05 September 2007

Random Bits

D.C. vs. Parker Supreme Court Appeal

Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die. -- District of Columbia Attorney General Linda Singer commenting on the Appeal of the D.C. v Parker decision.

We gather the District of Columbia's legal staff isn't quite sure what rights the 2nd Amendment guarantees, but whatever it is, it doesn't apply to them!


Opinion Polls shows support for gun rights

This is bad news for the likes of the Brady Campaign, Jesse Jackson, NYC Mayor Bloomberg and others.

Zogby International early this month found in a poll of 1,020 Americans that 66 percent of the American voting public sees no need for new gun control laws.

A recent Internet survey by the Washington Post's freely distributed Express revealed that 85 percent of 1,658 poll respondents favored allowing college students who have permits to carry guns on campus.


California Senator would disarm disaster victims

In discussions of civil unrest, such as that following hurricane Katrina, California State Senator Jack Scott (D-Pasadena) said he would be pleased if the governor would order confiscation of firearms in the home. California NRA members posted a short video on YouTube slamming Scott.


While California doesn't have hurricanes, it does have earthquakes and it doesn't take too much imagination to envision how ugly things could get if most of the 6.8 million residents around San Francisco Bay were suddenly thrust into chaos. I would think his response would be no different if the emergency had a societal cause -- like the Rodney King riots - that spread beyond a limited area.


In either case, police resources would be stretched very thin, even with whatever National Guard units that could be deployed. Neighbors who could band together to protect their own neighborhoods would be intentionally stripped of their ability to defend against looters or malcontents by an illegal decree.


That Senator Scott would ask the Governor to divert scarce, overworked police resources from stopping crime to confiscate lawfully owned firearms just shows he is from another planet. Voice your opinion to Senator Scott at http://dist21.casen.govoffice.com/


Katrina Kountdown

It has been two years since New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and his police illegally confiscated legally owned firearms from N.O. citizens. Despite the efforts of lawyers, the city has refused to return the guns to their owners and continues to stonewall efforts to do so. The real question is when will either the Federal judge or the Second Amendment lawyers grow a pair and demand the arrest and prosecution of Nagin and his bureaucrats for willful civil rights violations (2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights).

Nagin made his effrontery worse by showing up for the "civil rights march" for in Jena Louisiana. Apparently, the only civil rights Nagin is concerned with are those that will give him favorable press coverage.


Woes for Gun Control

We note the resignation of vehemently anti-gun Broward County (FL) sheriff Ken Jenne amidst a corruption investigation involving federal tax evasion and mail fraud charges. Looks like the Brady Campaign lost yet another spokesperson for their cause.

And then there is this about CeaseFire

The Illinois Auditor General released a 28-page audit of the CeaseFire violence prevention group detailing misappropriation of funds, receiving money outside of the parameters of payment agreements and having work started by its partners without written agreements. See the article here.


Oregon Teacher Challenges Campus Gun Prohibition

An Oregon teacher is challenging the anti-gun policy of her school board. The teacher has a valid carry permit as well as a restraining order against her ex-husband. She fears for her and her daughter's safety, as many women in similar circumstances might. Oregon law prohibits local governments, that would include school boards, from restricting possession of firearms by concealed firearm permit holders. Despite this, however, the so-called "educators" in the school board claim they can ignore the statute because... well, because they can.

"It's our responsibility to provide a safe learning environment for our students and a safe working environment for our employees," schools attorney Tim Gerking said in an interview late last week. "We feel that would not be fostered by allowing folks, whether they have the authority or not, to bring weapons onto campus, in particular firearms — loaded firearms."

If what Mr. Gerking says is true, then shouldn't he insist on disarming police officers, when they enter the campus too? Even though they have "authority" it would be logical that cops leave their guns at the station rather than bring them onto campus. Or are the police exempt because they are somehow imbued with magic powers?


Engraved Firearms

Over the years I have seen firearms engraved in dozens of different ways and styles. Some don't appeal to me based on the style or the execution, but some just take my breath away. While the expense of most engraved guns means many folks don't shoot them very often, a couple of engravers I have spoken with say they always appreciate seeing one being fired or carried. It means the craftsmanship is being seen by others and the gun isn't just a piece of rarely seen artwork. One engraver who offers his services is just finishing work on a S&W Model 27 revolver and the work is breathtakingly handsome.

The work shown here is by Wayne D'Angelo who used to engrave guns for Smith & Wesson as well as Colt. This is the appearance before sending the gun out for rebluing.

This is classic "bank note" style engraving that really enhances the look of any handgun. This full-coverage job turns a run of the mill 3 1/2" barreled Model 27 into something unique and eye catching.

Want to surprise a loved one with a new gun but you want it to be extra special? Consider engraving. You don't need use full-coverage to set it apart from the mass-produced guns out there. Simply engraving your loved one's name along with some embellishment that represents them, their favorite sport, a university logo, their military service unit or something similar will make for a treasured gift. If you are interested in engraving services you can see more at Wayne D'Angelo's website http://dangeloengraving.com/.

No, Wayne hasn't paid us for this plug nor do we have any arrangement with him. An artist's work speaks for itself and Wayne's work speaks volumes.

Gun Control Is A Failure

Living in California as I do, you might presume that I get a number of opportunities every month to discuss gun control. You'd be right. But I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.

I'm now arguing that gun control is a complete failure.

Why am I doing this? Because it's true. All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened.

Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.

Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.

None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns. A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless victim killing zones.

"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as piles of red tape) the numbers would show they are right. Really?

Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.

Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people. Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.

So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects. We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being caught.

The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked "pull", never quite realizing that, even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.