Brady's will simply start picking cops to use for their lawsuits against gun makers.

I'll have more when the vote's are totaled.

Posted 5:01 PM by Publicola

Okay... go see Da Geek to catch up if you haven't been already.

This won't be the blow by blow, as you might be used to from Geek - but any votes will be reported.

Currently they're voting on an amendment that would create a broad exception to the Lawful Commerce in Firearms bill...Which if it passes woudl totally negate the purpose of the bill & they'd be better off just killing it - if they can. Problem is despite the strong Republican presence the Senators of today have a majority of anti-gun votes under their respective belts.

So it's entirely possible that this bill could pass on Tuesday with a bunch of anti-gun amendments even though the original bill itself is stripped of any real impact.

To recap best I can tell an amendment to require trigger locks with new handguns & a bill to enhance penalties for using armor piercing ammo in crimes have been added.

Problem with the bills, aside from the camel's nose getting further inside of the tent is that they do nothing to actually effect sagety or prevent crime. What they will do is cause an inconvenience in the case of the trigger locks (yep, the gun companies will up their price by the appropriate amount - well, those 5% of gun companies that don't include trigger locks currently) & in the case of a person using their firearm defensively in an anti-gun jurisdiction (D.C., Chicago, etc...) they'll be looking at hard time if convicted.

For example - say you wake up in the middle of the night to hear undistinguishable shouting & your door being broke down. You grab your rifle or shotgun & shoot at a masked man in the hallway. You hit him , he dies & then you realize its the frinedly neighborhood ATF agent who wanted to make sure you didn't have any lethal 11 round magazines made after 1994. So now in addition to murder/manslaughter (yes - they will charge you) you're looking at an enhanced penalty if convicted because that .30-30 or 12 guage you just used to rightfully repel the boraders fires ammo capable of piercing a ballistic vest.

Granted, this is all from summaries of the bills - I'll have to read them in detail to make sure everything's accurate - but from the general description that's what we're looking at.

Cool - the amendment didn't pass. The underlying bill won't be gutted.

Now they're talking about an exception for two NJ cops who were shot by a criminal.

Again, any exception such as this will severely limit the effectiveness of the underlying bill.

More as it happens. (i.e. after Corzine stops lying & Craig stops setting them straight I'll let ya know how the vote goes.

Posted 6:55 AM by Publicola

The Senate will get things going in about 40 minutes. For the latest on what's happening I refer you to the day shift - GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle.

Also Alphecca has a post on the media bias concerning this. Not a big shock but Jeff summarizes things nicely.

Call your Senator & your NRA rep if you haven't already. Give them a very simple, concise message:


Any law limiting or restricting firearms &/or ammunition will result in a withdrawal of support for the party.
Any law limiting or restricting firearms &/or ammunition will result in a withdrawal of support for the NRA & its affiliates.

Here's the contact info:

Here's GOA's Legislative Action Center page. Use it to find your congresscritter.

Here's a link that'll give you contact info for NRA state affiliates.

Here's the NRA's contact page.

Here's the contact page for the NRA's field reps.

Here's the contact page for the NRA-ILA. (The NRA's political & legal department more or less)

Posted 9:23 PM by Publicola

At roughly 11 p.m. E.S.T C-Span showed the announcement of a deal.

Details are a bit vague of the specific amendments, but an agreement was reached to allow limited debate & consideration for several amendments. An assault weapons extension was one of them. Also troubling was something concerning Frist* Kennedy proposing a bill about "cop killer bullets".

Again, no specifics on the amendments themselves but a deal has been cut. Sen. Craig who had so eloquently argued against an assault weapons ban extension earlier today was one of the ones who brokered the deal. He also mentioned that there were enough votes to pass some of the amendments.

Burn up the phones. Slightly different message:

Any law limiting or restricting firearms &/or ammunition will result in a withdrawal of support for the party.
Any law limiting or restricting firearms &/or ammunition will result in a withdrawal of support for the NRA & its affiliates.



The Senate is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow.


* Originally I thought it was Frist offering the "cop killer bullets" bill, but several people corrected me.

Update:

This is the bill with a few possible amendments at the bottom.

This post at The High Road by Bartholomew Roberts has more detail about the Senate schedule.

Looks like this is going to stretch out until Tuesday.

Posted 7:57 PM by Publicola

I just received this from RMGO.

Pressure working -- time to double down against gun control!

Insiders from Capitol Hill in Washington are reporting that our
efforts,
which are being duplicated by dozens of no-compromise gun control
state-level gun rights organizations across America, are working. The
silent deal cut by the NRA is starting to unravel due to the pressure
put on both the NRA and members of the U.S. Senate.

The politicians and insiders are scrambling for cover in D.C. and we
need to immediately DOUBLE the pressure.

But the US Senate is debating the bill as this e-mail is being written.

PLEASE call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or
e-mail them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

Tell the NRA to immediately drop this idiotic plan to let the Assault
Weapons ban -- or any other gun control -- be tacked onto any
legislation, and to pull out all the stops to defeat these gun
controls,
or lose your membership forever. If you are not an NRA member, tell
them you are not a member because of these kinds of appeasements of the
gun-grabbers.

Also contact both of Colorado's US Senators.

Senator Wayne Allard
Phone (202) 224-5941

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Phone (202) 224-5852

If we exert enough pressure, we may still kill this silent deal.

But like any silent deal, the NRA is careful that it leaves no paper
trail.

If you think the NRA is (as they claim) still working as hard as
possible against the Assault Weapons ban and Gun Show Loophole
amendments to S.659, consider these facts:

1. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn), who is tasked with
running the US Senate and is supposedly "in the pocket" of the NRA,
could have stopped the gun control amendments by setting up an
"Amendment Tree". He didn't -- he chose to put the bill on the floor
and leave it open for amendments, giving the anti-gunners the chance
they needed.

2. Senator Frist, at the behest of the NRA, also could have delayed the
debate and vote on S.659 until the NRA had time to mobilize their
grassroots against the Assault Weapons ban and Gun Show loophole
amendments with mail, e-mails, magazine articles, etc. Instead, the
NRA
has been virtually silent on the Assault Weapons ban (how many pieces
of
NRA mail have hit your mailbox, telling Senators to vote against the
reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban?).

What is most telling is that the NRA has spent countless thousands, if
not millions, of dollars fighting for a measure that may or may not
stop
the ludicrous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, but have done
virtually nothing to oppose the two biggest gun issues in this
millenium.

Remember, before S.659, the Assault Weapons ban and the Gun Show
Loophole bills were considered dead by Washington insiders, and were
being reported as such by the Washington Times. S.659, and the
desperation of the NRA to pass it, has breathed new life into these
insidious gun control schemes.

It's the case of the dog that didn't bark.

Yes, the NRA is publicly saying they oppose these amendments, but they
left their gun in their holster.

If you haven't taken action, do so below.

If you have taken action, do it again -- they're getting the message!


There has been some question as to whether or not RMGO is correct in their info that the NRA had cut a deal. It's often said that a really good conspiracy theory is not provable. well, sometimes real live conspiracies aren't provable either.

I've spoken with Dudley Braon - Exec of RMGO - & for what it's worth he seems trustworthy. Now whether his info is correct or not - there's no proof. He readily admits that. However there's also no rpoff that it's not true.


One thing that can be criticized is his assertion that the NRA sent out no material on this. several people have written me telling me that they've received e-mails about this within the last few days. & so on that it seems like RMGO was incorrect - the NRA has sent mail about this.
However I think the point was mistated. There's proof the NRA has sent mail about this, but not a great amount if what I'm hearing is true. So perhaps it would have been better to say the NRA hadn't sent massive amounts of mail, which would probably be more correct to the RMGO's point & the facts as I can determine them.

But okay let's chalk them up as being wrong on that one.

That still doesn't detract from one thing that leads me to believe they may be correct: the NRA's done this sort of thing before. Don't believe me? Look here as well.

So without any proof other than RMGO's words I believe them simply because it fits what I know of the NRA & seems entirely plausible. the NRA wants this protection from frivilous lawsuits passed & no doubt they're getting pressured by the gun industry to pass it even with an assault weapons ban attached. The GCA of 68 was passed with the full support of the gun industry because they saw it as a way of stopping the mail order sales of surplus rifles ("sporting purposes clause" sound familiar?). Now if the gun makers would support the GCA of 68 in order to get the market that was going to mail-order surplus rifles they damn skippy would support a bill to stop frivilous lawsuits even if it meant no more bayonet lugs.
& the NRA was behind them in '68.

So personally I think the RMGO theory was more correct than not. Thanks to the net though it may have caused the plan to change, or at least caused the NRA to start issuing statements to cover their ass.

But we can sort all this out after this legislative crisis is over. No one is asking you to do anything now except call your Senators & the NRA (& their state affiliates) & tell them you'll withdraw all support from them if an assault weapons ban is passed. Not if they voted for it, but if it passes despite their individual efforts.

It's not over yet. whether you think the NRa is innocent or not, call them & your Senators & tell them you'll accept no excuses; the assault weapons ban must not be renewed.

Posted 7:15 PM by Publicola

GeekWithA.45 & SayUncle have been on top of things all day. Go read them.

Of note is that the Geek has links to to streaming C-Span so you can listen in on what's happening (or not happening as the case is now).

Now to sum up from what I understand, there is a time limit. They have until 6 p.m. E.S.T. to do whatever debating they're going to do. Also there's a limit to the amendments that can be proposed & Sen. Frist has final say on whether any amendments get voted on or not. Sen. Frist has a "D" rating from GOA.

I have heard that 4 amendments have been offered. One of them is supposedly a bill to lift D.C's gun ban. The other three are unkowns, but Mccain's gun show bill & Boxer &/or Feinstien's Assault weapons bill are the most likely candidates.

Now let me be clear - the exact nature of the amendments is not known. It's only rumor (albeit from reliable sources) that there are 4 amendments that could be considered. & the content of any of the amendments is not known.

But taking an educated guess, an asault wapons bill is going to be one of them. The big question is whether it's a simple extension or if it's an extension/expansion of the current ban.

to mkae things even scarier, here's GOA's page that lists current gun related bills in congress. Scroll down to the Senate section. There's a lot of possibilities for the 4th bill (assuming the first three are what I've guessed).

There's been some talk about things looking up because of the 75-22 vote for cloture. But all cloture does is limit debate, prevent fillibusters & close the floor to any amendments not previously filed. There's a bit of confusion but my understanding is that as long as a bill is filed with the Senate it can be brought up for attachment to the bill under coture. The only thing is that the Senate Chair can declare a proposed amendment "out of order" & his word is final.

So more or less the majority wanted to get a vote on this soon with limited amendments. That's not quite the same as having no amendments & an anti-gun Senator could have easily voted for cloture w/o it damaging their efforts. It's not like DiFi was gonna sleep through this one & miss a deadline. They made sure all the anti-gun bills they wanted to try & attach were filed in time.

Now one thing that is kind of curious - it was a 75-22 vote from what I heard. That's 99. there are 100 Senators. I was under the impression Kerry & Edwards would both be out campaigning & miss this vote - but if the count is correct then at least one of them stopped by.
there's also been talk of the NRA saying it can clean up the bill in the House if any anti-gun amendments get attached. However my sources tell me that's damn difficult nigh on impossible. & what makes matters worse is that Rep. Haster (R-Ill.) as Speaker of the House decides what gets voted on & what doesn't. Hastert has a "C-" from GOA's rating system & I seem to recall him being in favor of the assault weapons ban. Rep. Delay (R-Tx.) may have an "A" rating from GOA, but unfrotunately he isn't calling the shots. He's the Majority Leader in the House but it is up to Rep. Hastert whether something gets voted on or not.

But back to the Senate...

Here's how it breaks down using GOA's rating system:

SHELBY (R-Al) B
ALLARD (R-Co) B
CAMPBELL (R-Co) B-
CHAMBLISS (R-Ga) A
CRAIG (R-Idaho) B
CRAPO (R-Idaho) B
BROWNBACK (R-Kansas) B
BUNNING (R-Ky.) B
TALENT (R-Missouri) B
BURNS (R-Montana) B
ENSIGN (R-Nev.) B
SUNUNU (R-N.H.) B
INHOFE (R-Okl.) A
NICKLES (R-Okl.) B-
GRAHAM (R-SC) B
HUTCHISON (R-Tx.) B-
ENZI (R-Wy.) A
THOMAS (R-Wy.) B


That's 18 "A" & "B" rated Senators.

CORNYN (R-Tx.) NR
EDWARDS (D-NC) NR
CORZINE (D-NJ) NR
NELSON (D-Fl.) NR
MILLER (D-Ga.) NR
PRYOR (D-Ark.) NR
MURKOWSKI (R-Alaska) NR

That's 7 Not Rated by GOA. (NR is given when a Senator has not voting record to go on & hasn't answered GOA's questionaire)

SESSIONS (R-Alabama) C
KYL (R-Az) C
McCAIN (R-Az) C-
GRASSLEY (R-Iowa) C
ROBERTS (R-Kansas) C
McCONNELL (R-Ky) C
SNOWE (R-Maine) C-
LOTT (R-Mississippi) C-
BOND (R-Missouri) C
HAGEL (R-Nebraska) C
GREGG (R-NH) C-
SANTORUM (R-Pa) C
SPECTER (R-Pa) C-
ALEXANDER (R-Tn) C
HATCH (R-Utah) C-
ALLEN (R-Va) C

That's 16 "C" rated Senators.

The rest are rated "F' & "D". That'd be 59 "F" & "D" rated Senators going by GOA's ratings.

18 "A" & "B" rated
7 "NR"
16 "C" rated
59 "F' & "D" rated

Now if we count the "C's" & "NR's" as being on our side, we'd still lose. & I wouldn't count on having the "C's" on our side.

It is entirely possible that for some reason or another we get enough votes for a clean bill passed, but I trust GOA's rating as they're based on actual voting records when possible, or very pointed questionaires when no record is available.

Anyway, go to the Geek & SayUncle to catch up on things if you haven't already.

Posted 10:54 PM by Publicola

GeekWithA.45 points us to this from Neal Knox. It was written on sunday & basically says that the NRA won't sell us out.

He also points to this Neal Knox report that says the White House has urged passing of the Lawful Commerce in Arms act without any amendments.

As I've told several people with regards to the firts Neal Knox piece, it was dated on Sunday. It mgith be accurate, but it might be inaccurate because of the date or because of misinformation.

As far as the second, there could be a number of explanations. Bush could have finally learned from hsi father's mistake. Bush could have had an divine revelation that involved actually reading the Bill of Rights. Bush could have gotten word that a lot of gunowners were threatening to leave the party over this. Bush could have figured that he could cover his ass by putting out this statement publicly while urging support privately (hey- it's the exact opposite of some theories I heard about why he supported the assault weapons ban in the first place).

I've also had several people tell me that they've received an e-mail from the NRA urging them to ask their Senators to support a clean Lawful Commerce in Firearms act. However it's just now (within the last few hours) getting sent & it says nothing about what to do if an assault weapons ban amendment does get attached.

Truth is, there just ain't no way to be positive about what's happening. You either trust the players involved, you don't trust the players involved, or you're in between.

Personally I think that the Republicans were gonna make this thing work even if it meant passing a renewal of the assault weapons ban. The NRA probably had something to do with it as they've acted shadey like this before.

But something has them spooked enough to at least be attempting to cover their asses. & I would thank y'all for it, but y'all didn't do this for me; you did it for yourselves & your youngins & your youngins' youngins.

Here's my take - strictly opinion with nothing to back it up except what I have read & heard:

The NRA did cut some sort of deal. Might have been to outright pass an amendment Lawful Commerce in Arms bill but then again they could have thought they coudl clean up an amended Senate bill somehow once it was passed. No idea.

The Republicans were under pressure from the NRA &/or the gun makers to pass this legislation. Seeing as how most Repubs have as much familiarity with the 2nd amendment as most Dems this was a no brainer.

Stories were told to save the reputation fo the NRA & the Repubs in question.

But it's possible that enough of y'all called, wrote & genrally let them know that an assault weapons ban means a ban on your support for their party. That may have caused a re-think.

In any event the NRA is sending out alerts & Bush is saying to pass this bill clean. Sounds like they're just playing cover their ass to me since they could have (& should have) acted earlier but the important thing is that they wouldn't be trying to cover their ass if they weren't worried.

It ain't over yet. There'll be a vote tomorrow & it might not be just one. The important thing is to keep the pressure up. & don't let them think that they can make thing sright by voting against an assault weapons ban while their buddies vote for it. No excuses (if I keep repeating that it'll either become catchy or I'll know what it feels like to be an irritating activist protesting in the middle of rush hour).

If you haven't called yet now would be the time. If you have friends, relatives, pets, anyone or anything that hasn't called yet, urge them to do so. If they have paws, then dial for them.

I'll have more tomorrow, but odds are not until late in the afternoon. In the meantime I refer you to SayUncle & GeekWithA.45 for the latest on this.

Posted 7:39 PM by Publicola

There's a little good news tonight. Unfortunately it's not about the AWB.

From Say Uncle comes a link to this story:

"A divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a federal agent can be sued for violating the constitutional rights of a couple during a search of their ranch, refusing to shield officers from personal liability when they make mistakes on search warrants."

The agents in question were from the ATF & their transgression was a common one - the warrant did not name anything to be seized.

From what I've heard over the years, the ATF have a bad habit of serving warrants just like that. Hopefully this will put a stop to it.

Here's why it's a bad thing to have a blank space like that in a warrant:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Emphasis added by SCOTUS. :)

Posted 6:20 PM by Publicola

From this thread at the High Road we find more disturbing news. It seems that Sen. warner (R-Va.) is on board with Difi & Schumer to amend the Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act with anti-gun attachments - most notably an extension of the "assault weapons" ban.

"I have just confirmed with Senator Warner's office in DC that he is
putting in a bill with DIANNE FEINSTEIN and CHUCK SCHUMER to extend
the Assault Weapons Ban, as is, for another 10 YEARS!!!
The aide that I talked to didn't know the difference between a
flash-suppressor and a silencer, asked why I needed a bayonet lug
(this is America - I don't need one, but I want one), and basically
said that Warner was just doing something that the Administration
wanted!
I told him there WOULD be a price to pay at the polls in November for
anyone who supports the AWB in any shape or form. He asked, 'What
would you do, put a Democrat in as President?"

This is a post from a public message board so take it for what you will. If you're in Virginy call Sen. Warner & make him see the light : "assault weapons" ban renewal or expansion = no support for his entire party. No excuses!

Posted 4:55 PM by Publicola

I just got this in the mail from a friend. I'll paste it in it's entirety:

NRA Oks Strategy to Force Pro-Gun Senators to Support Assault Weapons
Ban, Gun Show InstaChecks

Your worst nightmare has come true!

Tomorrow morning (10 am Eastern Time), the Senate leadership -- headed
by the feckless Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn) -- is prepared to push a
comprehensive gun package which includes:

-- the gun liability bill (S. 659);

-- an extension of the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban;

-- a "Gun Show Loophole" bill, which will kill all gun shows.

And the NRA-ILA is getting ready to urge supposedly pro-gun senators to
vote for the entire package!

When the bill comes to the Senate floor, Senators Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif) and John McCain (R-Ariz) are expected to offer amendments to
re-enact the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban and to "close the gun show
loophole."

Insiders with decades of experience lobbying Congress on gun issues
report one or both of these amendments are likely to pass with the
NRA's
silent backing.

The "gun show loophole" amendment would effectively eliminate gun
shows.
This is because it would be a felony to fail to notify each and every
"person who attends the [gun show] of the [requirements of the Brady
Law]." Thus, if the person responsible for handing out "Brady Law
pamphlets" goes to the bathroom, each and every member of the board of
the sponsoring organization could go to prison.

What everyone on the Hill knows is that, if the the NRA's silent deal
stands, there are a majority of votes in the US Senate to reauthorize
the Assault Weapons ban, and there may be the votes to close the "Gun
Show Loophole."

The NRA and Frist will quietly pressure pro-gun senators to vote for
these amendments -- complete with an extension of the Assault Weapons
gun ban and the McCain language to eliminate gun shows.

Of course, the NRA is publicly opposing the Assault Weapons ban
amendment, but know quite well that their silent deal will enable it to
pass.

The gig is up -- the NRA has crossed the line. The Assault Weapons ban
is the most important piece of legislation to ever face gun owners, and
they are playing games with it, all for a bill that will have only
limited effect on manufacturers of firearms.

The gun liability bill is a big priority for the NRA and the Senate
leadership. It would supposedly limit frivolous lawsuits against gun
dealers and manufacturers. BUT it would CONTINUE TO ALLOW SUITS FOR
NEGLIGENCE (dubbed "negligent entrustment" in the bill) AND FOR DESIGN
DEFECT.

Since 34 (out of 34) local government suits raise charges of
"negligence" -- and 27 out of 34 raise allegations of "design defect"
--
S. 659 may not do much, and shouldn't be considered on the same plane
of
importance as the "Assault Weapons" ban reauthorization.

The NRA's strategy is to risk the permanent ban of all military style
"assault weapons" so that they can pass a liability protection bill of
dubious merit.

But their risk is our loss.

As part of the NRA silent deal, not one piece of mail has been dropped
by the NRA to their members alerting them to the upcoming attack by the
anti-gunners. Their silence has allowed the anti-gunners a golden
opportunity to forever ban dozens of semi-auto firearms (and large
capacity magazines) and destroy gun shows as we know them.

Of course, as all pro-gunners know, the only way gun owners win is when
we all mobilize to defeat gun control. That's what we are doing right
here, and right now.

This is a classic case of the dog that didn't bark. The NRA didn't
warn
members: as of the writing of this e-mail, there is nothing on their
website regarding this deal.

Right now the only pressure on the US Senate is from the anti-gunners
and the anti-gun media.

This will allow NRA operatives to quietly cut the deal to pass gun
control, and say "This is the best we can do."

They'll chalk up one victory (the liability portion) and two defeats
(assault weapons and gun shows), and hope the bill gets better in
Conference. This kind of cavalier gambit is what they have used for
decades, and gun owners always lose on these insider games.

What you can do:

Call the NRA-ILA immediately toll-free at 800-392-8683 and/or e-mail
them at Federal-Affairs@nrahq.org

You can also e-mail one of the NRA-ILA Director of Federal Affairs,
Chuck Cunningham, at ChuckC@visi.net.

Tell the NRA to immediately drop this idiotic plan to let the Assault
Weapons ban -- or any other gun control -- be tacked onto any
legislation, and to pull out all the stops to defeat these gun
controls,
or lose your membership forever. If you are not an NRA member, tell
them you are not a member because of these kinds of appeasements of the
gun-grabbers.

Also contact both of Colorado's US Senators. Don't wait until later:
use the below sample communication to e-mail, fax, or call our US
Senators immediately. Or better yet, contact them in all three manners

Senator Wayne Allard
Phone: (202) 224-5941
Fax:(202) 224-6471
Contact via internet: http://allard.senate.gov/contactme (paste this
url
into your browser, and type letter in the online form, or paste the
text
below)

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell
Phone(202) 224-5852
Fax:(202) 228-4609
Contact via internet: http://campbell.senate.gov/email.htm (paste this
url into your browser, and type letter in the online form, or paste the
text below)

-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMPLE COMMUNICATION

Dear Senator:

Senator Bill Frist will ask you to vote for an anti-gun package
containing:

-- S. 659, the gun liability bill;

-- an extension of the so-called "Assault Weapons" gun ban;

-- a gun show amendment which would effectively put gun shows out
of business.

S. 659 is not worth swallowing an extension on the Assault Weapons ban
or restrictions on gun shows. Both of these measures would constitute
very egregious violations of Congress' constitutional authority. I
hope
you will do everything in your power to make sure these amendments do
not end up in the bill.

Please know that any senator who votes to extend the Assault Weapons
ban
-- in whatever form -- or to restrict gun shows will be recognized as
the anti-gun politician that he is. I will be watching how you vote.
Thank you.

Sincerely,

-------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Gun Owners
Colorado's Largest Gun Rights Organization
PO Box 3114
Denver, Colorado 80201
Phone & Fax (888) 874-3006
http://www.rmgo.org exdir@rmgo.org
------------------------------------------







Like I said - just received this. Will post more in a bit. Meanwhile hit GeekWithA.45 as he has some updates worth checking out.

Posted 7:46 PM by Publicola

I found the following over at SayUncle's place about halfway down the post:

"The gun industry protection bill may have the Assault Weapons Ban attached to it."

From the linked story we find this:

"A Republican-led bill to immunize gun makers from wrongful-death claims is expected to hit the floor tomorrow, but Democrats and liberal Republicans will propose an amendment to extend the federal assault-weapons ban, possibly setting up a showdown with the House.
President Bush supports the assault-weapons proposal as well as the overall immunity bill.
'With regard to the assault-weapons ban, he supports the extension of the current ban,' White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. 'On immunity, he doesn't believe manufacturers of a legal product should be held liable for the illegal use of that product."

That's our "pro-gun" president???

"The ban is set to expire Sept. 13, and a split could arise between the White House and House Republicans backed by some of the conservative movement's most powerful interest groups.
The president wants the extension to make good on his 2000 campaign promise to continue the "common sense" legislation. But he also wants to protect the gun industry from trial lawyers, a position supported by the National Rifle Association."

Please remember that the Gun Control Act of 1968, with it's sporting purposes clause & prohibition on mail-order firearms was backed by the gun industry because they thought they could use the market that was being occupied by mail-order (often foreign) surplus gun dealers. Now think about this - if the gun industry supported the GCA of '68 so they could create & then fill a relatively small vaccuum in the market to increase their profits do you think for one second that they'd want ot kill a bill offerring them protection from frivilous lawsuits just so a handful of companies could go back ot making hi-capacity normal capacity mags & rifles with bayonet lugs on them?

So that's where at least one pressure point is located.

"Our position is very clear. This is not about extending the Clinton gun ban and it shouldn't muddy the waters,' said Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president.
'The issue is, do we want to save the American gun industry or kill it ... and we oppose any expansion of the Clinton semiautomatic gun ban,' Mr. LaPierre said."

Not really encouraging, but not damning either. He says the NRA is against the AWB & for the frivilous lawsuit protection bill, but he doesn't say outright which is more important.

"House Republican leadership has vowed to see the ban expire. And the friction between House and Senate Republicans over legislative compromises on the energy and Medicare bills could worsen if the bill for gun makers' immunity enters the House chamber with unwanted amendments.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said last year that there weren't enough votes in the House to reauthorize the ban, and he has vowed not to fight for votes to push the legislation."

I hope that was a misprint. "...vowed not to fight for votes to push the legislation..."? That is certainly better than fighting for votes to push for the AWB, but less encouraging than fighting for votes against the AWB.

Still, Delay is the Republican leader in the House, but it's Hastert who controls things & he's open to discussion last I heard. Perhaps Delay will have enough influence to sway people to not vote for the AWB in any form. If he actually tries to sway them that is.

"But Senate Democrats will not let the immunity proposal pass without extending the ban and may hold the overall bill hostage using amendments.
Howard Gantman, spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, said the California Democrat 'has said that she would offer this bill [as an amendment] to the Republican gun-liability bill.'
Mrs. Feinstein introduced a bill last year to extend the ban. It had several co-sponsors, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, and has the support of federal and local law enforcement agencies.
'We've urged President Bush to push this,' Mr. Gantman said."

Usual cast of bad guys with the usual evil plan. But the big question isn't whether or not they'll try to attach the AWB to the frivilous lawsuits bill, but whether or not Bush will actively push for it. I've opined before that Bush may be subject to leverage & it's entirely possible that he's holding out for a good deal before he starts throwing presidential weight towards passing the AWB extension.

"Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, introduced a bill in May to place more guns on that list. A similar bill in the Senate, sponsored by Sen. Frank R. Lautenburg, New Jersey Democrat, is expected to hit the floor this week.
Scott Roliston, a spokesman for Mrs. McCarthy, said his boss would bring more amendments to the gun bill.
'Congresswoman McCarthy ran for office for stricter gun laws. The president said he would sign an assault-weapons ban if it got to his desk. He has 208 days to do this, and it is going to be an issue,' Mr. Roliston said."

It's an issue now. Bush may very well think that he can keep his base (What are they gonna do; vote Democrat?) while getting some swing votes by signing this "reasonable" gun control law. I don't think he realizes that there are enough Bush supporters who will sit the next one out if the AWB gets extended or expanded to make Kerry or Edwards the next Pres.

But Bush may not be in touch enough to realize what he's doing. Like father, like son I guess.

"A final wrinkle in the debate will be a bill from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, for tighter regulation of the private sale of firearms at gun shows. Federal laws and those of numerous states require licensed gun dealers to conduct thorough criminal background checks of buyers, but guns sold by individuals at shows require no extensive checks.
Lobbyists say the proposed regulation, also opposed by gun-rights groups, has the votes to pass the Senate, either on its own or as an amendment to the gun makers' immunity bill. Its prospects in the House are less clear."

Not AWB related but thought y'all should prepare for that fight as well.

So what's gonna happen? No idea. The House & Senate have enough anti-gun votes to pass damn near anything short of a total ban (& I'm being optimistic), however if enough pressure is applied to the Republicans then they may firm up their votes to a more pro-gun position.

Here's what you have to do:

1: Communicate with your congresscritter (especially your Reps as the Senate is damn near hopeless) & tell him/her that if the AWB gets passed then you will withdraw support from their party!

Most congrescritters figure that either your individual vote won't matter that much in their race (especially if their next election is over a year away), or they can vote to kill the AWB while their buddies who aren't up for re-election can pass it.

Tell them it's a Party thing - we get an extended or expanded AWB & the other Party gets your votes & your friends' votes as well. No excuses!

This might make them pressure their buddies into killing any AWB bills or amendments.

Next - & this is perhaps most important - tell the NRA that if the AWB passes in any form for any reason whatsoever that you'll drop them & switch all your donations to GOA, JPFO & other no compromise orgs. Tell them you'll also drop membership in their state affiliate & throw your local support & donations to local no compromise groups.

This will get them off their ass (hopefully) & make them act like the 800 lb. gorilla that everyone thinks they are.

The reason the NRA is so critical is because they have lobbyists who are more immediately convincing than a couple thousand or tens of thousands of letters from across the country.

Now some of you know I detest the NRA. I wouldn't encourage anyone to join them no matter what because of the way they stab us in the back. But there's no doubt that they are influencial. we just have to grab them by the ear & make sure they don't use their influence to betray us again.

So with the congresscritters thinking about losing votes for their entire Party, & the NRA looking at losing a significant percentage of its members, then something might happen.

Oh, CC a copy of any e-mail to Bush & add a note that says you will not vote for Bush if the AWB passes. & you will not vote Repub again until the AWB is gone.

One last thing: mention to the NRA a boycott of any gun manufacturer who is part of any effort (group or individual) to get the protection from frivilous lawsuit bill passed despite an AWB attachment. The NRA will pass enough of those along to the gun industry groups should any disagreement about killing a bill with the AWB attached come up.

If enough of us do that we may have a chance of seeing the AWB die.

Let's review:

A passed AWB means no votes for that party regardless of individual votes. No excuses!

A passed AWB means resignation & no more cash for the NRA or its affiliates. No excuses!

A passed AWB means a boycott of any gun manufacturer who pushed for it or is a member of a trade organization that pushed for it. No excuses!

Here's GOA's Legislative Action Center page. Use it to find your congresscritter.

Here's a link that'll give you contact info for NRA state affiliates.

Here's the NRA's contact page.

Here's the contact page for the NRA's field reps.

Here's the contact page for the NRA-ILA. (The NRA's political & legal department more or less)

Update:

GeekWithA.45 has a post up y'all should read. He also has this follow up post which y'all should check out the links listed therein.

Clayton Cramer is much more optimistic than I am. I respect Mr. Cramer's research immensely but I quite often disagree with his views on things more recent. To sum up the nature of our disagreement in this case: he feels the NRA & the Republicans will do the correct thing - that is, kill the protection from frivilous lawsuits bill if an AWB is attached to it, while I don't share his faith in the NRA or the Republicans (& it's not from some hidden agenda about bashing the NRA - I've always been pretty open about why I bash them). It's simply that the NRA has supported gun control bills in the past, as have the firearms manufacturing industry. The Gun Control Act of '68 is the most prominent example.

In any event whether you're as optimistic as Mr. Cramer or as pessimistic as I am, contact the NRA & your congresscritters. If they're going to do the right thing anyway then politely but firmly making your feelings known to them won't hurt a thing. However if they were thinking about doing something naughty then enough contact with polite but firmly relayed ultimatums may get them back on the straight & narrow.

Posted 6:56 PM by Publicola

It gets better.

David Codrea received a very hateful e-mail from a Canadian acedemic. In this letter the author told Mr. Codrea, "...Better yet, use your gun to prevent your genes from being passed on to future generations."

It seems to have been initiated because someone posted a copy of Mr. Codrea's open letter to the Mayor of San Francisco on a usenet forum.

Now the writer of the letter, one Craig Levine, has e-mailed the FBI in an effort to get Mr. Codrea investigated by them.

& this coming from the land that gave us John Cantius Garand.

Posted 1:47 PM by Publicola

Schwarzenegger was interviewed on Meet The Press & while most of the attention was focused on his making arguments that people born outside of the U.S. should be eligible for the presidency, he did manage to slip this in concerning the homosexual marriage situation in San Francisco:

"In San Francisco it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that,"

& ya know he's correct: they shouldn't hand out licenses for "assault weapons". After all, owning & carrying an "assault weapon" is a Constitutionally enumerated Right & a license &/or fee should not be required. Although I doubt his statement was based on the same reasoning.

I'll leave some words from those much wiser than myself. If someone has his e-mail ya might wanna CC these to Schwarzenegger.

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is,
by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms ..."
Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution." —Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)

Posted 7:10 PM by Publicola

Apparently it's not unanimous that the treatment of David Codrea for his letter was wrong.

We have Bob who relayed this in the comments box:

"well DUH..you send a letter to an official threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle and (oh my) they arent going to investigate? The letter had merit in its content however until it reached that point."

Eugene Volokh takes a similar view:

"I generally have a hard time getting particularly outraged about stories like this...

The police might strongly suspect that the letter is rhetorical, but it's hard to tell that for sure. And if it isn't rhetorical -- if the writer does want to show up with those guns -- and the writer also wants to do something with those guns when he shows up, then we could have a bad scene.

If you were a responsible, freedom-loving police officer, would you just say 'Nah, sounds like nothing to me'? Or might you think it's worth some more investigation? The letter-writer writes, as a follow-up, 'I do find it bizarre that civil authority is so fearful of an armed citizenry that if they feel there is any chance of it happening, their response is to send armed men.' Why is it so bizarre? Armed citizens have at times done quite a bit of damage, including to a past Mayor of San Francisco. That's not reason to disarm them or throw them in jail for writing letters -- but it is reason to look closely at people who say they want to carry an arsenal to city hall.

But freedom of speech can't mean freedom from even disquieting investigations based on your speech. You can't be convicted for that letter; you can't be fined for it; but the police are entitled to talk to you to see whether you seem like an upstanding citizen (which by all accounts the author is) or someone who seems like a John Hinckley, and who therefore bears closer watching. Extremist groups are entitled to express their views; but I certainly hope that the police are investigating them more closely to see whether there might be extremist action, and not just extremist speech, in the offing. Likewise even for perfectly reasonable people who make statements that are also of the sort sometimes made by unreasonable people. It's part of the police department's job to investigate a bit more closely to see whether the speaker seems reasonable or unreasonable."

I would be remiss in not pointing out that Prof. Volokh does say this kind of thing could be troubling (if for instance Mr. Codrea received any sort of punishment) it's just that he feels the level of intrusion &/or the chilling effect in this instance is more or less outweighed by the need to protect the public safety.

& over at SayUncle there's been a similar disagreement about the appropriateness of the response:

"I like it. However, I do feel compelled to point out that it would awfully difficult for somebody to kill me with their homosexuality, so it's not exactly a valid comparison..." - Tom aka Tqirsch

"That guy made the classic apples & oranges mistake, so no wonder someone cried foul fruit.
(heh)." - Peggy from A Movable Beast

Tom/Tqirsch then adds this:

"Let me clarify. My comment was not based on the legality of the actions described. My comment, rather, concerned the justifications for banning those activities. Constitutionality and current law aside, it's very difficult to argue that homosexuality poses anywhere near the sort of public safety risk that guns potentially could. And whether or not they do a good job of it, protecting public safety is a valid function of government. That, to me, is where the comparison falls flat."

So let's start with a review of the relevant paragraphs from the letter that started all of this.

"You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.
Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.
So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?
How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?
Please let me know if I have your support."

Now to Bob's concerns -

"well DUH..you send a letter to an official threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle and (oh my) they arent going to investigate? The letter had merit in its content however until it reached that point."

I fail to see where he said the rifle would be loaded. He mentioned magazines but never said whether or not they'd be holding ammo. & keep in mind the rifle (if you really want to call an AR-15 a rifle - shudder), the magazines, & the manner of carry he described for the pistols are all illegal under California law (to the best of my knowledge at least). However there is no additional penalty for the rifle (shudder) or pistols or magazines being loaded or unloaded (again according to my admittedly limited knowledge of California firearms law). So the illegal acts could have been performed without any ammunition at all (unless for good measure you wanted to bring some ammo that Cali has banned for some hoplophobic reason or another, in which case they could be in your pocket or in the firearm & the point would be made)

Now I bring this up because he also mentions that he's "...a peaceable citizen..." & therefore "...should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this."

Given the general nature of the paragraphs in question where he is asking for an answer (although I'm sure expecting none) & the information I pointed out above, it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that A; he wasn't actually planning on doing those things B; He was seeking advice on the nature of the reception he'd receive if he were serious & C; he had no harmful intent.

That does qualify as "...threatening to show up at their door with a loaded rifle..."

Prof. Volokh thinks that under the circumstances this was a reasonable action: investigating someone who made remarks that could be the indication of a threat to public safety.

However what Prof. Volokh views as a potential threat is simply no more than a person threatening to exercise their Right to Arms. Now I don't doubt that many people in a city would feel a bit uneasy about seeing someone with an AR-15 on their shoulder walking down the main street (I would too: imagine taking an AR-15 to town carrying it like it was a real rifle & you were proud of it - shudder). But then again many people might feel uneasy if they saw two men kissing on the main street in town, or a person passing out religious &/or political literature. All have the potential to create harm: the guy with the AR-15 might attempt to shoot someone, the men kissing could be exchanging mononucleouses, & the people passing out literature could start a riot by the material contained therein. But potential is not something we should view as grounds to condemn, or even intrusively investigate people for.

For example, if Kim du Toit was investigated everytime he mentioned that he'd like to kick Sen. Schumer in the genitals, do you really think they're be anything left in the SS Secret Service budget for anything else?

& take me for instance. If Prof. Volokh is comfortable with calling an AR-15 & "several" handguns an arsenal then I suppose my modest collection would be akin to an armory. & I guarantee that my potential for causing damage is much greater than anyone whom merely has an AR-15 & a few pistols. Yet I have no harmful intent & the actuality of it is that I am as dangerous to the public at large as someone with no weapons, no arms, no legs & is unable to communicate.

Now I don't think it unreasonable for cops to look into something. & if they'd have simply ran a google search, found out that Mr. Codrea was a big name in the pro-2nd amendment community & possibly even looked up his criminal records to see if he had done anything rash in the past then I don't think the level of attention would have been inappropriate - well if you get over the fact that all Mr. Codrea talked about doing is illegal because of laws that are violative of his Rights & conflict with the U.S. Constitution (& I'd be more than happy to discuss at great length the flaws of the incorporation theory). But keep in mind to me & quite a few others that Mr. codrea's actions would have been no more shocking than a person going hunting in a National Forest, or a person saying he/she might attend a particular church this Sunday. So even the unintrusive investigation would be questionable if you accept the fact that the laws in California regarding firearms are quite unconstitutional & violative of the people's Rights.

However let me point ou