The end of August already? This has been a busy month and a half here. And a sad one. In June, my brother underwent surgery and had to go back in July after some complications. And all this while his wife was dying of cancer. Liz lost her battle in early August, much later than anyone expected. We held a wake for the Irish side of the family and it was the first time in over 25 years I saw my brother get totally hammered.
During this trip down memory lane, I was coerced into retelling a story from years past about a handgun hunt with some friends. Mostly this was for the nephews and friends met since then. It's odd how you put things out of your mind until something like this brings it up again.
Two friends of mine had purchased .44 Magnums, a Ruger single-action and a S&W Model 29. After a month or so, another friend, Mike, who is an experienced hunter, suggested we take our magnums deer hunting. I was the "odd man" here, having a S&W Model 57 .41 Magnum. Mike said he knew the perfect place too, nestled in the Sierras. Hookay, we go.
The place really was perfect. A meadow about two football fields in size. Wide open space with lush grass and few trees. Beautiful spot to take deer coming down the hill on their path from more wooded lands.
The four of us dressed in ghillie suits and took positions in the shade of a few trees inside the meadow. It was a beautiful morning, a nice 53 degrees, no snow on the ground. When we took our positions we could spot each other by looking hard. We had a sort of curved line in the field, no crossfire. All of us were about 30 yards from each other in shade.
It was almost 8:30 when we settled in. According to Mike, it'd take the deer a while to drink from a nearby stream and wander down the path about 1/2 mile to the meadow. Since he'd hunted here before, we followed his lead.
No more than 30 minutes later come these three hippies. Two guys and some spacy girl. They come over the rise behind us, walk within about 10 yards of me and stop. It's a pretty meadow, I grant you, but...
"Go away." I said in a deep voice, just loud enough for them to hear.
They jumped. "Who said that?"
"I did."
"Who are you? Where are you?"
(Time for some fun.) "I'm the tree. Go away."
"Why?"
"They're coming. Go away."
"Who's coming?" (frantic heads-on-swivels)
"The deer. I'm hungry. Now go away."
"You eat deer?"
(Note, at this point, I can visibly see Mike's concealed form, 30 yards away, heaving in silent laughter. Ron later said he had tears running down his face from holding it back.)
"Go away. They're almost here."
"We want to watch!"
"No." (I was running out of ideas.)
"What if we stay anyway?"
"We will consume you."
"Huh? Who's we?"
Mike pulled it together and said, "Bolarc, make them leave. I am hungry too."
It sounded like it came from the pine tree he was near.
All three screamed like little girls and ran right past us over the rise and kept going.
We gave up the hunt for the day. Our sides hurt too much. We'd just start laughing and couldn't stop.
Do you have a funny hunting story? Send it to me and I'll publish it here.
The EPA Lead Ammo Ban Defeated
Five environmental groups wanted the EPA to ban lead in ammunition and fishing tackle, arguing that millions of animals are dying from eating lead-shot pellets or carcasses contaminated by lead.
Millions of animals? That'd be quite a mess anywhere.
The groups backing the petition included Center for Biological Diversity (an anti-gun/anti-hunting group), Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (another hunting-hostile group), and Project Gutpile, for whom I could find only 2 names.
The EPA's decision to accept the petition for review and comment caused something of a firestorm of protests. Especially once the NRA's grassroots alerts went out across the nation. Despite the public face (or spin) put on this proposal, it was nothing more than an attempt to make gun ownership and hunting more expensive or difficult.
Here in California there is a lead ammo ban in certain areas of the state that are "California condor habitat". The premise is that the endangered Condor will consume lead shot or bullet fragments in dead game, thus getting lead poisoning. The law bans the use of lead ammo while hunting in the condor habitat. Ammo used for target shooting and self-defense is supposed to be legal.
Last year the Fish and Game Department proposed new rules expand the ban, without legislative authority, to include .22 rimfire and lead shot. The NRA and California gun rights groups teamed up to defeat this proposal.
The U.S. EPA lead ban, however has been defeated. EPA, last Friday, publicly stated that they lacked the authority to ban lead ammuntion under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The EPA will still consider banning the use of lead fishing sinkers, however.
The anti-hunting and ant-gun lobbies are pushing these backdoor proposals not out of ecological nobility, but to ensnare unknowning gun owners into violating obscure laws. Remember that I said here in California that lead ammo is fine for target shooting and self-defense, even in a designated Condor range? It seems some on DF&G aren't ready to believe that.
We've heard a few reports from California residents who say DF&G officials warned them that a hunting license in your wallet along with that .22LR on public lands equates to the intent to hunt. This could result in arrest and seizure of your guns even if you're just shooting paper targets.
This is why we must be vigilant about these kinds of backdoor regulations. It also points out why attempts to attack ammo supplies must be stopped.
Comments? Questions? Send me an e-mail.
30 August 2010
12 July 2010
America
Krista Branch - I am America
Just play it.
(Use the small play button on the control bar)
And now a few words from our founders on
the Second Amendment
Perhaps the Chicago City council needs to see
this at their next meeting.
Music: Theme from The Patriot (2000) from Columbia Pictures
Just play it.
(Use the small play button on the control bar)
And now a few words from our founders on
the Second Amendment
Perhaps the Chicago City council needs to see
this at their next meeting.
Music: Theme from The Patriot (2000) from Columbia Pictures
09 July 2010
Kagan Supreme Court Nomination
See what constitutional scholar David Kopel says about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He makes clear the concerns of gun owners nationwide about putting her on the high court.
Kennedy to remain on high court.
Justice Anthony Kennedy made remarks to friends and family that he'll "stick around at least until 2013." That means he'll wait to see who takes the White House after the current Obama administration.
Justice Kennedy is often the "swing vote" that oscillates between siding with the four conservatives and the four liberals on the bench. This makes his opinion all-important to garner in Supreme Court cases. In both Heller and McDonald, Kennedy sided with the conservative court in their narrow 5-4 decisions. Just that one vote going "the other way" could have had devastating results to the RKBA. With Kagan's appointment all but locked in by a Democrat controlled congress, if any of the conservative justices retires or falls ill, we could lose some of our rights once again.
Liberals and the Second Amendment
That gun owners tend to be politically "conservative" and the anti-gun lobby tends to be made up of "liberals". But if you consider yourself "liberal" or you are solidly a Democrat, you'll know that's not always true. But you should read Kali Joy Gray's opinion about why Liberals should love the Second Amendment. Then you should send it to friends and relatives who don't support the Second Amendment.
Gun Rights Important to Americans
Pew Research is reporting that for the week of Jun 28 thru Jul 2, 28% of the news links in the blogosphere were cheering the McDonald victory. This one of the highest ratings for a Supreme Court decision in over a year. And one other interesting tid-bit from Pew research.
Gun control advocates opposing the decision seemed almost completely absent from the online conversation according to Pew Research.
I'll take that to mean the Brady Bunch is licking its wounds and trying to figure out a new strategy. No doubt their new strategy will be to attack obliquely by redefining terms like "prohibited person" or "unusually dangerous". Watch for them to try to sneak in misdemeanor crimes or even previously having had a warrant or restraining order issued (even in error).
More Guns, Less Crime
Borrowing the title from Dr. John Lott's book is an apt description for what's happening in Texas. The news says that 15 years after adopting shall-issue CCW's, crime in the Lone Star state is down. Since 1994, the amount of murders and other violent crimes in Texas has actually decreased, despite the fact that there are six million more people living in the state now than there were 15 years ago states the article on MyFox Houston. And that's what matters. Not that there were fewer "gun crimes" but that all violent crimes were down.
See what constitutional scholar David Kopel says about the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. He makes clear the concerns of gun owners nationwide about putting her on the high court.
Kennedy to remain on high court.
Justice Anthony Kennedy made remarks to friends and family that he'll "stick around at least until 2013." That means he'll wait to see who takes the White House after the current Obama administration.
Justice Kennedy is often the "swing vote" that oscillates between siding with the four conservatives and the four liberals on the bench. This makes his opinion all-important to garner in Supreme Court cases. In both Heller and McDonald, Kennedy sided with the conservative court in their narrow 5-4 decisions. Just that one vote going "the other way" could have had devastating results to the RKBA. With Kagan's appointment all but locked in by a Democrat controlled congress, if any of the conservative justices retires or falls ill, we could lose some of our rights once again.
Liberals and the Second Amendment
That gun owners tend to be politically "conservative" and the anti-gun lobby tends to be made up of "liberals". But if you consider yourself "liberal" or you are solidly a Democrat, you'll know that's not always true. But you should read Kali Joy Gray's opinion about why Liberals should love the Second Amendment. Then you should send it to friends and relatives who don't support the Second Amendment.
Gun Rights Important to Americans
Pew Research is reporting that for the week of Jun 28 thru Jul 2, 28% of the news links in the blogosphere were cheering the McDonald victory. This one of the highest ratings for a Supreme Court decision in over a year. And one other interesting tid-bit from Pew research.
Gun control advocates opposing the decision seemed almost completely absent from the online conversation according to Pew Research.
I'll take that to mean the Brady Bunch is licking its wounds and trying to figure out a new strategy. No doubt their new strategy will be to attack obliquely by redefining terms like "prohibited person" or "unusually dangerous". Watch for them to try to sneak in misdemeanor crimes or even previously having had a warrant or restraining order issued (even in error).
More Guns, Less Crime
Borrowing the title from Dr. John Lott's book is an apt description for what's happening in Texas. The news says that 15 years after adopting shall-issue CCW's, crime in the Lone Star state is down. Since 1994, the amount of murders and other violent crimes in Texas has actually decreased, despite the fact that there are six million more people living in the state now than there were 15 years ago states the article on MyFox Houston. And that's what matters. Not that there were fewer "gun crimes" but that all violent crimes were down.
07 July 2010
NRA Sues Chicago - Again!
Daley Administration Thumbs Nose
at Supreme Court
Just days after the Supreme Court decision that incorporated the Second Amendment against the states, Chicago passed new restrictive gun laws. When the new laws were announced in Chicago, Alderman Mary Ann Smith thanked "everyone who has worked to try and create as restrictive a tool as possible.”
Chicago to The Supreme Court - "Screw off! We'll do as we damn well please."
To prove that point, the Chicago donkeys enacted a new series of draconian and Machiavellian laws to prevent Chicago residents from legally obtaining firearms. That the city aldermen and mayor have publicly stated their intent is to make exercising what is now a fundamental civil right as difficult as possible opens them up to a civil rights lawsuit.
I'll go one further. Such an agreement amongst the city's leaders amounts to a conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Chicago residents and/or to delay the intent of the constitutional guarantee of those rights. Such a conspiracy is a federal felony and should be investigated by the FBI and an independent prosecutor.
The new NRA lawsuit, Benson v. Chicago, details how Chicago's new laws are designed to make it impossible for Chicago residents to exercise their rights. Consider the following provisions of the new law.
● To have a firearm requires a Chicago firearm permit.
● You must be 21 in order to obtain a permit.
● 18-21 years olds, need a parent or guardian's permission.
● The parent or guardian must be eligible for a firearms permit.
So right away, Chicago wants to license a right to possess a firearm. But adults between 18-21 years must have a parent or guardian, who could qualify for a permit themselves, grant permission. So, in Chicago, an 18 year old can be a U.S. Marine, qualified on the M9 pistol, M16 rifle, M240 SAW, and Browning M2 .50 Caliber machine gun, but must get his Mama's permission to buy or own a gun in Chicago? And the law doesn't even address those poor souls who have no living parents and are living independently.
Outrageous Implication
Most disgustingly is the implied punishment by blood provision. If your sole living parent committed a single crime when he or she was just 18, Chicago will punish the offspring for the parent's offense by denying them a constitutional right. The same thing happens if that parent is the only one willing to sign the consent form.
But wait... There's more draconian bullshit ahead.
● A training certificate w/at least 1 hour of range training
● Prohibits shooting a gun "except in lawful defense"
● The above makes it illegal to fire on a shooting range.
● But that's okay, because Chicago bans gun stores and shooting ranges within Chicago.
● Can't keep more than 1 "operable" firearm in the home.
● Can't buy more than 1 gun per month.
● Prohibits licensing an "unsafe" handgun as defined by the Superintendent of police.
● Vague safety criteria allows banning almost any handgun.
● Chicago permit is only valid at the address listed on the permit.
So let's get this right. To get a permit you first have to get training. But that training has to be held outside of Chicago because the city has banned shooting ranges. You will also have to buy your gun outside of Chicago and find a way to store it there for up to 4 months while Chicago processes your permit. Once you have your permit and gun at home, you can't shoot it or train with it anywhere within Chicago because that would be illegally discharging the firearm. Yet again, you must go outside of Chicago to practice. You can't possess your firearm at a address not on the permit, so you can't take it to your parents home overnight when local thugs threaten them.
On top of all that, after spending between $500 and $1,000 for your gun, the city can later declare it an "unsafe" gun by whim of the police superintendent. Since permits cannot be issued for an unsafe hangun, if the superinendent decides that any or all GLOCK models are "unsafe", in theory, your permit becomes invalid. Yet there isn't any notification provision for the city to notify residents who own a GLOCK that their permit isn't valid anymore.
One can easily imagine Otis McDonald, a senior citizen and retiree, attemping to allocate the funds to do all of this. He must pay a permit fee, a registration fee, a fingerprint fee, pay for mandatory "training", plan a trip outside Chicago for the training, a trip out of the city to buy the gun, pay for storage outside the city for up to 4 months, make another trip to bring his gun into the city after obtaining his permit. All to exercise a fundamental right guaranteed by the consitution.
This is about equivilant to requiring Chicago voters to drive to Springfield in order to register to vote and to vote in elections. (Which might at least deter the dead voters in Chicago from voting.)
Can it get worse? Sure. The jackasses that call themselves representatives of the people have prohibited use of a firearm for lawful self-defense outside the home. By that, these clueless morons have said the home does NOT include the following;
● Any garage on the lot, even an attached garage.
● Any space outside the dwelling unit.
● Specifically any external stairs
● Specifically any porches
● Or any back, side or front yard areas
● Or any common areas.
Got all that? This means that if your elderly mother is bedridden and on 24/7 oxygen support upstairs, you cannot shoot the gangbanger in your front yard as he prepares to throw a molotov cocktail at your home. Hell, you can't even shoot him if he comes up onto the front porch to throw it through the window.
McDonald's Estimated Cost to accquire:
Training class w/range time: $75
Training class ammunition: $25
Chicago Gun permit fee: $100(ea 3 yrs)
Chicago Registration fee: $15 (ea 3 yrs)
Police Fingerprinting fee: $15
Storage fee outside city: $12/mo x 4
30 mile trip for training: $24 @40¢/mile
30 mile trip to buy a gun: $24 @40¢/mile
30 mile trip after permit: $24 @40¢/mile
Approximate total expense: $350
This does not include the cost of the firearm, sales taxes, a lockable transport container, lock, ammunition, cleaning kit or other supplies.
Want to comment?
06 July 2010
McDonald Follow Up and Random Tidbits
McDonald Case Follow Up
After decades of news articles and opinion pages denouncing firearms, it seems that many media outlets are making a slow U-Turn. Across the country, here and there, slowly we are seeing editorials favoring gun ownership. Some still advocate certain restrictions and conditions, but it seems the tide is turning.
The New York Post actually says guns are not the problem in their July 3rd editorial How Judges Kill. This is one of those cases that infuriates most Americans and it's a good example of how some judges lose sight of justice.
Even the über-liberal Huffington Post carried an article by Dennis Santiago praising the "long overdue victory for civil rights" in the McDonald decision.
But all is not rosy with all the media. The Sacramento Bee, the California capital's pro-gun control newspaper, finds something to whine about when our freedoms are expanded. The Bee's editorial complains of "more work for justice system" because the high court didn't specify how lower courts should interpret 2A rights. Suffice it to say that most appellate court judges are not stupid and will carefully read the decisions and use strict scrutiny if they don't want a spanking from Scalia or Alito.
And NPR gushes forth with an article about suicides being all too easy with a handgun. They quote the Lake County, Illinois coroner, a man who, at age 17, had to cope father committed suicide by handgun. NPR, or the coroner, shamelessly omit statistics that show most people attempt suicide several times before ultimately succeeding. Instead, they say it's an "impulse decision" when evidence suggests otherwise.
Chicago's Utopia
Yet another headline screams 3 dead, 13 wounded in overnight violence in Chicago. You might remember that in June, 8 people were killed and a whopping 52 wounded in Daleyland. What's the difference between living in Chicago and living in Iraq during the war? At least in Iraq, Americans could be armed and shoot back.
Random Tidbits
The joint Federal/Ruger .327 Federal Magnum cartridge may be getting a new lease on life. Ammunition is starting to show up on the shelves (finally) as Federal begins to catch up with some ammo production. Not only that, but there is a fair selection of revolvers from which to lauch the .327 Mag. S&W has 2 models of the 632, Ruger has their SP-101, Blackhawk and GP-100 (7-shots) chambered for the .327. Charter Arms makes at least one .327 snubby and Taurus is listing a .327 snubby too.
But some companies are still missing the boat. One customer at a local shop asked when we might see Ruger's polymer LCR chambered for the .327. That'd make a nice, lightweight carry gun. Others are disappointed Ruger hasn't offered it in their Single Six. I'm suggesting that S&W bring out a lightweight K-Frame (a model 316?) with a 3-inch barrel, round butt grip, night sights and maybe 7-shots for the .327 as a near-perfect carry gun. Friend and gun-rights activist Jim March is not alone in wondering if Marlin will get a clue and offer the .327 Magnum in one of their lever rifles to compliment the utility of the single-action .327's. This would be an excellent combination for home defense, especially for rural and small ranch owners.
Colt's Lightweight DAO Government Model
I'm still waiting for Colt to release their new DAO lightweight Government model. Think of your favorite full-size 1911 offered in a lightweight alloy frame. Ummm, sounds good. But I want to check out their DAO model to see if it's as nice as the one they had at the SHOT Show earlier this year. With no single-action hammer notch, that eliminates the grip safety and the thumb safety as requirements. Like the Kahr, Sig, HK and other pistols, it'll mean a faster draw and quicker first shot with a little practice.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) sometimes just has to prove she's as vacuous as House Speaker Pelosi when it comes to people's rights.
If Boxer thinks citizens of California can obtain a CCW for protection, I'll offer her a great exercise in using Federal dollars to uncover discrimination, bias and corruption in her state. All she has to do is let her office front the application fees for five (5) California citizens who work outside the government to obtain a CCW permit. Each of those citizens will put down "lawful self defense" as their "good cause" reason. And each will be rejected -- except the one to which Ms. Boxer provides $3000 to donate to the local sheriff's campaign. If this is her idea of "common sense" gun laws or a free America, then I'll personally take out a loan to fly her to Moscow.
Want to comment?
02 July 2010
McDonald Victory - Chicago remains Stupid
McDonald Decision
By now, you should have heard that the U.S. Supreme Court (or SCOTUS for short) handed down a decision on Monday that says the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments too. The 5-4 decision involved the same players as the 2008 Heller decision (with the "wise Latina" on the losing side in David Souter's place). Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion which summarizes the history and purpose of the 14th Amendment. He discusses why the Freedman Bureau act wasn't enough and how racist Confederates were literally robbing blacks of their arms, then shooting them. Southern "black codes" singled out blacks for special laws. Laws that forbade them to make contracts, serve on a jury, speak out publicly and, of course, own or buy firearms.
Alito handsomely shreds the municipal arguments and tosses them out the window as confetti. As an example, one of the arguments pushed by the city was that the 2nd Amendment wasn't covered by the due process clause. They suggested that due process protects only those rights “‘recognized by all temperate and civilized governments, from a deep and universal sense of [their] justice.’”
In the decision, Alito points out that many of our rights are unique to the American experience. Such things as our right to a jury trial, to have an attorney appointed, and our right to self-incrimination are distinctly American. If these were necessary, says Alito, then it would follow that the United States is the only civilized Nation in the world.
What it all means
This decision says that the 2nd Amendment also acts as a limitation on State & local powers. Since most states have a right to keep and bear arms in their own constitutions, not much will change in those states unless they have used the "collective right" argument to justify gun laws.
States like California that have no equivilant to the 2nd amendment in their constitutions will now have to recognize the federal constraint. Draconian state laws that severely limit gun purchases and ownership will face serious challenges.
One way to look at some of the laws is to simply ask if they could be applied to the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendments. If it would not make sense to limit one of the other rights using the same law, then it's likely unconstitutional when applied to the 2A.
One easy example is the one-gun-a-month laws. It is obvious that the government couldn't pass a law restricting you to attending church once a month. Or limit your ability to publicly speak to once a month. Why should any other fundamental right be so limited?
This actually plays towards the anti-gun lobby's side. In the next few years, our associations will have to spend large sums to challenge gun laws built up over decades. The anti-gun lobby can provide minimal help to the states, knowing they will fund the defense of those laws. Meanwhile, they can spend their money "experimenting" by lobbying for new laws or changing the definition of "prohibited persons".
Now is the time to give to gun-rights organizations so they can continue to fund legal challenges. I'm contributing to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) but you can contribute to whomever you prefer.
Chicago Remains Stupid
Maybe it's in the water at city hall
All of the history and legal justification was lost on Chicago's number one bonehead, Mayor Daley and the city's cadre of anti-civil rights aldermen. As promised, his royal pomposity, the mayor, pushed through a new set of laws to keep Chicago residents from obtaining guns. Pushing through the bill was no problem for Daley -- the vote was 45-0 by city aldermen - and a new set of rules will apply in Chicago. This group of brainless dolts voted, in a rush, to pass a new package of laws that requires Chicago residents to first get a permit -- which the laws says the police can take 1/3 of the year to approve - take 5 hours of training and pay registration and permit fees.
So Chicago believes it can delay the exercise of a right, require you to obtain the city's permission (permit) to exercise the right, pay to exercise your right and mandate you pay for government-approved (and likely limited availability) training before exercising your right. None of which are constitutional.
Chicago newspapers should be screaming about the competency of the lawyers the mayor is using. Any second year law student should know that rights cannot be regulated like car ownership or owning a business.
I don't know if there is such a charge as "contempt of the Supreme Court", but if there is, Mayor Daley and Chicago's alderman should be facing it. It is arrogance second only to a dictator to say that Chicago will continute to enact unconstitutional provisions against gun owners.
Want to comment?
21 June 2010
Chicago - Deathville USA
8 dead among 52 shot across city over weekend
Thus scream the headlines of the Chicago Sun-Times. Eight people dead and 52 wounded over a single weekend in Mayor Daley's gun-free utopia of Chicago. This sounds more like an after-action report from Afghanistan or some other war zone.
So far, in 2010 there have been 206 homicides in Chicago. Statistics from the Chicago Tribune show that 81.5% of these homicides were by firearm. But get to the truth, one has to dig deeper. And the truth is ugly. It is not something that the media tells you. It gets buried as an inconvenient truth about the homicide rates in our major cities.
In Chicago this year (so far), 78.6% of the homicide victims were African-American. Just 20% were whites and the rest were other racial groups. Of the 162 African-American men killed this year, 138 (85%) were fatally shot with a firearm. While I haven't confirmed by neighborhood, prior reporting by Chicago area newspapers indicates the majority of these shootings take place in the poor neighborhoods. The ones occupied by mostly African-Americans in low wage jobs. The poor, the unskilled and uneducated. The drug users, ex-felons, the gangs.
Looking at Chicago's statistics, 48.5% of the shootings take place on the streets,, sidewalks, alleys and front residential yards of Chicago. Just 21% occur in apartments, residences or the porches & hallway of these buildings. The streets of Chicago are indeed mean.
Homicides in Chicago, like Baltimore in 2008, occur primarily in the "hot spots" for crime. The "bad neighborhoods". The police know where these places are. So do the city's politicians. Yet, because of "the numbers" and sensationalized headlines, those like Mayor Daley want to curtail the Second Amendment rights of everyone in Chicago.
The sad truth is that politicians see the homicide numbers as useful tools to demand that citizens give up more rights to the government to "solve" the homicide problem. The politicians don't care that it's mostly young, black males who are dying in war-zone-like conditions. The money used for "fighting crime" isn't directed into these areas to help reduce black male argument violence. It isn't going to the single-parent families in these troubled areas. Nor is it going to creating jobs to give some of the younger people hope of an honest life, free of gangs and crime.
Sadly, it's the same in many U.S. cities. The poor are mostly ignored and money is poured into politically favored programs by the bucket load. Counties will spend hundreds of millions to expand an airport to handle eight more flights per day. But ask for some fraction of that money to support the poor or struggling single parent and it seems there is no money to be had. That's because those crime rates are reported for the whole city. Thus, money can be justified for new police officers, equipment, courts and other government infrastructure projects.
The truth is ugly. I warned you. And I'm not specifically picking on African-American young men. But the truth is that most of the homicides in our larger cities are gang-related. The demographics might change -- one would expect more Hispanics to be involved in homicides in Salinas, California than blacks -- but the basic facts remain. Our whole concept of dealing with violent crime should change to focus on those areas where crime occurs and those who commit those crimes.
I don't have all the answers. But I do know that so-called "gun control" efforts have failed. None have lived up to their media promises to lower crime or prevent homicides. We need to a new approach to combatting violent crime.
Want to comment?
18 June 2010
Misfires - News and Odd Stories
Kagan, the KKK and the NRA
Did Elena Kagan, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, compare the NRA to the KKK? It sure seems so. The National Review online contains an article detailing the documents that raised this question. We're already sure that Kagan is not friendly towards the notion of the second amendment. The fact that she would consider the 139-year-old organization as "bad guys" in terms of national volunteerism says more about her view of the constitution than almost anything else.
NY Microstamping Bill Withdrawn
Despite a 32-30 Democrat party advantage in the legislature, the NY microstamping bill was withdrawn from consideration when it was obvious it lacked the votes to pass. Three Democrats from conservative districts did not back the measure. Only one Republican, Sen. Frank Padavan of Queens, voted yes.
“By blocking commonsense gun control, Senate Republicans showed they care more about gun industry profits than the safety of their constituents,” the party’s state Chairman Jay Jacobs said. “Democrats understand what Mayor Bloomberg and law enforcement agencies across the state know from experience: linking bullets with the criminals who fired them would save lives and wouldn’t interfere with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
Riiight. Other than making felons out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners when their microscopic stampings wear out or become illegible. Or the extra costs it would add to gun makers having to not only manufacture, but perform detailed record keeping at every step of the supply chain.
Gun Purchases and the No Fly List
"It's no surprise that (Republican Carly) Fiorina is attacking me," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA.), wrote in a recent fundraising pitch, "because she's so out of touch with California voters. ... She supports allowing people on the no-fly terrorist watch list to buy guns."
Oh the horrors! How could voters actually nominate someone so out of touch that she actually follows the constitution? Perhaps it's Boxer who's out of touch or didn't she get the memo about the U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision? For Ms. Boxer's further edification, the Constititution also provides that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Being put on a secret government list doesn't qualify as due process. Especially since there isn't any way to force the government to remove your name.
Why should we deprive a U.S. citizen with a common name like Robert E. Lee, Brian Smith or even Mohammed M. Mahazi from purchasing a firearm based on name alone? Last I remember, my 6th grade civics class told us that "guilt by association" was not permitted in America. One had to be guilty based on facts that showed a crime was committed.
If Boxer wants to play the guilt-by-association game, she had better look around at her colleagues in Congress. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list.
In the You Can't Make This Up dept...
Austin police report that a man tried to rob a gas station - with a caulking gun. This crack-smoking sorry waste of oxygen fled when his victim fought back and "the suspect fled the scene in the company of a transgender prostitute". Nope. You can't make this kind of thing up, not even in Hollywood.
Gun Slinging Megan Fox?
Spreaking of Hollywood... Actress Megan Fox (Transformers, Hope & Faith) gave an interview to MTV News to promote her new gun-slinging Western film, Jonah Hex. During the interview, she said she's been shooting guns since around the age of five, starting with her father's shotgun."He taught me how to shoot a shotgun," she said. Fox is big on gun safety and supports the NRA's Eddie Eagle program to teach gun safety in schools.
ATF Sting Store Leaves Questions Unanswered
The headline reads "Criminals fell for fake store" on Albuquerque's KRQE TV website. But a reading of the story leaves many questions unanswered. Federal agents set up a bogus "thrift store and pawn shop" and let it be known they'd buy black-market guns. Criminals, of course, took the bait. During the one year it was in operation, claims U.S. Attorney Kenneth Gonzales, the shop took in 230 guns, including (gasp!) a machine gun. Warrants were issued for 25 people, of which 22 are in custody.
The unasked questions involve putting a perspective on this "sting". Some 230 guns were taken in - that's about 4.5 per week. This would average out to about 9.2 guns sold to the Feds by each suspect. ATF agents said the guns were either stolen, unregistered or had their serial numbers removed. Thirteen of the people arrested are convicted felons who will face additional charges for possessing firearms. ATF agents plan to test fire the guns and compare ballistics to see if any of them are connected to unsolved crimes.
So, why did the feds wait almost a year to obtain warrants for people who were selling illegal guns? How many were stolen between the time the store opened and arrests were made? Wouldn't maintaining a "fence operation" encourage more burglaries of firearms while these criminals were let alone to run amok? And how many burglaries? Why were known felons allowed to bring in multiple guns instead of being arrested after their first or second visit? And why the delay in testing the firearms for use in other crimes? Won't that result in violent criminals running free while ATF fumbles around running their cute little store?
And only one (1) machine gun - certainly a high-priced commodity even on the black market - turned in. Were any others, especially legally registered ones, stolen? What is ATF doing about those?
Americans Favor Gun Ownership
A recent Harris Poll shows Americans believe people should be able to own rifles and shotguns (80%) and handguns (74%). The poll results and even the questions asked by the pollsters are posted here. It makes for some interesting reading. One thing is for certain, we still have a long way to go in convincing people that gun ownership is a right - like the right to vote.
Did Elena Kagan, Obama's Supreme Court nominee, compare the NRA to the KKK? It sure seems so. The National Review online contains an article detailing the documents that raised this question. We're already sure that Kagan is not friendly towards the notion of the second amendment. The fact that she would consider the 139-year-old organization as "bad guys" in terms of national volunteerism says more about her view of the constitution than almost anything else.
NY Microstamping Bill Withdrawn
Despite a 32-30 Democrat party advantage in the legislature, the NY microstamping bill was withdrawn from consideration when it was obvious it lacked the votes to pass. Three Democrats from conservative districts did not back the measure. Only one Republican, Sen. Frank Padavan of Queens, voted yes.
“By blocking commonsense gun control, Senate Republicans showed they care more about gun industry profits than the safety of their constituents,” the party’s state Chairman Jay Jacobs said. “Democrats understand what Mayor Bloomberg and law enforcement agencies across the state know from experience: linking bullets with the criminals who fired them would save lives and wouldn’t interfere with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”
Riiight. Other than making felons out of otherwise law-abiding gun owners when their microscopic stampings wear out or become illegible. Or the extra costs it would add to gun makers having to not only manufacture, but perform detailed record keeping at every step of the supply chain.
Gun Purchases and the No Fly List
"It's no surprise that (Republican Carly) Fiorina is attacking me," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA.), wrote in a recent fundraising pitch, "because she's so out of touch with California voters. ... She supports allowing people on the no-fly terrorist watch list to buy guns."
Oh the horrors! How could voters actually nominate someone so out of touch that she actually follows the constitution? Perhaps it's Boxer who's out of touch or didn't she get the memo about the U.S. Supreme Court Heller decision? For Ms. Boxer's further edification, the Constititution also provides that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Being put on a secret government list doesn't qualify as due process. Especially since there isn't any way to force the government to remove your name.
Why should we deprive a U.S. citizen with a common name like Robert E. Lee, Brian Smith or even Mohammed M. Mahazi from purchasing a firearm based on name alone? Last I remember, my 6th grade civics class told us that "guilt by association" was not permitted in America. One had to be guilty based on facts that showed a crime was committed.
If Boxer wants to play the guilt-by-association game, she had better look around at her colleagues in Congress. Hell, even Teddy Kennedy was on the no-fly list.
In the You Can't Make This Up dept...
Austin police report that a man tried to rob a gas station - with a caulking gun. This crack-smoking sorry waste of oxygen fled when his victim fought back and "the suspect fled the scene in the company of a transgender prostitute". Nope. You can't make this kind of thing up, not even in Hollywood.
Gun Slinging Megan Fox?
Spreaking of Hollywood... Actress Megan Fox (Transformers, Hope & Faith) gave an interview to MTV News to promote her new gun-slinging Western film, Jonah Hex. During the interview, she said she's been shooting guns since around the age of five, starting with her father's shotgun."He taught me how to shoot a shotgun," she said. Fox is big on gun safety and supports the NRA's Eddie Eagle program to teach gun safety in schools.
ATF Sting Store Leaves Questions Unanswered
The headline reads "Criminals fell for fake store" on Albuquerque's KRQE TV website. But a reading of the story leaves many questions unanswered. Federal agents set up a bogus "thrift store and pawn shop" and let it be known they'd buy black-market guns. Criminals, of course, took the bait. During the one year it was in operation, claims U.S. Attorney Kenneth Gonzales, the shop took in 230 guns, including (gasp!) a machine gun. Warrants were issued for 25 people, of which 22 are in custody.
The unasked questions involve putting a perspective on this "sting". Some 230 guns were taken in - that's about 4.5 per week. This would average out to about 9.2 guns sold to the Feds by each suspect. ATF agents said the guns were either stolen, unregistered or had their serial numbers removed. Thirteen of the people arrested are convicted felons who will face additional charges for possessing firearms. ATF agents plan to test fire the guns and compare ballistics to see if any of them are connected to unsolved crimes.
So, why did the feds wait almost a year to obtain warrants for people who were selling illegal guns? How many were stolen between the time the store opened and arrests were made? Wouldn't maintaining a "fence operation" encourage more burglaries of firearms while these criminals were let alone to run amok? And how many burglaries? Why were known felons allowed to bring in multiple guns instead of being arrested after their first or second visit? And why the delay in testing the firearms for use in other crimes? Won't that result in violent criminals running free while ATF fumbles around running their cute little store?
And only one (1) machine gun - certainly a high-priced commodity even on the black market - turned in. Were any others, especially legally registered ones, stolen? What is ATF doing about those?
Americans Favor Gun Ownership
A recent Harris Poll shows Americans believe people should be able to own rifles and shotguns (80%) and handguns (74%). The poll results and even the questions asked by the pollsters are posted here. It makes for some interesting reading. One thing is for certain, we still have a long way to go in convincing people that gun ownership is a right - like the right to vote.
Have something to say?
Send me your comments
12 June 2010
Another British Mass Killing
The media in the UK is having quite a time with their latest mass-murder spree. A taxi driver went off the deep end and killed 13 people, including himself. And this is despite the toughest gun-control laws in any western democratic country.
In the wake of the 1996 Dublane shooting when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary schoolchildren the UK made gun ownership an ordeal for the few limited types of guns not banned. Indeed, some stories inquire why the current shooter's firearms license wasn't revoked when he was fired from a job after being accused of stealing building materials.
Think about that. The mere accusation and being sacked over it results in the police revoking your ability to have a firearm. No trial. No legal findings, just your employer firing you with an allegation of theft. Makes me very glad to live in the United States.
At least one comment in the news coverage suggested that mass-shootings were an American phenomena. That made me wonder if that was really true. Then I ran across this article by John Lott which shows that, relatively speaking, these mass shootings are as common in Europe as they are in America.
To summarize - The worst K-12 school shootings have not happened in America, but Europe.
18 dead - 2002 - Erfurt, Germany, high school students
16 dead - 1996 - Dublane, Scotland, Kindergarteners and a teacher.
15 dead - 2009 - Winnenden, Germany, High school students, teacher and others.
13 dead - 1999 - Columbine, Colorado, USA - High school students & teachers
11 dead - 2006 - Emsdetten, Germany
A historical look at shootings in Europe shows that the phenomena of mass shootings is not new.
2002
Feb 19: Freising, Germany: Three people killed and one wounded.
Mar 27: Nanterre, France: A man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
Apr 26: Erfurt, Germany: A former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
Oct 1: Madrid, Spain: A man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
Oct 15: Turin, Italy: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
2006
Nov 20: Emsdetten, Germany: A former student murders 11 people at a high school.
2007
Nov 7: Southern Finland: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
2008
Sep 18: Naples, Italy: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall
Sep 23: Kauhajoki, Finland: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
2009
Mar 11: Winnenden, Germany: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
Mar 19: Lyon, France: Ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
Apr 10: Athens, Greece: Three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
Apr 11: Rotterdam, Netherlands: Three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
May 24: Vienna, Austria: One dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
Dec. 31: Espoo, Finland: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve.
2010
Jun 2: Cumbria, England: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
Totals: 18 shootings. 131 dead, 43 wounded.
These mass killing sprees have nothing to do with how "easily" someone can get a gun or how many guns exist in the country. We should be firm with anti-gun arguments that these killing sprees are primariliy American or due to the easy availability of guns.
In the wake of the 1996 Dublane shooting when Thomas Hamilton murdered 16 primary schoolchildren the UK made gun ownership an ordeal for the few limited types of guns not banned. Indeed, some stories inquire why the current shooter's firearms license wasn't revoked when he was fired from a job after being accused of stealing building materials.
Think about that. The mere accusation and being sacked over it results in the police revoking your ability to have a firearm. No trial. No legal findings, just your employer firing you with an allegation of theft. Makes me very glad to live in the United States.
At least one comment in the news coverage suggested that mass-shootings were an American phenomena. That made me wonder if that was really true. Then I ran across this article by John Lott which shows that, relatively speaking, these mass shootings are as common in Europe as they are in America.
To summarize - The worst K-12 school shootings have not happened in America, but Europe.
18 dead - 2002 - Erfurt, Germany, high school students
16 dead - 1996 - Dublane, Scotland, Kindergarteners and a teacher.
15 dead - 2009 - Winnenden, Germany, High school students, teacher and others.
13 dead - 1999 - Columbine, Colorado, USA - High school students & teachers
11 dead - 2006 - Emsdetten, Germany
A historical look at shootings in Europe shows that the phenomena of mass shootings is not new.
2002
Feb 19: Freising, Germany: Three people killed and one wounded.
Mar 27: Nanterre, France: A man kills eight city councilors after a city council meeting.
Apr 26: Erfurt, Germany: A former student kills 18 at a secondary school.
Oct 1: Madrid, Spain: A man kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.
Oct 15: Turin, Italy: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city.
2006
Nov 20: Emsdetten, Germany: A former student murders 11 people at a high school.
2007
Nov 7: Southern Finland: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school.
2008
Sep 18: Naples, Italy: Seven dead and two seriously wounded in a public meeting hall
Sep 23: Kauhajoki, Finland: 10 people were shot to death at a college.
2009
Mar 11: Winnenden, Germany: A 17-year-old former student killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers.
Mar 19: Lyon, France: Ten people injured after a man opened fire on a nursery school.
Apr 10: Athens, Greece: Three people killed and two people injured by a student at a vocational college.
Apr 11: Rotterdam, Netherlands: Three people killed and 1 injured at a crowded cafe.
May 24: Vienna, Austria: One dead and 16 wounded in an attack on a Sikh Temple.
Dec. 31: Espoo, Finland: 4 killed while shopping at a mall on New Year's Eve.
2010
Jun 2: Cumbria, England: 12 people killed by a British taxi driver.
Totals: 18 shootings. 131 dead, 43 wounded.
These mass killing sprees have nothing to do with how "easily" someone can get a gun or how many guns exist in the country. We should be firm with anti-gun arguments that these killing sprees are primariliy American or due to the easy availability of guns.
Have something to say?
11 June 2010
CCW and Armed Citizens
You don't need too many statistics to show that guns save lives. The anti-gun-lobby likes to talk about their guns bans in terms of if it only saves one life, it's worth it. Well then, the opposite must be true too. If gun ownership saves just one life, all the effort is worth it. Right?
If you don't agree, just ask these folks who had legally carried handguns with them.
Ambushed Florida Father Fights Back with CCW.
(June 2010) Three armed robbers ambushed a Florida father in the parking lot of his own apartment by shooting first. The father fought back, firing his CCW.
ATM Customer Thwarts Robber
(March 2010) - A routine stop at the ATM turns into a robbery attempt. But the robbery victim was armed and legally carrying his CCW. Surprise!
Those with a CCW can find themselves literally walking (or driving) into trouble. As the stories above show, the criminals are the ones looking for trouble, not the citizens. The criminals get to choose the time, place and method of the attack, even when it's in your own home. The following stories illustrate the point.
Wheelchair-bound Does Not Mean Defenseless
(December, 2009) Just because you're confined to a wheelchair doesn't mean you have to be defenseless. The anti-gun lobby would have forced Mr. Wroblewski to rely on a spray can of spicy seasoning to ward off his attackers.
Elderly Disabled Man Defends Home.
(April 2010) - Despite being 76, a diabetic and having Parkinson's disease, Vern Grant fought back and shot a "wild crazy man" who broke into his home and almost killed him.
Children and guns - The anti-gun lobby claims we should keep children away from guns until they are old enough to join the Marines. Despite the anti-gun claims, the following stories show that our kids can make good decisions in a crisis situation. Where the anti-gun groups sell kids short, reality shows that our kids really can use guns correctly.
Shot Boy 11, Shoots One, Drives Off Three Home Invaders
(January 2010) Despite the attempt of the newscasters to spin the story, many families would find nothing unusual about their own 11-year-olds knowing how to shoot an intruder in the home. This "little boy" in Texas can stand tall because he showed courage under fire.
Young Boy Defends Self, Sister from Home Invaders
(July 2009) - A 10 year old boy defends his sister and himself from two hard-core criminals during a home invasion robbery. From now on, this youngster deserves to be called a young man.
The news media plays up stories where a pre-teen calls 911 for help. What we used to call being level-headed is now "heroic". But these two young men showed true heroism by standing up and protecting family members.
If you don't agree, just ask these folks who had legally carried handguns with them.
Ambushed Florida Father Fights Back with CCW.
(June 2010) Three armed robbers ambushed a Florida father in the parking lot of his own apartment by shooting first. The father fought back, firing his CCW.
ATM Customer Thwarts Robber
(March 2010) - A routine stop at the ATM turns into a robbery attempt. But the robbery victim was armed and legally carrying his CCW. Surprise!
Those with a CCW can find themselves literally walking (or driving) into trouble. As the stories above show, the criminals are the ones looking for trouble, not the citizens. The criminals get to choose the time, place and method of the attack, even when it's in your own home. The following stories illustrate the point.
Wheelchair-bound Does Not Mean Defenseless
(December, 2009) Just because you're confined to a wheelchair doesn't mean you have to be defenseless. The anti-gun lobby would have forced Mr. Wroblewski to rely on a spray can of spicy seasoning to ward off his attackers.
Elderly Disabled Man Defends Home.
(April 2010) - Despite being 76, a diabetic and having Parkinson's disease, Vern Grant fought back and shot a "wild crazy man" who broke into his home and almost killed him.
Children and guns - The anti-gun lobby claims we should keep children away from guns until they are old enough to join the Marines. Despite the anti-gun claims, the following stories show that our kids can make good decisions in a crisis situation. Where the anti-gun groups sell kids short, reality shows that our kids really can use guns correctly.
Shot Boy 11, Shoots One, Drives Off Three Home Invaders
(January 2010) Despite the attempt of the newscasters to spin the story, many families would find nothing unusual about their own 11-year-olds knowing how to shoot an intruder in the home. This "little boy" in Texas can stand tall because he showed courage under fire.
Young Boy Defends Self, Sister from Home Invaders
(July 2009) - A 10 year old boy defends his sister and himself from two hard-core criminals during a home invasion robbery. From now on, this youngster deserves to be called a young man.
The news media plays up stories where a pre-teen calls 911 for help. What we used to call being level-headed is now "heroic". But these two young men showed true heroism by standing up and protecting family members.
Email us your comments.
10 June 2010
Random Roundup
New York
It seems California doesn't have a monopoly on whacky legislatures. Consider the news out of New York's capital recently. After the controversial police shooting of Sean Bell, legislators decided the current rules favored police far too much.
A bill, sponsored by Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson (D-Bedford Stuyvesant) and Darryl Towns (D-East New York) shows utter incompetence violent encounters involving law-enforcement. This new bill would require police to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, the Codes Committee chair from Fort Greene and Williamsburg, said that the bill is well-intentioned but that the language may need changing.
Ya think?
U.S. v. Skoien
Oral arguments have been heard en banc in a Seventh Circuit appellate court case that promises to be crucial to future Second Amendment cases. The Skoien case challenges the constitutionality of 1996 Lautenberg Amendment on Second Amendment grounds.
Specifically, it argues that the courts should use a standard of review called strict scrutiny. The original three judge panel of the Court of Appeals used intermediate scrutiny review standard instead.
Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must establish only that the law is related to an important government interest and in a way that is substantially related to that interest.
On the other hand, strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest, that any legislation enacted to address that interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
The audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.
LA-LA land moves to Chicago
For decades, Los Angeles (or "LA") has been known as LA-LA land for it's wierd trends, bizzare styles, off-beat characters and goofy politics. But there must be some kind of migration going on from southern California to Chicago. Almost every week we hear some kind of whacky, goofy political story out of the Chicago area.
By now, you've heard about the 80-year-old Korean war veteran who defended himself, his wife and his great-grandson inside his from a violent predatory intruder with a 13-page rap sheet. After previously being victimized, the veteran, who uses a walker to get around, obtained a handgun in violation of Chicago's gun ban. But when the predator couldn't break open a door at 5:20am, he fired two shots through the man's bedroom window. The veteran returned fire and with one shot ended the criminal's career. Yet, the comments from Chicago's Mayor Daley almost tax credibility.
I understand the situation and I understand. What I'm saying is all of us have to understand that guns is [sic] not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It's just has simple as that.
Besides the bad grammer in saying "Guns is not the answer", it is obvious that Daley doesn't see the appropriateness of the senior citizen's actions. Daley must believe that an 80-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife should somehow be capable of fending off an armed 29-year-old felon with a 13-page rap sheet full of drug & weapons convictions. Or maybe he expects their 12-year-old great-grandson to engage the man.
Of course the resident's handgun was confiscated and he'll probably never see it again. Adding to the absurdity is Mayor Daley pretending he doesn't know if the resident will be prosecuted. When asked about the possibility of charges, the mayor ended a news conference he had called about summer curfew in the city.
"I don't know. Thank you very much," Daley said and stepped away from the microphone.
Shame on Daley. He knows full well that the resident cannot be charged. Illinois state law prohibits his prosecution under the so-called "Hale DeMar Act" – named for a Wilmette, IL resident who shot a burglar with a handgun, a violation of Wilmette's handgun ban. Yet Daley has several times said he didn't know if charges would be filed or referred questions to the Chicago Police Department.
It's not a crime if Mayor Daley says it!
I noted on May 22 that Mayor Daley threatened to stick a rifle (with bayonet!) up a reporter's posterior and pull the trigger when the reporter asked if Chicago's handgun ban really worked. Daley was quoted saying "If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is! If I put a round up your—ha ha!”
This press conference so outraged San Jose, Ca. resident Christopher Fox that he called the mayor's office to give Daley a piece of his mind. Saying Daley's comments were "grossly inappropriate" Fox, 39, says he asked him 'How would you feel if somebody did that to you?'" in the 45-second phone call. He also admits he did toss in a few profanities too.
According to a criminal complaint signed on the mayor's behalf, Fox's message contained "a threat to shoot with a firearm Mayor Richard M. Daley." He is being held without bail on suspicion of making telephone threats against a public official, according to Chicago police and jail booking records.
On May 28th, Fox was being held in the Santa Clara County jail, charged with making "terroristic threats" to a public official. A plumber who lives with his mother in San Jose, Fox says he doesn't have a bus, plane or train ticket and isn't a flight risk. Yet his incarceration was a no-bail one - the same as used for murder suspects.
I'm upgrading Mayor Daley's "Buffoon of the Week" award to Buffoon of the Month. I'll accept any suggestions for what kind of image should appear on his plaque.
Murder up 3.8% in Chicago
More bad news for the "gun free utopia" of Chicago came when crime statistics were released earlier this week. Despite a 5.8% overall drop in crime, homicides were up 3.8% over last year and auto-theft jumped 20.4%. The release touted successful police efforts to seize weapons. Police took away 3,513 weapons in the month of May, 189 more than in May of last year, a 5% increase. Of the weapons seized in May, 130 were assault weapons - or if you prefer, 96.7% were not assault weapons.
Yes, the Chicago gun ban really does seem to be working. It's keeping law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns while criminals are increasingly better armed.
Kahr Arms Purchases Magnum Research
In another consolidation in the firearms industry, Kahr firearms added the Magnum Research brand name to its product line. Kahr Arms also owns Auto Ordnance, maker of the Thompson and .30 M1 Carbine rifles and a 1911 pistol. If you've been holding off buying a Desert Eagle, Baby Eagle, BFR or their other products, I'd suggest doing it now. Any time a company changes hands there are good odds that guns made before the buyout will be more desireable and collectable than afterwards.
It seems California doesn't have a monopoly on whacky legislatures. Consider the news out of New York's capital recently. After the controversial police shooting of Sean Bell, legislators decided the current rules favored police far too much.
A bill, sponsored by Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson (D-Bedford Stuyvesant) and Darryl Towns (D-East New York) shows utter incompetence violent encounters involving law-enforcement. This new bill would require police to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."
Assemblyman Joseph Lentol, the Codes Committee chair from Fort Greene and Williamsburg, said that the bill is well-intentioned but that the language may need changing.
Ya think?
U.S. v. Skoien
Oral arguments have been heard en banc in a Seventh Circuit appellate court case that promises to be crucial to future Second Amendment cases. The Skoien case challenges the constitutionality of 1996 Lautenberg Amendment on Second Amendment grounds.
Specifically, it argues that the courts should use a standard of review called strict scrutiny. The original three judge panel of the Court of Appeals used intermediate scrutiny review standard instead.
Under intermediate scrutiny, the government must establish only that the law is related to an important government interest and in a way that is substantially related to that interest.
On the other hand, strict scrutiny requires a compelling governmental interest, that any legislation enacted to address that interest must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.
The audio of the oral arguments can be heard here.
LA-LA land moves to Chicago
For decades, Los Angeles (or "LA") has been known as LA-LA land for it's wierd trends, bizzare styles, off-beat characters and goofy politics. But there must be some kind of migration going on from southern California to Chicago. Almost every week we hear some kind of whacky, goofy political story out of the Chicago area.
By now, you've heard about the 80-year-old Korean war veteran who defended himself, his wife and his great-grandson inside his from a violent predatory intruder with a 13-page rap sheet. After previously being victimized, the veteran, who uses a walker to get around, obtained a handgun in violation of Chicago's gun ban. But when the predator couldn't break open a door at 5:20am, he fired two shots through the man's bedroom window. The veteran returned fire and with one shot ended the criminal's career. Yet, the comments from Chicago's Mayor Daley almost tax credibility.
I understand the situation and I understand. What I'm saying is all of us have to understand that guns is [sic] not the answer to problems we see in homes and on the streets of America. It's just has simple as that.
Besides the bad grammer in saying "Guns is not the answer", it is obvious that Daley doesn't see the appropriateness of the senior citizen's actions. Daley must believe that an 80-year-old man and his 83-year-old wife should somehow be capable of fending off an armed 29-year-old felon with a 13-page rap sheet full of drug & weapons convictions. Or maybe he expects their 12-year-old great-grandson to engage the man.
Of course the resident's handgun was confiscated and he'll probably never see it again. Adding to the absurdity is Mayor Daley pretending he doesn't know if the resident will be prosecuted. When asked about the possibility of charges, the mayor ended a news conference he had called about summer curfew in the city.
"I don't know. Thank you very much," Daley said and stepped away from the microphone.
Shame on Daley. He knows full well that the resident cannot be charged. Illinois state law prohibits his prosecution under the so-called "Hale DeMar Act" – named for a Wilmette, IL resident who shot a burglar with a handgun, a violation of Wilmette's handgun ban. Yet Daley has several times said he didn't know if charges would be filed or referred questions to the Chicago Police Department.
It's not a crime if Mayor Daley says it!
I noted on May 22 that Mayor Daley threatened to stick a rifle (with bayonet!) up a reporter's posterior and pull the trigger when the reporter asked if Chicago's handgun ban really worked. Daley was quoted saying "If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is! If I put a round up your—ha ha!”
This press conference so outraged San Jose, Ca. resident Christopher Fox that he called the mayor's office to give Daley a piece of his mind. Saying Daley's comments were "grossly inappropriate" Fox, 39, says he asked him 'How would you feel if somebody did that to you?'" in the 45-second phone call. He also admits he did toss in a few profanities too.
According to a criminal complaint signed on the mayor's behalf, Fox's message contained "a threat to shoot with a firearm Mayor Richard M. Daley." He is being held without bail on suspicion of making telephone threats against a public official, according to Chicago police and jail booking records.
On May 28th, Fox was being held in the Santa Clara County jail, charged with making "terroristic threats" to a public official. A plumber who lives with his mother in San Jose, Fox says he doesn't have a bus, plane or train ticket and isn't a flight risk. Yet his incarceration was a no-bail one - the same as used for murder suspects.
I'm upgrading Mayor Daley's "Buffoon of the Week" award to Buffoon of the Month. I'll accept any suggestions for what kind of image should appear on his plaque.
Murder up 3.8% in Chicago
More bad news for the "gun free utopia" of Chicago came when crime statistics were released earlier this week. Despite a 5.8% overall drop in crime, homicides were up 3.8% over last year and auto-theft jumped 20.4%. The release touted successful police efforts to seize weapons. Police took away 3,513 weapons in the month of May, 189 more than in May of last year, a 5% increase. Of the weapons seized in May, 130 were assault weapons - or if you prefer, 96.7% were not assault weapons.
Yes, the Chicago gun ban really does seem to be working. It's keeping law-abiding citizens from obtaining guns while criminals are increasingly better armed.
Kahr Arms Purchases Magnum Research
In another consolidation in the firearms industry, Kahr firearms added the Magnum Research brand name to its product line. Kahr Arms also owns Auto Ordnance, maker of the Thompson and .30 M1 Carbine rifles and a 1911 pistol. If you've been holding off buying a Desert Eagle, Baby Eagle, BFR or their other products, I'd suggest doing it now. Any time a company changes hands there are good odds that guns made before the buyout will be more desireable and collectable than afterwards.
22 May 2010
Chicago's Mayor Daley A Complete Embarrassment
Two news headlines caught my eye this week and both involved Chicago's Mayor Daley. It's not bad enough that Chicago is known to be an inherently corrupt government. No. Daley has to prove that he cares more about quashing our civil rights than fixing his city. The first article, from the Los Angeles Times, had this headline:
Chicago Mayor Daley offers to shoot reporter to prove gun ban works
It happened at a news conference to discuss Chicago's gun ban and the Supreme Court's pending ruling on the issue. A reporter from the Chicago Reader asked him if the ban was effective. Here's how the exchange went:
"Since guns are readily available in Chicago even with a ban in place, do you really think it’s been effective?" asked Mick Dumke.
“Oh!” Daley said. “It’s been very effective!”
He grabbed a rifle, held it up, and looked right at me, Dumke said. He was chuckling but there was no smile.
“If I put this up your—ha!—your butt—ha ha!—you’ll find out how effective this is!”
“If I put a round up your—ha ha!”
Dumke said the room became "very, very quiet" before reporters realized he was joking.
As bad as this is, what is worse is Daley's comment about the Supreme Court. In referring to the court's likely decision to overturn the Chicago gun ban, Daley commented:
"Maybe they'll see the light of day," Daley said. "Maybe one of them will have an incident, and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work."
Now, I have to wonder at Daley's sanity, his mental capacity or possibly his hearing. His response to the question did nothing to answer it. In fact, he seemed to be showing that firearms were actually effective (which is the obvious reason to ban them). On top of that, had a city official been the recipient of such a "joke" by a Chicago citizen, Daley's henchemen in blue would charge him with aggrivated assault and confiscate the weapon. Daley, of course, was not charged with anything.
But for the mayor of a major city to say he hopes that one of the Justices (or one of their family members) could be assaulted and injured in a mugging, is just idiotic.
The second headline, from the Chicago Tribune, to catch my attention was simply ironic.
Police officer slain as mayor embarrasses himself and city
Thirty year-old Thomas Wortham IV was a victim of a robbery, shot down outside his boyhood home in the staunchly middle-class Chatham neighborhood, his body dragged 100 feet or so by the getaway car. Thugs tried to steal his motorcycle, a gift to himself upon his return from a second tour of duty in Iraq as a first lieutenant in the Army National Guard.
By all accounts, Wortham was leader, a good soldier, a dedicated police officer who tried to help others reclaim their neighborhoods. He was a man of service, giving his time to serve his city to make it a better place to live said family friends.
Ironically, however, in Mayor Daley's "gun free utopia" where his anti-gun laws are "effective", the criminals had guns and shot Wortham to death. Apparently it never bothered Daley that the death toll in Chicago was higher than the one in Iraq for two years.
Worse yet, Wortham's homicide occurred just as Mayor Daley was giving the above-mentioned press conference and threatening to shoot a reporter. How ironic and tragic is that?
Daley seeks ways to circumvent Supreme Court Decision
This ABCNews video reported on the likely legal changes that Mayor Daley would promote if the Supreme Court overturns the Chicago gun ban. Daley said they'd probably model their statutes along those draconian D.C. measures, plus requiring special liability insurance for gun owners. Why? Daley says it's for the protection of first responders, as if no one else anywhere in the country has had to deal with this alleged problem.
This is on top of Daley's call two weeks ago for an international court to decide an internal U.S. Constitutional matter. You can read about Daley's international ploy here on our website.
The question that I'd like to see answered, by a legal expert, is what prevents someone from charging Mayor Daley with violating his oath of office to uphold the constitution? Or charges of conspiracy to deprive 2.8 million people of the constitutional rights.
14 May 2010
Elena Kagan Not Supreme Court Material
Not so with Elena Kagan. Her thinking is apparently in line with the anti-rights crowd, as evidenced by her history.
In 1987, she was a law clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. At that time, she said she had no sympathy for the claim of a man that his 2nd Amendment rights were violated. The case involved a man convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol in Washington D.C.
She was in the Justice Department during the Clinton administration and according to records at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., she also drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain semiautomatic assault rifles.
There’s more evidence of hostility to gun rights on her part. The Times also reports that “gun-control efforts were a hallmark of the Clinton Administration. Kagan had already been involved in an executive order that required all federal law-enforcement officers to install locks on their weapons.”
There is a high probability that Kagan also worked on legislation to effectively close gun shows.
Today, Kagan serves as Solicitor General, whose job it is to argue the government point of view in important legal cases before the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court considered its last Second Amendment case, the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, then-U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief in the case, then requested and received time to argue the federal government’s position in that case as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
When the McDonald case was argued before the Court on March 2 of this year, current Solicitor General Kagan argued… Nothing. Not only did she not ask for time during oral argument, she didn’t even file a brief (which the solicitor general routinely does in important constitutional cases—and the McDonald case is monumentally important).
Normally, we'd expect the Solicitor General to argue the government's view of the case. However, today that would require acknowledgment of the Heller decision that individual Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The Solicitor General could argue to narrowly define the right or to support the case against Chicago.
However, it appears that Kagan has little desire to be forced into the position of acknowledging the Heller decision in the first place.
In the spring of 1995, Kagan wrote a book review of Stephen Carter’s The Confirmation Mess. “When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public,” Kagan wrote.
So we, as gun owners, must write our representatives in Congress and demand they hold Kagan up to her own standards. She should not be allowed to weasel her way around direct questions about Second Amendment issues. Support of "most of" the Constitution is not acceptable.
The 1968 Gun Control Act
Life Before GCA '68
In 1966, just as anti-Vietnam War protests were starting to take off, I was not yet an adult. However, at a nearby discount store where my mother shopped every other week, they had something I just longed to have.
I had planned to slip away while mom shopped. She knew she could find me either in sporting goods or by the book section. I had planned to buy the rifle and wait for her by the comic books and present her with a fait accompli.
Unfortunately, excitement got the best of me and I spilled the idea in the parking lot as we walked towards the store. My head was filled with visions of how cool that rifle was and how all my friends would envy me.
Only Mom said no.
When she said it the way she did that day, I knew there was no arguing with her. I asked my father who said I should ask my mother. In trying to pin him down, he talked to her, heard her answer and said, "Not yet." I was crushed. I was bitter. I was just 12 years old.
Dad walked me into our suburban back yard and showed me why a .22 wasn't such a good idea. The BB gun I'd received at age 10 and worn out in just over a year had only once sent a BB between the fence boards. At that, I'd been lucky because Mrs. Hawkins had been watering her plants at the time and she was a rather... large target. But now dad was telling me that .22's could go through the fence and keep going.
If you've read this far, depending on your age, you may be wondering how a 12-year old boy could have bought a rifle by himself. Well, the truth is, in most states it was legal.
Get up off the floor.
I'm serious. Yes, it was legal for a 12 year old boy, heck even a 10 year old, to purchase a rifle if he had the cash, could reach the counter top and could carry it out of the store. Heck, some stores would forgo everything but having the cash. Of course a some stores might ask for a parental note or call the parents, just to be sure.
In fact, I recall going into a Conoco station in Ft. Worth with my father and seeing a small display case with western-style revolvers inside and some ammo stacked along one edge. The local hardware store was more fun as they had a wall of fishing gear and guns with a long display case full of handguns of all kinds. Just leave me there, looking, and I'd dream of owning one someday.
Believe it or not, you could order a rifle or pistol through the mail! Yep. Places like Numrich Arms (now http://www.e-gunparts.com/) could legally sell complete guns via mail order. Right to your door. No paperwork at all.
Sellers of guns did not need a special license to sell guns. They were considered just another product to sell. You'd find guns for sale in places like gas stations, hardware stores, Auto parts stores, Sears, Montgomery Wards and sometimes in beauty parlors. The latter were usually small purse guns like .25 Autos and .32 revolvers.
It was literally no different than buying a Black & Decker drill or a pair of pants. No forms filled out. Cash and carry. If you had the money to buy five guns at once, they'd ask you if you wanted help out to your car.
Heck, some states didn't even have prohibitions on felons owning guns.
True, some states had some age limits. As I recall, you had to be at least 12 to buy a rifle in Colorado and in other states 16 to buy a handgun. In some of the rural and good hunting areas, nobody looked twice if a youngster had an old .30-40 Krag Jorgensen strapped to his handlebars a week before deer season opened. Heck the school principals would keep them in racks in their offices until after school.
Some high-schools had ROTC rifle teams or their own regional rifle teams. Sure, many fired .22 rifles, but there were also .30 caliber leagues too. And problems with these students were minimal. I find it ironic that when guns were plentiful and as easy to acquire as buying a pipe wrench, there were fewer problems with them.
Those days are probably gone forever though. Too many kids today do not receive the kind of discipline and parental oversight as kids growing up much earlier decades. Too many kids today think violence makes them "tough guys" or more like adults. Our role models were guys like Roy Rogers or Audie Murphy. Their role models are flashy rappers with pimped out Escalades.
In early 1967, even in California, it was not against the law to carry a loaded handgun in the glovebox of your car. In an era when cars had no seat belts, kids weren't confined to car seats, and dashboards were made of painted steel, we managed to survive even having a handgun in the glovebox.
When we drove to California from Ft. Worth, times were certainly different. Mom tells me that my brother and I were asleep in the back seat when dad was pulled over in New Mexico for speeding. During that trip, dad kept a loaded S&W Victory Model in the glove box of our '57 Ford sedan. The N.M. troopers had seen the Texas plates of course. Walking up to the car they probably saw two young boys asleep in the back amongst the ice chest and pillows and relaxed somewhat.
Now, the reason I say life has changed is that the glove box was open so mom could rest her cold water there while she unwrapped a sandwhich for my dad. One trooper simply said, "Ma'am, would you mind closing the glovebox for me? We get a little nervous when folks have guns within reach." And that was that.
Amazing, isn't it?
Are there any parts of the U.S. that are still this relaxed about guns? I tend to doubt it, unless you know the officer involved. Perhaps Arizona and Nevada tend to be more relaxed since open carry is legal in many areas.
Now, I don't think I'd advocate a sudden, abrupt turnaround to those days. While it would be nice, I don't think it is really workable. Too many wanna-be tough guys out there who have no clue. And too many 15-18 years olds today don't know what responsibility means.
One thing is certain to me though. The so-called "Gun Control Act of 1968" has neither controlled crimes in which guns are used nor reduced the number of them. We've had over 40 years of these laws adding extra cost to the price of guns, burdening dealers with strict regulations and limiting our rights. And it doesn't work. It's time to revoke these laws.
03 February 2010
More from the 2010 SHOT Show
Kel-Tec brought out their new PMR-30 at the 2010 SHOT Show. The PMR-30 is designed around the .22 WMR (.22 Magnum) cartridge. The 30 round double stack magazine gives you plenty of magnum rimfire power. That's also the meaning behind the “-30″ designator in the name.
The light-weight Kel-Tec PMR-30 (only 13.6 ounces) has many of the features shooters like -- an accessory rail and a frame mounted safety (sweep down to fire.), fiber optic sights, (front is green, red rear).
Kel-Tec indicates the PMR-30 will begin shipping in the 2nd quarter with an MSRP of $415. At a street price of just under $400, Kel-Tec should sell a boatload and increase the demand for .22 WMR.
Taurus
Taurus showed their polymer "Judge" that fires a .45 Colt or 2.5" 410 shotgun shell. The model 4510PLYB2 features a lightweight polymer frame, adjustable sights, a target-style trigger, and a red fiber optic front sight. The 4510PLYSS2 shown above has a bobbed hammer and stainless steel cylinder. It's probably good that there are only 5 rounds to shoot out of these 27 ounce revolvers.
Taurus showed another polymer revolver in, .38 Special at the SHOT Show. Called the “Polymer Protector”, it is a polymer framed revolver and blued steel cylinder and barrel insert. Streamlined for concealed carry, the hammer is shrouded, but can still be cocked for a single action shot. The grips are wood-colored polymer. The new Taurus revolver only weighs 18.2 ounces and is rated for +P ammunition. No official shipping date has been set, but a Taurus representative was heard saying 4Q2010. Look for it around October.
GunVault
It is heavier than similar sized, polymer framed pistols, but that extra weight should make the 9mm recoil feel like you're shooting mouse farts. Weight is listed as 1.8 pounds (about 28.8 ounces).
The light-weight Kel-Tec PMR-30 (only 13.6 ounces) has many of the features shooters like -- an accessory rail and a frame mounted safety (sweep down to fire.), fiber optic sights, (front is green, red rear). Kel-Tec states the 4.3″ barrel will yield 1230 fps with a 40 grain bullet (134 ft/lbs). While it's certainly no bear gun, I'm sure a lot of varmints will fall to the PMR-30.
Kel-Tec indicates the PMR-30 will begin shipping in the 2nd quarter with an MSRP of $415. At a street price of just under $400, Kel-Tec should sell a boatload and increase the demand for .22 WMR.
Taurus
Taurus showed their polymer "Judge" that fires a .45 Colt or 2.5" 410 shotgun shell. The model 4510PLYB2 features a lightweight polymer frame, adjustable sights, a target-style trigger, and a red fiber optic front sight. The 4510PLYSS2 shown above has a bobbed hammer and stainless steel cylinder. It's probably good that there are only 5 rounds to shoot out of these 27 ounce revolvers..38 Polymer Protector
Taurus showed another polymer revolver in, .38 Special at the SHOT Show. Called the “Polymer Protector”, it is a polymer framed revolver and blued steel cylinder and barrel insert. Streamlined for concealed carry, the hammer is shrouded, but can still be cocked for a single action shot. The grips are wood-colored polymer. The new Taurus revolver only weighs 18.2 ounces and is rated for +P ammunition. No official shipping date has been set, but a Taurus representative was heard saying 4Q2010. Look for it around October. No word yet when Ruger, S&W and Taurus will have a ugliest new revolver contest.
GunVault
GunVault introduced the NanoVault, a compact, secure and affordable handgun storage safe solution. Available in two sizes the NanoVault is perfect for home, travel or concealed-weapon permit holders. The NanoVault meets TSA airline firearm guidelines and fits discreetly in a bag, briefcase, desk or under a vehicle seat.
The NanoVault uses a key lock system, 21-gauge steel construction and 1.25-inch thick memory foam interior. Each unit comes standard with a 1,500-pound test security cable. When the cable is wrapped around any fixed object and slid over the lock receiver inside the security box, both the NanoVault and any valuables will be securely attached. MSRP $29.99 (NV100) and $34.99 (NV200).
Dan Wesson Guardian 1911 Pistol
The Dan Wesson Guardian 1911 pistol is a commander-sized 1911 chambered in 9mm. The Guardian features a forged alloy frame with CZ's black “duty” finish, a bob-tailed grip for easier concealed carry and fixed tritium three-dot sights.
That's it for now. As always, if you want to comment or have questions, drop me a line at editor@handgunclub.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)