01 December 2008

The Lesson of the Mumbai Massacre

When one quote is worth 1,000 words

When terrorists opened fire in a Mumbai (Bombay) railway station, they killed dozens of people, yet no one opposed them. Sebasitan D'Souza, the photographer and picture editor for the Mumbai Mirror snapped the famous photo of one of the terrorists in India, seen around the world last week, said it all: "I only wish I had a gun, not a camera."

Mr. D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them?"

Governments have the capacity to massively overwhelm attacks like his, but it would be like cutting off your hand because you burned a finger. Airstrikes would have stopped the attacks, but at the expense of massive casualties. The only alternative was the response that we saw on our televisions repeatedly: A small army of police encircling a building while unarmed citizens are slaughtered before their useless show of force.

The truth is that no one will protect you – not the police, not the part-time security guard, not the staff of whatever business you are patronizing and not the national armed forces. You must take responsibility for protecting yourself and the only means to do that is to ensure that you are appropriately armed whenever you intend to go out in public.

If the laws prohibit taking responsibility for your own safety, the laws must be changed to allow citizens to protect themselves and their families. Currently most states allow concealed carry. The few states that do not must be changed or we will surely see this kind of carnage in our own country.

In fact, we have seen miniature versions of this type of violence before. Shootings in our schools, post offices, shopping malls and some office buildings. As pointed out in my previous blog posting, the experts are now starting to think that "Gun Free Zone" signs attract violent acts because killers see it as a "safe zone" for them.

There were just ten (10) terrorists in Mumbai and they managed to hold off the majority of that city's emergency personnel. They were highly motivated, well trained and disciplined in their actions. Hours went by before the first police were even able to move in on one of the hotels. By that time the terrorists had killed over a hundred people. That's frightening.

What's more frightening is that just two or three men created the Mumbai railway station disaster. Dozens were killed yet police inside the station did not fire on the terrorists. Confusion, uncertainty and some fear probably played a big part in that. But no doubt some citizens could clearly see who the killers were and only lacked the means to fight back.

Gun owners in the U.S. often discuss tactics and strategies for similar situations. But I think the tactics are straightforward. Either you get your family to safety or you immediately and aggressively engage the shooter. If someone is trying to kill multiple people in a public place stopping him is priority one.

The question about "collateral" damage always comes up. Someone always mentions the innocent hit by a stray bullet. Not to sound callous, but those people are already dead if the killer is not stopped. When James Oliver Huberty walked into a San Ysidro, California McDonalds in 1984, he killed 21 people and wounded 19 in an unobstructed 77-minute killing spree. If one armed person had killed Huberty and one his future victims, the outcome would have been an improvement.

Most civilized governments put the responsibility of a gunshot injury on the originator of the bullet. Thus, if your bullet kills an innocent grandmother, most civil authorities will claim you committed a crime. Yet, while such laws serve to deter wanton shooting, when it comes to mass murder, such laws inhibit, and may prohibit, police and citizens from preventing a worse disaster.

I wonder how many of Mumbai's police officers worried about hitting an innocent person. Or if their training had emphasized the dire consequences for hitting an innocent. When mass killings are underway, one wonders which is the worse tragedy - the number killed by a madman or that capable people could have limited his death toll, but did nothing.


Cell Phone shutdown during shootings?

One item caught my eye about the Mumbai shootings. The terrorists used Blackberry phones to communicate and coordinate during their raid. I expect this to be hotly debated in government circles as the immediate concerns die down.

This little tidbit in the news tells any other terrorist or other group of nutjobs out there this is one way to keep in communication. That police did not or could not get the services shut down has implications for the future. Not all of them good.

If police can order cell phone services interrupted during a shooting event, what happens to the dozens or hundreds of people trying to call for help? Or those who are inside the situation? Imagine talking to your daughter locked in her dorm room during such a shooting when the phone goes dead!

Cell phones have better range and reliability than traditional radios. It's possible that well equipped killers could switch to radios but these are more easily monitored than cell phone traffic. Still, expect that governments are going to take a serious look at how to curtail cell phone use in these kinds of emergencies.


Comments: email editor@handgunclub.com




21 November 2008

Media Surprise

Armed Resistance Stops School Shooters
Media Surprised by findings

From WCPO.com (Channel 9 - Kentucky) comes this article, which finally acknowledges two important points gun owners and experts have been preaching about mass-shootings all along.

A fast, armed response is the best way to deal with mass murderers.

Even more amazing -- and our hats are off to the WCPO staff for verifying this -- they are recognizing that most of these killings take place in "gun free" zones - or "victim disarmament zones" as some call them.

WCPO cites studies by experts are Ron Borsch from SEALE Academy in Bedford, Ohio and John Benner from Tactical Defense Institute in Adams County, Ohio.

As many people know, law enforcement develops profiles of certain criminal types, including mass murderers. In the last 40 years, researchers have compiled the profile of the typical mass murderer, the type that walk into schools, post offices or their employer's offices to kill multiple people.

Law enforcement calls them "active shooters" or "active killers" because they are actively killing their victims when police are called and/or arrive on the scene.

According to the profile, these mass murderers seek to inflict as many casualties as quickly as possible and don't necessarily seek to escape right away. The profile also indicates most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They select "soft targets" like shopping malls and schools precisely because they contain large numbers of defenseless victims with the virtual guarantee no one the scene one is armed.

And typically, as soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters turn the gun on themselves.

The Columbine High School shootings in 1999 forced police to change their tactics. For this type of event, police officials found that it simply takes too long to assemble a tactical SWAT team in time to stop an active shooter.

New tactics were developed in which the first four or five patrol officers on the scene form an ad-hoc tactical team. They use a diamond formation, with guns pointed in all directions, as they enter the shooting scene. This technique was employed by police departments around the country.

Then, in April 2007, a lone gunman at Virginia Tech killed 32 people in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes. That is three people killed and a total of four shot every minute. As predicted, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself.

Law Enforcement tactics change again

After reviewing Virginia Tech, the staff at top tactics training facilities determined the first officer on the scene should make entry immediately, with an aggressive attack on the shooter. In these incidents, time is of the essence. For every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die.

“Time is our worst adversary in dealing with active killers,” says Borsch. “We’re racing what I call ‘the Stopwatch of Death.’ Victims are often added to the toll every several seconds.”

In other words, while it was once considered suicide for a lone officer to take on an active killer, it is now considered statistical homicide for him not to do so.

The other statistic that emerged is that "active shooters" almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks. Most states prohibit the carring of concealed firearms in schools and college campuses, even with a CCW permit. Many malls and workplaces also prohibit firearms by placing signs at their entrances.

Now some tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers.

WCPO received many questions about the killings taking place in gun-free zones, so they did their own analysis of mass murders in the U.S. What were their findings about these mass killings?
  1. The vast majority occurred in schools or on college campuses where firearms are banned as a matter of state statutes.
  2. Others took place in post offices where firearms are banned as a matter of federal law.
  3. Most of the rest took place in shopping malls or other businesses where the owners posted signs prohibiting firearm possession by anyone including those with CCW permits.
Based on data from the SEALE study, an analysis by TDI, and WCPO's own research, WCPO said "we are able to say definitively that most 'active killer' shootings have occurred in so-called 'gun free' zones."

The experts who say they may be "invitations" are also John Benner and Ron Borsch who have six decades of law enforcement experience and training between them.

Borsch, who is a 17 year police veteran and a part-time SWAT team member before he retired from street work, analyzed more than 90 active-shooter incidents on the basis of data largely ferreted out from Internet reports. Most involved schools and colleges, but workplaces, shopping malls, churches and other public places are also represented.

Among his findings that have helped shape his tactical thinking:

  • 98% of active killers act alone.
  • 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site.
  • Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.
  • They strike “stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves.”
  • “They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped.” They do not take hostages, do not negotiate.
  • They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and “typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation.”
  • 90% commit suicide on-site. “Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely.”

“They choose unarmed, defenseless innocents for a reason: They have no wish to encounter someone who can hurt them. They are personally risk- and pain-avoidant. The tracking history of these murderers has proved them to be unlikely to be aggressive with police. If pressed, they are more likely to kill themselves.” Borsh says.

Comments? Write to Editor@handguclub.com

06 October 2008

Random Targets

William Shatner on Gun Control

Well, almost. This is a video clip of a scene from Shatner's TV show Boston Legal. I'm not going to spoil it for you by describing it. I've caught only a few episodes of the show and it is well done, though I don't always agree with the politics expressed. Let's just say that I approve of this particular message.





Chuck Norris NRA Ad

Chuck Norris, never one to mince words or be shy about his patriotism joined with the NRA to present this ad. He doesn't endorse any candidate, but simply reminds us some of what is at stake in this or any election. If you want to look at how your local candidates stand on gun rights, you can go to the NRAPVF site and enter your zip code for more information.




BREAKING NEWS:
Chicago Faces Incorporation Challenge


There are now two (2) incorporation challenges working their way through the court system. This is good news as it increases the odds that at least one court will decide favorably for gun owners.

The challenge to the Chicago gun ban, one similar to that in D.C., has now focused on the question of incorporation at the request of the court. Before deciding the merits of the case against the gun ban, the court will decide if the Second Amendment applies to the State of Illinois and Chicago. The case is McDonald v. City of Chicago, et al and you can read the brief for incorporation here.


California - Nordyke v. King, et al

As previously mentioned, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Heller case, holding that there is an individual right to own firearms, does not automatically apply to all of the states. Historically, the court has held that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on federal powers, not the states. Since the civil war, the court has "incorporated" the individual rights against the states in various decisions. Until a right is "incorporated" the states do not have to follow that limitation.

The most promising case is Nordyke, et al v. King, et al. In this appeal, Nordyke, who runs gun shows in California, filed suit over a decision by a county board of supervisors to prohibit gun shows on county lands (fairgrounds). The original case went through the courts and was appealed to the 9th Federal Circuit court of Appeals. This court supported the county, saying (at the time) the Second Amendment only protected a "collective right" nor did it apply to the states.

In light of Heller, attorneys for the Nordykes have filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit court. Since the Supreme Court has ruled that the right is an individual right instead of a collective one, part of the Circuit court's ruling is undermined. They ask the court to revisit the earlier decision.


But wait! There's more!

Because the California constitution acknowledges the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, one argument is that the 2nd Amendment is already incorporated (but no one acknowledges this). That is just one question of several that must be answered.

This case has attracted some major legal talent. Primary attorneys for the Nordykes are Don Kilmer and Don B. Kates, both of whom have written books on the 2nd Amendment. The Second Amendment Foundation submitted a supporting brief written by Alan Gura who successfully argued the Heller case before the Supreme Court. Gura's brief is one very persuasive document that disassembles the opposition. The current briefs to date are listed below.

In the original case, a three-judge panel decided against Nordyke. In their decision, however, they had problems with existing (pre-Heller) decisions. They essentially provided a roadmap for incorporation which Gura, Kates and Kilmer have followed.

If this case is decided favorably, it opens the door to challenging thousands of state gun laws. States like California and Massachusetts will have to defend their laws on strict constitutional grounds.

Litigants Briefs:


10/01/08



Comments or questions? Email me.


24 September 2008

Stuff At Random

On the Election

This election season, according to some who have looked up these things, is reminiscent of the election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Lies, innuendo, dirty tricks, a highly biased media and a confused public left behind. Living in a state that Democrats believe is theirs, we aren't seeing on television the kinds of ads some of you are. They're getting seriously ugly. Frankly, I'm appalled. Some of this is politics, of course. But when the media simply stares out the window when Obama's campaign mocks Senator McCain because he is disabled and cannot use a computer for very long -- well, that tells me our news organizations are simply arms of the Democrat party. By association, Franklin Roosevelt should not have been elected President because he could not drive a car.

In one of my previous posts I said I'd rather vote for Jabba the Hut than Obama-Biden. I mean that. Here we are just months from the election and I still cannot figure out what positions Obama has a firm stance on, except gun control.

Lastly, the first Vice Presidential debate is scheduled for October 2. I expect Palin will show up well against even an experienced trough-feeder like Biden. But, the rumor mill is working overtime. "The" rumor has it that just after that debate, Biden will announce he's stepping down due to some serious "illness". This will allow Obama to bring Hillary on board as his VP candidate with the obvious hope of re-energizing his campaign at the 11th hour. The background for the rumor is that Biden's frequent slips in the press that show up as criticism of Obama or the campaign have annoyed the Chicago Kool-Aid drinkers so much that they want him out.

N.Y. Times - What Constitution?

The old gray lady, the N.Y. Times has long been known as a bastion of ultra-liberal thinking. Any more, it seems that senility is the major requirement for a reporter to land a job. Or, at least, no knowledge of the basic constitutional principles of our country.

In the Times Freakonomics blog, Stephen J. Dubner asks for ideas to curb gun deaths. With such a question, one might think that asking police officers, criminologists or perhaps even firearms experts what we might do. But no. His sources are a reformed gang member, an avowed anti-gun "researcher" (used by the Brady Campaign), one of NY Mayor Bloomberg's anti-gun lawyers and a professor at the anti-gun Harvard school of medicine.

Their solutions?
1) Provide large monetary awards for anonymous tips to police that a person has a gun. Great idea. Gerry Gangbanger calls police on his wealthy looking target and lets the police check him for weapons. If he's got a gun but isn't arrested, Mr. Gangbanger can look for a safer victim. If no gun shows up, the poor guy will be a bit rattled and be an easier victim.

2) Punish the entire family of a minor involved in "gun violence." This came from a reformed gang member, so perhaps he doesn't realize the ramifications here. He claims the parents are should be financially responsible for the actions of their minor children. Including garnishing their wages for their entire lives and having them pay all outstanding debts. He also mentions forcing the parents to serve half the time of the perpetrator. Yeah. That makes sense. One kid in the family gets served a drug-spiked drink, is forced to commit a robbery or homicide to blackmail him into the gang. If he's caught, his siblings are turned into wards of the state, his parents jailed, likely their life savings drained by lawyers and the child is in jail too. Then, while they're trying to restart their lives, they're kept in the poorhouse by garnished wages. I guess punishing a single working mother AND her three kids, who's father ran out on them (or is in prison), makes perverted sense.

3) The Harvard professor wants a National Firearm Safety Administration. Such an agency would, in his view, control everything from the design of guns to the materials they're made of. Of course that would include how many steps it would take to actually fire the gun. Don't worry about all those evil "assault weapons" though. With a wave of an administrative rule-making wand, those would be outlawed like lawn-darts.

125 Shot Dead In Chicago Over Summer
CBS News Reports

CBS news reported that 125 people were killed in Chicago over the summer and that is almost twice the number of U.S. Troops killed in Iraq in the same time period. What a stunning revelation! The entire country of Iraq is a safer place than Barak Obama's "Gun Free" Chicago!

CBS identified Chicago’s high murder rate as almost totally gang related and geographically isolated. Chicago police spokeswoman Monique Bond said in an e-mail, "Up to 60 percent of the shootings are gang related. More than 90 percent of the offenders have criminal histories and up to 80 percent of the victims have criminal histories."

Wait. Play that again. A full 90 percent of the offenders have a criminal history. And, they have guns. And 80 percent of the victims are also criminals. Yet only 60% are gang related? I'm beginning to wonder if all that confiscated marijuana is making it to the evidence lockers. Yes, it is appalling that 20% of the victims are apparently non-criminals. But one wonders how many of those victims were involved in buying drugs, prostitution or some other "victimless crime". One also wonders how many of this 20% might still be alive if Chicago allowed citizens to defend themselves.

The map, which accompanied the CBS story, can be found here. It shows the numbers are geographically condensed in a few neighborhoods. Unfortunately, no demographics are available about these areas.

27 August 2008

American Heroes

No. 1 - Brian Fentiman

There a number of newspaper and television items dedicated to highlighting the acts of heroism by our soldiers in Iraq. I think it's about time to acknowledge our American Heroes here at home, in civilian attire.

We Americans usually pride ourselves on our compassion for others. Be it helping survivors of a hurricane, flood or earthquake or those who take hot food to elderly neighbors in the midst of a harsh Minnesota winter. Others put their lives on the line to defend a total stranger from criminal violence. They do it freely, without reward or compensation. These are all heroes.

Mr. Fentiman's actions helped save the lives of two women, an infant, himself and his fiancée. By involving himself in a situation where others were at apparent risk, Mr. Fentiman showed the true American spirit.

It was June 28, 2008, a Saturday, just two days after the Supreme Court announced its 5-4 ruling that Washington, D.C., citizens have the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. Mr. Fentiman, who buys and renovates inner-city homes, along with his fiancée Maria, had spent the day showing real estate investors their investment properties in York.

They were on their way to Hanover, Pennsylvania to visit Mr. Fentiman's mother around 8 p.m. when they came upon what looked like a rear-end traffic accident. However, what Mr. Fentiman and his fiancée had come across was a case of out-of-control road rage.

Douglas Allen Need, along with his passenger Fred William Minnich, were driving recklessly when Need swerved in front of another car on east Philadelphia Street and was hit from behind. In a fit of road rage, he stormed out of his car, went back to two young women and a baby in the car that hit his, reached through the driver's window and started beating the driver violently.

She was able to break free and drive her car to the only place she could go -- the parking lot of a local beer distributorship next to the street. Need ran back to his car, squealed his tires into the parking lot and looked as though he was going to broadside the women's car with them still inside. At the last moment, he swerved his car around and blocked her from escaping.

Fentiman, seeing all this, pulled into the parking lot, got out of the car and yelled at Need to leave the women alone while Need's passenger, Minnich, was in the parking lot. The woman got out of her car and escaped into the store. Need followed but only moments later exited the store back into the parking lot.

Both Need and Minnich were uncontrollably enraged and seemed deranged past the point of caring who they hurt. They threatened that they had guns and were going to kill people. At one point, Minnich, armed with a box-cutter, entered the store and chased Evan Rineer of Columbia. During this chase, Minnich yelled, "You are here now, but you'll be dead by tomorrow" as he chased Rineer in the beer distributorship.

During this time, Need ran to the driver's side door of Fentiman's car and started pounding on the window, shouting at Fentiman's fiancée who was inside the car with the engine running. Fearing is fiancée's life was in danger because of the previous death threats, Fentiman drew his .45 caliber pistol, chambered a round and ordered Need to step away from the car. Need angrily complied.

Need then returned to the center of the parking lot, according to witnesses, and continued with threats and deranged behavior. After Fentiman went to the driver's door of his car, Need turned back and came at him, waving his arms and shouting, "just shoot me".

Fentiman ordered him to stay back, but Need closed the distance. At approximately five feet, Need put his hand into his pocket and Fentiman fired a round into Need's left thigh. Apparently unfazed, Need reached out and grabbed Fentiman by the shirt, ripping the top button and grabbed his right arm.

A second shot rang out at point-blank range into Need's thigh. The .45 caliber slug ripped through Need's femoral artery. Need went down and Fentiman nervously stepped back from his assailant.

York City Police Officer Kenneth Fogleman responded to the area after hearing shots. He had drawn his weapon and ordered Fentiman to drop his firearm, when Minnich came running out of the beer distributor door screaming and striking his chest. Fogleman had to take his attention off Fentiman to focus on Minnich, who charged at him and repeatedly asked to be shot.

Fogleman subdued and handcuffed Minnich. He then turned his attention to the now disarmed Fentiman who surrendered without incident. As he was being led, handcuffed, to a police car, one of the women he had defended thanked Fentiman for saving her life.

Douglas Allen Need died at York hospital. Fred William Minnich was charged with simple assault, disorderly conduct by engaging in a fight and public drunkenness. Minnich remains free on his own recognizance pending his Sept. 5 arraignment in York County Court.

Three weeks after the incident, the York District Attorney ruled that Fentiman's actions were justifiable and no charges would be brought.

Fentiman doesn't see himself as a "hero" and he says it is still hard to come to terms with taking another man's life. He's gone to a psychiatrist to help him deal with the emotions that come with taking a life. "He was a human being, he had a life and it was my actions that stopped him."

Fentiman's fiancée, Maria, says, though traumatic, this has brought them closer. Maria paid for Fentiman's concealed carry permit as a gift because he worked in such run-down parts of the city.

Mr. Fentiman tells his own story in The York Daily Record and how he copes with the aftermath. It is worth reading for his insights.

Know someone who's an American Hero for defending others? Tell us about it by writing to: blogeditor@handgunclub.com

25 August 2008

Obama - Oh Brother!

Joe Biden? Are you serious?


Obama selected Delaware's Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Yes, Joe "hoof-in-mouth" Biden. Or as some people might call him, Joe "anti-gun" Biden. I'm beginning to wonder of Obama's brain is made of Gouda cheese.

But, I'm not sure if this is a curse or a blessing.

Obama record says he wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons and he opposes all CCW laws. He's from Mayor Daley's Chicago, hardly a gun-friendly city.

Couple Obama with speak-before-you think Biden who is hostile to gun owners and gun rights, and it'll be a dismal four years. Biden has a NRA rating of F- simply because they don't have anything lower.

Hell, before I'd vote for these two clowns, I'd vote for Jabba the Hut. At least then, I'd know I'm voting for a self-serving slug.

A Democrat victory in this election would mean a president that is anti-gun and who could appoint several anti-gun Supreme Court judges.

The recent win in the Supreme Court Heller case was a meager 5-4 decision. It's frightening to me that only five justices were in the majority. Especially when you consider the number of documents from history that support the individual right.

Further, the court divided neatly between conservative and liberal-minded justices, making the Heller case very much a political football. Only Justice Kennedy's well-known "swing vote" prevented a stalemate. We cannot rely on that kind of fortune.

An anti-gun president, like Obama, could try to add like-minded judges to the court who are young and healthy. This would leave a 20 to 30 year legacy disastrous to the country and gun rights. I'll make this simple:

Gun owners cannot afford a President like Obama and a congress controlled by Democrats.

For now, we have just the one Supreme Court decision on our side. Many things can force the retirement of one or more of the five Justices to allow replacements to be appointed. If that were to happen in the first two years, we could see a case fast-tracked to the court so they could reverse the Heller decision. We could lose big time.

Meanwhile, a Democrat Congress could give us new restrictions and taxes. Each new law would require lengthy and expensive appeals. We could find ourselves awash in even more regulations and restrictions.

Silver Lining
I mentioned that Obama's selection of Biden might be a blessing. If Democrat gun-owners are truthful with themselves, they'll see that there is a major risk in voting for Obama. Not only for themselves, but their children and grandchildren.

If your right to own and use your firearms is important to you, be it for hunting, self-defense, sport or recreational shooting then you won't want to vote for Obama-Biden. Personally, I'd see any gun owner voting for Obama to be like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

If you're a Democrat and on a low simmer over this article, you should be. But not at this messenger. You should be figuring out how to convince 3 or 4 other likely Democrat voters that Obama's "change" is not the change we need. This could turn out to be a "blessing" by opening the eyes of otherwise staunch Democrats before the election. I might suggest they write in Ron Paul's name instead of voting for Obama.

Then again, some people have suggested that Obama has done the impossible. He's made Hillary look like a viable choice! Now that's frightening!

Of course, this can also galvanize all those "embittered" conservative gun-owners to turn out at the polls. Remember that the last few elections have hinged on a bare margin of votes to elect a president, don't let Obama win because you didn't vote.

Not everyone is a single-issue voter. But regardless of why we went into Iraq, the military is now working out withdrawal plans with the Iraqi government. Chances are that we'll be out of there in the middle of the next presidential term, regardless of who occupies the White House. The price of oil will continue to fluctuate based not on who's in the White House, but on the politics of the Middle East.

Democrat Unity?
There is media talk about the Democrats uniting behind Obama and Hillary Clinton will now throw her support behind the party's candidate.

Yeah, riiiight.
I caught this photo on The Drudge Report showing Hillary looking anything but "unified" with Obama. In fact, I'd suggest to the Secret Service that they keep him out of low flying airplanes and away from trains, elevators and moving traffic.

The fact is, some 30% of the delegates Hillary won said they "have reservations" about Obama being president. And 15% are unsure if they want to vote for Obama. Hardly what you'd call "Unity", is it?

Ted Kennedy
That Ted Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor is terrible news. That's not the kind of thing anyone wants to hear in their senior years. Fighting a disease like this is bad enough if you're young and healthy but it's much harder when you're over 70.

I say all of the above because I'm human and I have compassion for other people. I also despise Teddy Kennedy. I dislike his politics and I dislike the kind of person he exhibited himself to be over the last 30 years.

Ever since that little incident at Chappaquiddick my regard for him has diminished with each passing year. Not only his rabidly anti-gun stance - which, considering how brothers Jack and Robert Kennedy were killed, we might understand - but his sex and booze scandals along with his penchant for wasting tax money.

I'd much rather see Teddy make his farewell speech, gracefully retire from politics and spend his last years surrounded by his large family in quiet retreat. But following in President Reagan's lead would likely be too dignified for a self-centered egotistical socialist like Teddy.

My final thought of the day: Friends, don't let friends vote for Obama.

Have something to say? Email: blogeditor@handgunclub.com

22 August 2008

Random Shots

NRA Spying on Anti-Gun Groups?

In a recent Mother Jones article, now picked up by the blame-stream media, there are allegations that the NRA hired a consulting firm to plant a "spy" inside anti-gun groups.

The Mother Jones article, There's Something About Mary: Unmasking a Gun Lobby Mole claims that Mary McFate was paid by a consulting firm employed by the NRA and she infiltrated several anti-gun groups.

One of the quotes from the article comes from Ceasefire New Jersey's Bryan Miller who said the operation "would confirm for me the way that the gun lobby works, which is no rules, no question of fairness or honesty." Talk about the kettle calling the pot black! Since when has any gun-control organization not lied or distorted the facts?

In reality, is anyone surprised? I've been to local NRA and other pro-gun meetings and spotted anti-gun activists in the audience. Usually they come in pairs for mutual support in "enemy territory". They are usually easy to spot - often taking notes or squirming uncomfortably in their chairs. And they seldom talk to many people about firearms or about fighting a new bill.
Nor would it surprise me to find a Brady Campaign mole working quietly in some corner of the NRA offices. Though I would expect that person to be earning much less for the anti-gun side. If such a "spy" was uncovered, I wouldn't spend much time blasting the anti-gun lobby. I'd be insisting that the NRA (or similar organization) improve their background checks of people in sensitive positions.

Oklahoma Gun Inspection?

A news article described the murder of two young girls in Oklahoma. Both girls were shot to death alongside a road four miles outside of town. As terrible as that is, what the Oklahoma authorities have done in response to these shootings is nothing short of incredible. Another news story says that state authorities sent letters to owners of some .40 caliber pistols, asking them to "voluntarily" submit their guns for "inspection" (ballistic testing).

This should send chills down any citizen's spine. It shows what happens when you combine gun registration with a disregard for the constitution.

Oklahoma authorities are asking people via letter to submit their guns for ballistic testing, absent any probable cause to believe any particular citizen's gun was involved. According to one article, people who don't bring in their gun will be put on a suspect list. That's fine by me. If you want to test-fire my gun, get a warrant as required by the constitution!


Disgusting Anti-Gun Billboard Debuts in Boston

I was going to write something pithy and clever for this one, but I'm too nauseated by the blatant lies and distortions. Read this Boston Globe article and make up your own mind. Richard Nixon was right when asked if he'd ever visited a communist country and he answered "Massachusetts."


Guns in Texas School? Yes...Maybe

As we reported in this HCA news item, the tiny Harrold school district in Texas has authorized teachers to carry firearms. But that action has drawn the wrath of the Brady bunch...er... Brady Campaign in Washington D.C. The Brady group claims that the action violates state law, however the district's lawyer disagrees. You can read the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram article about it here.

But the one thing in that article that stood out was near the end. Not only was it stupid, but alarmingly stupid. Here's what I'm talking about:

Most area teachers would oppose a policy that encouraged them to carry guns at school, said Larry Shaw, director of the United Educators Association. The group represents 16,000 teachers in Fort Worth and surrounding areas.

"I think it would scare teachers to death," he said. "One, it’s too much responsibility. And there’s also the possibility of accidents."

Mr. Shaw is the director of a teacher's association and says that carrying a concealed firearm is "too much responsibility"? Hello!? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't teachers supposed to be responsible people? Aren't teachers responsible for the safety of their kids in school? If teachers can't figure out how to safely handle and carry an inanimate object, why are they teaching our children?


BATFE Rulemaking Expands Definition
of Gun Manufacturer

The BATFE has somewhat expanded the definition of "manufacturer" for which special licenses and permits are required. Some of the definitions are reasonable - like companies who make frames or receivers - but some are downright puzzling.

For instance, a small machine shop is a sub-contractor for Company X who gives them receivers to machine. Apparently even if they just drill holes in the frame, BATFE says the small machine-shop operation is now a "gun manufacturer".

Likewise, if you're a gunsmith and you buy, say Rock Island 1911's and modify the slides to accept Novak night sights for resale, congratulations, you've just become a "gun manufacturer". Even if you just "customize" the RIA with "drop-in" parts, you're a gun-manufactuer. The same applies if you buy several Mosin or Mauser rifles and sporterize them for resale.

They also classify replacing the stock and rebluing old guns as "manufacturing" if it's done for resale. And lastly, if you heat-treat or "colorize" frames (which includes not only bluing, plating or phosphate coatings but camouflaging too) you have to be licensed as a manufacturer.

The key element here is "for resale". If the customer brings in a gun and asks a gunsmith to install different sights, "sporterize" the gun and/or change the finish, that does not meet their criteria.

But such rules can catch small businesses by surprise. It requires a potential sub-contractor to ask the gunsmith or gun shop how he is conducting his business. And it makes you wonder - if a gunsmith uses your company to reblue a few customer's guns every week, then mixes in a batch of old Colt Police Positives, how is the refinisher supposed to know that the shop is reselling them and not refinishing them for a single collector?

There is no doubt in my mind that if this happened, the BATFE would declare the refinisher was, by extension, a "manufacturer" without a license. And they wouldn't care that the guns he received were a mixed batch that "happened" to contain half a dozen police trade-ins.


Hot Dog! Challenges to NYC Permits

A hot dog vendor may be the one to teach NYC mayor Bloomberg a lesson in constitutional law. Daniel Vargas, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic was charged with a misdemeanor crime of simply possessing an "unlicensed" handgun in his NYC home. The full story here, says that it was found as a result of a tip to police about an unlicensed gun, which was found in the basement.

Mr. Vargas isn't accused of illegally using the gun or threatening anyone with it. Just possessing it because he did not subject himself to the indignities of begging the NYC Police Commissioner's office for a permit. His lawyers are citing the Heller decision from the Supreme Court which says Mr. Vargas has a right to keep a gun in his home.

09 August 2008

Today's Bits and Pieces

Guns and Society

Many people argue that guns have no place in modern society. Such proponents are often starry-eyed idealists with no experience in the harsh, gritty realities of life. The truth is this: people will kill you for trivial reasons. It may be for a mere two dollars and your car, as illustrated in my July 19th blog article. People have been killed for a pair of sneakers, an iPod and even for a pack of cigarettes. To answer these idealists, read Why the Gun is Civilization by Major L. Caudill, SUMC (ret) on our website.


Heller Commemorative Revolver from S&W

I'm typically ho-hum about so-called "commemorative" revolvers, at least from an investment perspective. Most of these special models do not hold their initial value as well as a standard gun or a gun that is manufactured in small quantities with special features. But this one may be different. S&W is going to offer an engraved Model 442 snubby .38 special J-Frame to commemorate the Heller decision of the Supreme court. Some of the profits will go to the Second Amendment Foundation for supporting our gun-rights and helping win the case. This could be a collector's gun, but more appropriately, it could be a very good carry gun. With a $575 MSRP it's affordable too.


The Heller Merry-Go-Round

As most of you have probably heard, D.C. made some "adjustments" to their draconian gun laws that fall far short of the Supreme Court decision. And they have refused to register Mr. Heller's Colt .45 pistol. While Mr. Heller was able to register his .22 caliber revolver, the district still prohibits magazine fed semi-automatic handguns by classifying them as "machine guns." Of course these are "emergency" laws that will eventually be replaced by revised statutes, according to the District. So, Mr. Heller is going back to court. We certainly hope the Federal court system demonstrates that it's had enough of this nonsense.

If the revised laws are struck down, I'm going on a letter-writing campaign to the U.S. Attorney General and Congress to prosecute every District official who voted for the changes or enforced the changes. That would be the District councilmembers, Mayor Fenty, Chief Lanier and the District's legal council. These people should be prosecuted for violating their oath of office, which includes defending the constitution.


The Armed Man Credo

Each of us should be aware that when we carry a firearm, we have an obligation to keep our egos in check and be peaceable citizens. Just because you have the gee-whiz polymer 29-shooter does not give you permission to act brashly or in a rude manner. So here are a dozen thoughts about carrying.
  1. Never go looking for trouble. You might find it.
  2. Avoid conflicts when possible.
  3. If an angry argument erupts, apologize at once, even if you are right. (It's not worth someone's life to prove you were right.)
  4. In any situation, know when it's a no-win.
  5. Today's goal is to get home in one piece without firing your gun.
  6. The best gunfight is the one you avoid.
  7. If it's not your fight, think twice about participating.
  8. Your gunfight will present you with challenges you never imagined before.
  9. Improvised tactics that worked in one gunfight may not work in another.
  10. Speed in fine, accuracy is final.
  11. No amount of training, accessories or gizmos is a match for your attacker having dumb luck.
  12. Never presume your attacker acted alone. Keep your eyes moving.

Have something to say?
Write me at Bill@handgunclub.com

30 July 2008

Idle Threats

From My Cold Dead Hands!

We've all heard the slogan about taking our guns from our cold, dead hands. But is it really that way? How many gun owners would really resist? How many would defy the government? It's one of those questions that cannot be answered directly without experience. But is it true that we don't have any experience by which to judge?

Perhaps not.

In a recent Page Nine email from Alan Korwin, the founder of Gunlaws.com, one of his contributors named "Counterintuitive Man" recently opined the following;

During Katrina, when obedient slavish Americans meekly turned over their guns, handle -- not bullets -- first, to cooperative authorities, the gun show buyers were preparing by stockpiling. The assumption was that authorities were preparing to take the guns from their warm live fingers with either a smile (we're from the government and we're here to save you) or with a tough gritty face, at gunpoint. Not one gun owner fired one shot during the Katrina confiscations, to avoid "news" broadcasts that would have said, "Crazed maniac shoots at peaceful peace officers maintaining neighborhood safety after disaster, and is shot dead in a hail of police gunfire along with his entire family and dog; neighbors thank police for their brave efforts and propose statues; dead gunman may have had mental problems, motive is still unknown, police found 300 rounds of live assault ammunition in his flooded compound bunker; more news at six."


The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.

He does have a point. And a good one.

Aside from all the slogans, rhetoric and chest-thumping, American gun owners remain law-abiding, even in the face of what many of us see as unlawful acts by the government. Internet armchair warriors brag about giving up their guns bullets first, but when police show up, much of that spirit melts away into compliance.

The question is why?

Because American gun owners have faith in their system of government. There is a large percentage of the gun owning public that believes the system will correct the wrongs committed by the government. They would rather fight using the legal system than "turn outlaw" by shooting at police. This speaks well of the average American gun owner - that he would rather argue the legalities before a court than begin taking lives or injuring people.

In a positive light, when the anti-gun lobby makes statements that gun owners can "just flip out" or "just start shooting" over trivial matters, we can point to the lack of resistance after Katrina to show that gun owners are primarily law-abiding. If there was any time where resistance could be excuseable, it would have been at that time, when police were not available to respond to calls.

Before making the brave statement "from my cold, dead hands", think about what such an act will do to your life. The media certainly isn't going to paint you as a patriot standing against the illegal use of power. Nor are gun owners across the country going to hear how you're standing off police because they want to violate the constitution, and then rush to your aid. Not unless people can get the word out quickly and with credibility. Otherwise, the last three words in your epitath could be "film at eleven".

19 July 2008

Reasons To Carry

Why Carry?
Because some men are just Evil


I could easily call this column Reality 101 and it'd work. These are real individuals, not actors. This is the real, dirty, gritty life some people live. These are people who will murder you for the coins in your pocket (or $2 in your wallet).

Every once in a while a news story reminds us that there are people in the world who are simply nothing more than animals. They prey on others for their own gain and care nothing about the consequences of their actions.

It doesn't matter that this was a black on white crime. Black, brown, white or purple-spotted, the skin color makes no difference. They could have easily been white kids and my response would be the same. Animals belong in cages.

So it was on the night of June 18th, 2008. Two Texarkana teens, Demarius Cummings and his cousin James Broadnax had smoked some marijuana and were looking for some kind of action. Riding the buses in Dallas, they decided to commit a robbery and boarded a DART train for Garland, Texas. Why go to Garland? Because, as James Broadnax put it...


Cuz that's where all the rich white folks stay at, y'know what I'm sayin'?

Demarius Cummings claims they were not planning on committing murder in Garland, only robbery. They had stolen their aunt's "chopper" (a Kalashnikov rifle) to swap on the street for a pistol, and taken the handgun on the trip. The two discussed killing, but Cummings claims he did not believe it would happen. Broadnax concealed the pistol, and the two boarded the night train to Garland.

Around half past midnight, in Garland, the two teens spotted Matthew Butler and Stephen Swan as they left Butler's Zion Gate Records, a Christian music studio. The two business-men stopped to chat and smoke cigarettes in the parking lot near Butler's car.

The teens approached the two men and asked for a cigarette. Suddenly, Broadnax pulled his gun. Without warning or hesitation, he shot Swann, then Butler. As each man struggled to get back up, Broadnax shot them again, this time in the head, killing them. The killers rifled the pockets of the dead men, getting a whole two dollars, and the keys to Butler's car. They drove Butler's tan 1995 Crown Victoria to Dallas, and hid the pistol.

The next morning they switched the license plates at the home of a relative, pawned a few tools found in Butler's car, and tossed Stephen Swann's ID out the car window as they left in the stolen automobile heading back to Texarkana. There, they were apprehended after a traffic violation.

A bicyclist had discovered the two dead men's bodies lying in a pool of sticky blood and spent shell casings at about 1:00 AM the previous night. Both criminals are charged with capital murder. Bond is set at one million dollars each. Both victims are dead.

The video below is a jail interview of James Broadnax. The video is chilling in that it shows just how callous and uncaring the killer is about his victims and the impact his actions will have on the families of his victims.

Caution: Graphic Language!


Because his life was "hell", Broadnax uses that as an excuse to brutally murder two men to get something he didn't have. Their stuff. He did not give them any chance to survive nor does he show any remorse for killing them.


Reason to Carry #83


It's shocking the number of You Tube videos that show crimes occurring. Type in "sucker punch" in the search bar and you get plenty of videos. But this one I selected below shows just what kind of human excrement exists on our streets and the their attitudes towards others.

The story, as I understand it, is that a production crew was doing a documentary on drugs. When they attempted to interview this man, he went wild and then demonstrated that he wasn't afraid of "nuthin'".

Warning: Very Graphic Language!


I'm sure many of you feel like I do. Had it been my car, his attack at the driver's window would have earned him a 230-grain frontal lobotomy. A touch of chlorine to the gene pool, as it were.

These are the kinds of animals that the gun-control lobby fails to acknowledge. The kind that will kill you for trivial gain. The kind who will take what they want instead of working for it honestly.

The next time you argue with anti-gun types, ask them if to look up Broadnax on You Tube and then tell you if this is the kind of person they seek to protect with new gun laws. Because that's what their laws do by disarming the honest citizens.

16 July 2008

Random Access

More Random Thoughts

Today's Diversion: Mars - The red planet's name brings up many thoughts and memories of science-fiction adventures. But Arthur C. Clarke's wise observation that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine" rings true. Check out this story and the astounding images from Mars.


The .327 Federal Magnum

After looking at the data, I think the .327 Magnum is the cartridge the .32 H&R Magnum should have been all along. I will acknowledge that H&R had to tone down the performance for their less robust designs. But they could have really impacted the market if they had pushed a bit harder.

The .327 Magnum does a few things that a .357 Magnum revolver won't. First, it has an excellent ratio of energy-to-recoil. That is, the low recoil belies the amount of muzzle energy it puts out. Second, it can put six rounds into the same space as five .357 rounds. This extra shot is comforting as few people have ever complained about having too much ammo in a fire-fight.

The lower recoil means that a larger number of people who would otherwise use marginal rounds like a .32 or .380 ACP can now carry something more effective. Who are these people? Most will say women, but there are men who are recoil shy too. Or people with arthritis in their hands for which recoil is painful.

Let's face it. The .357 Magnum is a great, versatile cartridge. But in its most effective loadings, it produces a ferocious blast and muzzle flash accompanied by wrist wrenching recoil, especially in concealable snubby revolvers. The .327 Magnum, though, reduces that recoil and flash considerably out of a 3-inch revolver. I suspect that the noise will be sharp and loud since the cartridge operates at pressures beyond that of the .357 or .44 Magnum.

If you look at energy figures, the .327 Magnum fits neatly between the power of a 9mm and the .357 Magnum. It just about duplicates the power range of the .40 S&W in a smaller, easier to use package. The .327 Magnum produces between 350 and almost 500 foot-pounds of energy at the muzzle. The 9mm tops out into the low 400's. The best performing .357 defense load makes about 585 ft-lbs, although full goose gonzo loads will top out around 700 ft-lbs.

Better than a 9mm and about equal to the .40 S&W. That's not bad for something you can slip into your pocket. And the comparisons even get better in short barreled guns. Most of the .357 data is published for 4-inch barrels which means you lose some velocity in a 2 or 2.5" revolver. But all of the data for the .327 Magnum is based on the 3 1/6-inch Ruger SP-101.

When it comes to versatility, the .357 Magnum is still one of the best. Especially if you include the .38 Special loadings. But if we compare all of the .32 caliber loads to the .38/.357 loads, we see the little .32 has quite a bit of versatility. The chart below shows the range of performance between the .32 and .357 caliber cartridges.
Photobucket


As the chart shows, the .38/.357 caliber has a large useful range. However the .32 caliber has about as much useful range, stopping short of the .357. Quite impressive for a small caliber.

If you are already heavily invested in the .38/.357 caliber, with guns, holsters, reloading equipment as well as shooting ability, the .327 Federal Magnum may not offer you much. However, a first-time gun owner or someone who doesn't want the recoil of the .357 Magnum should be well armed if they select the .327. They can practice with mild .32 S&W Long loadings or even .32 H&R Magnums. These equate with shooting .38 wadcutters and .38 +P to practice with.

Cost will certainly be a factor with any new cartridge. There is no economy of scale, which means they'll be more expensive. But a huge number of people buy a gun, shoot about 50 to 100 rounds through it and it sits in a drawer for years. So the expense for many will be minimal. For active shooters, however, reloading will cut expenses considerably. Reloading spent .327 brass to .32 H&R Magnum levels will prolong the brass life.

This little cartridge begs for a single action six-gun too. The performance is like the old .32-20 which means it'll be potent medicine for coyotes and similar vermin. With a longer barrel, at least one article says the factory ammo can hit 1600 ft/sec (in a 6 1/2-inch barrel). That drives the muzzle energy up over 600 foot-pounds. One can only speculate how well it would perform in a small lever-rifle to accompany a six-gun, but the SASS cowboy shooters would flock to it, I'm sure.

If S&W were to bring back their Model 16, perhaps with a traditional looking magnum underlug, it would look like a small-bore Model 19. If it was available in a 4-inch and 6-inch model it might sell quite well. Though my preference would be a 3-inch M&P style Scandium lightweight that would be similar to the old Model 12.


15 July 2008

Random Thoughts Today

To understand what a handgun is, we should define it. This definition should do fine:

Entry: hand·gun
Function: noun
Date: 20th century
A compact, portable and concealable one-handed, all-weather personal defense weapon, capable of being successfully employed by men, women and youngsters of varying sizes and degrees of skill, from contact-distance out to 50 yards, against one or multiple attackers, with potentially lethal results, and the sight of which can cause attackers to cease or withdraw.
Yup. That'll do fine.

Guns in the Home
Many gun control laws were passed to increase safety in the home. "Guns in the home are dangerous" we are told. "There is a substantial risk people will be injured in a home that contains a gun" says the VPC. Just where are these homes and who lives there?

I purchased my first handgun 34 years ago, in 1974. My first long gun, a Marlin .22 bolt rifle, was purchased the prior year. In the years since, no one has been injured by any of my guns unless you count cutting a finger on a sharp edge or the morning I dropped my 1903 Springfield on my little toe.
Since purchasing my first gun, I graduated college, worked in 4 different fields, with 13 different job titles in 8 companies, got married, got divorced, had room mates, got rid of them, had girlfriends, including one long term live-in relationship, bought & sold 4 motorcycles, 3 cars, my father died and I lost a nephew, had good bosses and lousy ones, was unemployed for two years and much more. Zero injuries, zero fatalities.

Where's all this danger and risk?

Good News
ABC News reporter and Libertarian John Stossel has an excellent column on the Second Amendment and self-defense in the New Hampshire Union-Leader.

We have seen the collapse anti-gun laws in Morton Grove and Wilmette in Illinois. Other cities are undoubtedly looking at their laws, deciding if they should do something now or wait until a suit is filed. But even better news comes from the Nevada Chapter of the ACLU. Breaking with the National organization in New York, a chapter of the ACLU had publicly stated it's intent to defend the Second Amendment as it defends other constitutional rights. Time will tell if they are as "creative" in defending our right to arms as they have been elsewhere.

I was pleasantly surprised by a Chicago Tribune article on guns and suicide. Editorial board member Steve Chapman's piece is a must read. This is in direct contrast of the Tribune's previous, uncredited editorial to Repeal the Second Amendment. Perhaps Chapman can ask the other editorial board members if they'd like to comment on the U.K'.s problems. After banning guns and suppressing the "Gun Culture", their news media complained about replica guns and Airsoft guns. Now, papers are bemoaning the "Knife Culture" as a serious threat. New laws ban many knives in public. What will be next? The "Cricket Bat Culture"?

Are they really that stupid? (Part II)

Yes - They really are!

Washington D.C. got it's head handed to it by the U.S. Supreme Court over their handgun ban. It was clearly unconstitutional the court said, to deprive people of the right to self-defense and their right to own handguns (as well as other guns).

So here we have the "emergency" D.C. laws, just released by the D.C. city officials. In my view, they are just begging for a federal court to declare them in contempt and inches from having a court declare they have violated their oath of office. See the pamphlet D.C. is handing out here.

The D.C. council needs a swift kick in the ass from the courts. Their "new" restrictions still require guns - to be unloaded, disassembled or trigger locked, except when there is a "threat of immediate harm to a person" in the home.

Acting Attorney General Peter Nickles, said residents could neither keep their guns loaded in anticipation of a problem nor search for an intruder on their property. The porch is off-limits, he said, as well as the yard and any outbuildings.

Well, let's see... Mr. Nickles says you can't have your gun loaded "in anticipation" of a problem. That would seem to rule out a loaded gun on the nightstand or in a secure lockbox (that thousands of people use). Thus, we are back to the situation where one must first see or hear something before loading the gun. By which time it may well be too late.

Seems like a denial of self-defense rights to me. Especially when you consider that D.C. is seeking to limit residents to only revolvers and derringers and that most citizens aren't going to be able to legally practice with speedloaders.

And what does Nickles mean by "search for an intruder on their property?" Does that mean I must remain in whichever room I've loaded the gun? What about my children? Or what about my 85 year old mother watching TV downstairs? Or does Nickles simply mean that going outside with the gun is prohibited? Can I shoot the man on my front lawn about to throw a molotov cocktail at my front door?

To qualify to register a gun in D.C., besides the usual lack of felony convictions (and D.C. adds indictments) you must not suffer from a physical defect which would make it unsafe for you to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly. Such as? About the only think I might think of here is someone who has no fingers or who is blind. Does arthritis count? What about someone with Parkinson's?

Also, you must not be found negligent in any firearm mishap causing death or injury to another human being. Amazing what "dangerous" things the D.C. council can fabricate out of nothing. I wonder if they will include such "mishaps" that occurred in a war-zone?

To obtain a handgun in D.C. the new regulations require;
  • Proof of residency (D.C. Driver's license)
  • Criminal Background Check
  • A written examination or test
  • Pay a fee ($48)
  • Fingerprinting
  • Provide two (2) passport sized photographs of yourself.
  • A ballistics test of the firearm
  • Good vision
  • No semiautomatic pistols allowed

The first four requirements are, at this juncture, "reasonable" for those who are control freaks. But I do have issues with their restrictions, as would most of you.

For purchases of a new firearm, the purchaser already undergoes an NICS "prohibited person" background check. And a new handgun will not have had a chance to be used in any crime, so both the background and ballistic checks are a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Fingerprinting is a gray area. I object to it from the standpoint that it is largely unnecessary. It'll cost you $35 to be fingerprinted. It treats those wishing to exercise their constitutional rights as a criminal.

Paying a fee should not be necessary to enjoy one's constitutional rights. Poll taxes are illegal. You cannot tax or require a fee to speak out or go to church. D.C. will charge a $13 fee per firearm to register it. So it will cost you an extra $48 to exercise your right in D.C.

A written test for which there are written study materials might be acceptable. But if California is any example, both the test and study materials will contain propaganda, such as "Unloaded and locked firearms in the home save thousands of lives every year." If a lot of people fail the test, we'll know it's merely a method to deny their rights.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said the entire process could take "weeks or months." This is despite the fact that the pamphlet issued by her own department say it will take 14 days. Which is it "Chief"? Let us know when you get your lies straight.

"Weeks or months", of course, is unacceptable. A right delayed is a right denied. Especially in the case of a new handgun. In the meantime, the handgun sits where, exactly? At what point does the District become responsible for damage, loss or lack of care? One can imagine it taking 3 months to get through the process, only to find your new, $721 gun covered with rust due to poor air conditioning or neglect by the district.

I wish I could suggest that some D.C. residents "test" the program by purchasing some odd caliber guns. Submitting a .38-40 or .41 Magnum might make testing expensive or difficult for the department. And it might delay their procedure unacceptably. Is anyone moving to D.C. who owns a nice old .455 Webley or perhaps a .41 Long Colt revolver?

30 June 2008

Are they really that stupid?

Anti-gun Liberals Defy Law & Logic

Few things get under my skin like government officials who ignore what the law or courts say. To say that I'm mad is an understatement. I'm mad at the District of Columbia (D.C.) and the City of Chicago for similar, albeit slightly different reasons.

Washington D.C.
Kathy Lanier is the chief of the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD). Following the Supreme Court's overturning of the District's handgun ban, the Chief's office reportedly sent out a memo to District residents. In that memo, the Chief stated;

...automatic and semiautomatic handguns generally remain illegal and may not be registered.
What are they smoking in D.C.? I've read the Supreme Court decision several times and the D.C. statutes that were struck down. The high court never refered to anything but "hand-guns" and, while they did not address every D.C. statute on the subject, the court clearly indicated handguns could not be banned. This would include the subset known as semi-automatic handguns. Once again it appears that if you give an anti-gun Democrat an inch, they'll take a mile. In this case, the District is clearly ignoring a major component of the decision by claiming only revolvers can be registered.

I'm hoping that the District is brought before the D.C. Court of Appeals almost immediately to explain why they think they can ignore a Supreme Court ruling. I also hope that "contempt of court," when it is the highest court in the land, is the same as violating one's oath of office.

If Lanier sent the memo without approval of the District's council, she should be fired and forever barred from ever enforcing any law whatsoever. If she has no respect for the high court, she can't enforce our laws. Likewise those involved in approving the memo should also be fired and banned from holding similar offices.

Supreme Court Victory!

WE WON BIG!
A review of the Supreme Court Decision

Now that we've had time to digest more detail from the Heller Supreme Court case we can say it was a much bigger win than we originally thought.

First, what you've heard and read in the media is mostly crap. The media's spin on it has, to date, indicated the court ignored "long standing" precedent or made a "radical departure" from previous courts. Some media outlets were claiming this decision was "Judicial activism at its worst." None of this is true or correct.

Perhaps worst of all, is the concerted effort to convince Americans with a "not much has changed" attitude. For certain, the media has been hyping the fact that "we can still regulate guns" or the Supreme Court "says the type of common-sense gun laws we've had are constitutional." That's so much bovine scatology.

Let's start with what the court did decide. You'll see that there are some interesting wins for patriots and gun owners. Here are the highlights;
  • Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
  • The 2nd is an "enumerated constitutional right" and should be receive the same scrutiny used for other enumerated rights.
  • The right is not connected with militia membership.
  • Expansive view of "arms".
  • An implied right to carry openly.
  • Incorporation is much more likely than not.
  • Possession of "arms" which are "in common use" (M-16's not considered in common use – yet.
  • The court admits it did not attempt to clarify the entire scope of the rights guaranteed.

In the majority decision by Justice Scalia, he does an artful job of defining the meaning of every part of the 2nd Amendment. What are arms? Who is the militia? What does "to keep and bear" mean? He also dives into the history of the right, extending from England into the colonies and into a new American nation. He builds one argument upon another to show the right was understood to belong to the individual, whether or not he was a member of the militia.

The right is well defined as an individual right which means it belongs to every man, woman and child.

Secondly, the court recognized the Second Amendment as one of the enumerated constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights. The court said the D.C. ban would fail "under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights…." From this, we learn the court can use the same tough standards on gun laws as it does with laws restricting freedom of speech or the right to privacy.

This is a major part of the big win. If the court holds government restrictions up to "strict scrutiny," very many gun laws will likely be overturned. Even a lesser standard called intermediate scrutiny may well overturn a large number of gun laws, especially those designed to make purchase or ownership burdensome for the citizen.

Addressing those who claim the "arms" protected would only be muskets or flintlocks, Scalia shreds that notion with comparisons to the 1st and 4th Amendments then says the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Before you whip out that order form for an M-60 machine gun, let's go a bit further. The court accepted the definition of "militia arms" from the 1939 Miller case, to wit "arms which are in common use at the time". Right now, the court is willing to say that arms in common use are most handguns, shotguns, bolt, pump, lever and semi-automatic rifles of the type you could purchase in a large gunshop. The court also says that weapons which are "unusual and dangerous" are not protected.

At this moment, the court will need more convincing that an M-16 or M-60 is "in common use" (or could be if it weren't for legal restrictions now in play). Further, they would want to see that it was relevant to both a militia purpose as well as some civilian purpose (which could give rise to a new form of competition - machinegun matches!). Likewise, the court would need serious convincing that sawed off shotguns or weapons firing explosive projectiles were somehow necessary.

All of us would be celebrating much harder, except for one small fly in the ointment. This fly is named "incorporation". Right now, the 2nd Amendment only limits Congress, not the states. Right now, Illinois could pass a complete prohibition on all handguns and do it "constitutionally" because the 2nd Amendment does not (yet) apply to that state.

Confused? Don't worry. This decision comes from an 1875 Supreme Court case called United States v. Cruikshank (92 U. S. 542). The case involved racism, murder and other crimes. In overturning the indictments of the whites charged with killing blacks, the court held, among other things, that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States and specifically the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government.

It would take the passage of the 14th Amendment to correct this situation and apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Over the years, the court has embraced "selective incorporation". Rather than settle the matter all at once, the court has "incorporated" only those rights which have been challenged, such as the 1st, 4th and 5th Amendments. The 2nd Amendment has never been said to apply to the states.

For this to happen, a state or local law has to be challenged as violating the 2nd Amendment. The court can then decide if the 2nd Amendment is of such fundamental importance to the rights of individuals that it deserves protection from State laws. The challenge for this is already underway with the lawsuit against Chicago's gun ban, by the NRA, Illinois Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation.

This decision has opened the door to establishing the full scope of our rights under the Second Amendment. We will see quite a few lawsuits challenging gun laws in the next few years. Laws that don't put people at risk of serious jail time will be challenged first, such as one-gun-a-month laws. Those with large fines or jail time usually require someone to be charged with the crime first. Few "law abiding" gun owners want to be the test-case and for good reason. Who wants to be in jail while their appeal slowly grinds along?

23 May 2008

Chicago - City of Corruption

Chicago Alderman Skirts Gun Law


That the city of Chicago is corrupt should come as no surprise to anyone living near that metropolis. I first became aware of politics around the age of six, listening to my parents discussing the reports of voting "irregularities" in the 1960 Presidential election. Some seventeen years later, I would make friends with a former Chicago resident who casually informed me that his parents had paid a judge to get felony charges against his brother dismissed. "It was cheaper than paying a lawyer to do it." He said. "That's how things work in Chicago." His father was in the construction business and was "connected", as he put it, inside city hall.

So it comes as no surprise to see more corruption coming out of Chicago. This time, Alderman Richard Mell is showing how Democrats run the city. Apparently there are two classes of people in Chicago - the privileged elite, like Alderman Richard Mell and everyone else.

Here are the facts, as reported in a Chicago Sun-Times article. Chicago has mandatory annual firearms registration. If you forget to register your guns in any one year, they become unregisterable.

"You have to re-new your registration certificate annually 60 days prior to the current registration [deadline]. If you don't do that, the firearm is unregisterable," said Law Department spokesperson Jennifer Hoyle.

Mell said he first realized he was in violation of the re-registration requirement about a year ago. He claims he previously gave this task to "an aide" who, he said, apparently dropped the ball. When he tried to re-register his guns belatedly, the Chicago Police Department's Gun Registration Section refused to bend the rules. Mell appealed that ruling to the city's Department of Administrative Hearings but decided to re-write the law instead."When we looked at the law, we saw the possibility of winning [the appeal] wasn't gonna happen," he said.

Unlike other Chicago gun owners who have been prosecuted for failing to register their guns, had guns confiscated or have had to move their guns out of Chicago, Mell wants to write an exemption for himself by opening the gun registry for just one month.

And he has the backing of Mayor Richard Daley too.

Even FOP President Mark Donahue has questioned the proposed change as a "double standard".

"We have retired police officers who have a right to carry concealed weapons across the country, and they're being barred from registering their weapons in Chicago. We've taken one of these cases to Circuit Court. Dick Mell has taken his case to the City Council," the union president said.

"Whether he knows it or not, the mayor, by this agreement [to endorse a temporary gun amnesty] is establishing a double standard. One for members of the City Council, the other for everybody else."

So if you want to see a picture of Alderman Mell, just look in your dictionary next to the word hypocrite.